# Statement by Intel President and CEO Paul Otellini on EC Ruling



## btarunr (May 13, 2009)

Paul Otellini, Intel Corporation president and CEO today issued the following statement regarding the European Commission decision on Intel's business practices:

"Intel takes strong exception to this decision. We believe the decision is wrong and ignores the reality of a highly competitive microprocessor marketplace - characterized by constant innovation, improved product performance and lower prices. There has been absolutely zero harm to consumers. Intel will appeal."



"We do not believe our practices violated European law. The natural result of a competitive market with only two major suppliers is that when one company wins sales, the other does not. The Directorate General for Competition of the Commission ignored or refused to obtain significant evidence that contradicts the assertions in this decision. We believe this evidence shows that when companies perform well the market rewards them, when they don't perform the market acts accordingly."

"Intel never sells products below cost. We have however, consistently invested in innovation, in manufacturing and in developing leadership technology. The result is that we can discount our products to compete in a highly competitive marketplace, passing along to consumers everywhere the efficiencies of being the world's leading volume manufacturer of microprocessors."

"Despite our strongly held views, as we go through the appeals process we plan to work with the Commission to ensure we're in compliance with their decision. Finally, there should be no doubt whatsoever that Intel will continue to invest in the products and technologies that provide Europe and the rest of the world the industry's best performing processors at lower prices."

*Intel's Position on the AMD Antitrust Case*
Since the 1990s Intel's principal competitor has been on a concerted campaign to get regulators and courts around the world to prevent Intel from competing aggressively in the market. The aggressive marketing campaign by Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) has included numerous complaints to regulators in multiple jurisdictions which all stem from the same set of allegations and source. It has included a private lawsuit in the U.S. and two in Japan. By all accounts the U.S. lawsuit could become one of largest antitrust cases in the history of U.S. Courts.

AMD's objectives are clear; it is seeking price protection and wants to become more successful by deterring Intel from aggressive competition. Stripped of hyperbole AMD's complaints around the world accuse Intel of competing too aggressively by offering customers attractive prices and marketing, and technical support to win their business.

The microprocessor market is fiercely competitive. That competition has resulted in tremendous benefits to consumers worldwide by providing continuous improvement in technology innovation, performance and capability at consistently lower prices. Intel believes in competition and has never shied away from it. As you will see from information contained on this site Intel believes it operates well within the law.

More information about Intel and "Competition in the Innovation Economy" is available here.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 13, 2009)

I call BS on this ruling.



> AMD's complaints around the world accuse Intel of competing too aggressively by offering customers attractive prices and marketing, and technical support to win their business.



Um yeah. Thats what you do to ummm.....make money?


----------



## tkpenalty (May 13, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Um yeah. Thats what you do to ummm.....make money?



Sure. 

But you don't seem to realise that intel was paying tertiary firms to NOT stock products with AMD CPUs installed. 

I see no other valid reason why AMD's products would be ommited by many OEM's production lines or retailers, as they are better on the value for money side of things, especially during the Pentium 4 Netburst era. The architecture was CLEARLY flawed, bringing shitty performance with high levels of heat and power usage. 

However at this point in time it seemed odd that AMD's offerings became a rarity-intel got desperate. Despite AMD's clear technological dominance, they did NOT dominate the market because of -ahem- factors.


----------



## WhiteLotus (May 13, 2009)

Just once i would love to see a CEO stand up and say:

"You know what, we were wrong. Sorry guys it wont happen again"





TheMailMan78 said:


> I call BS on this ruling.
> 
> Um yeah. Thats what you do to ummm.....make money?



_Apparently_ the case was also backed by US federal investigations - i wouldn't be surprised if the US jumped on the band wagon and did the same.


----------



## btarunr (May 13, 2009)

WhiteLotus said:


> Just once i would love to see a CEO stand up and say:
> 
> "You know what, we were wrong. Sorry guys it wont happen again"



If that statement costs a billion Euros, that would be a day.


----------



## DareD (May 13, 2009)

Soon US will do the same as the EU.
_"Despite its strong defence, Intel is facing a wall of regulatory resistance to its business practices around the world, with antitrust infringement decisions against it now in Japan, Korea, and the EU, while the US authorities are investigating Intel as well,"_ - said David Anderson.

_Intel would now have to change its latest advertising slogan from "sponsors of tomorrow" to "the sponsor of the European taxpayer". - Ms Kroes_
That's how money are going where they belong to...


----------



## WarEagleAU (May 13, 2009)

I dont call the ruling BS, but a little excessive with the 1.05 billion euros. Intel did this in the height of AMDs heyday with the Athlon 64. As was pointed out by Tkpenalty, they offered discounts to those to not stock AMD chips. Dell was forever without AMD chips I believe in a large part to that. Though they did sell a few AMD computers on HSN and stuff, it wasnt near the volume that they had with intel. Its good for Intel to get its bubble burst every once in a while. 

 One thing I will not agree on is AMD saying Intel is being shady with offering of technical support. I dont care who you are a company should offer all the support (Technical or Customer) that they can for their product(s)


----------



## snakeoil (May 13, 2009)

*today is a fine day for intel*

today is a fine day for intel


----------



## shagg (May 13, 2009)

I concur with the ruling.

just my 2 cents.


----------



## W1zzard (May 13, 2009)

WhiteLotus said:


> Just once i would love to see a CEO stand up and say:
> 
> "You know what, we were wrong. Sorry guys it wont happen again"



why was it wrong what intel did? they used their power to do the best for their company, knowing that there would most probably be an investigation and a ruling. yet they did it, and you can bet, they did it because they ran the numbers and realized that even with a big fine it would be worth it.


----------



## laszlo (May 13, 2009)

what if after the appeal EU fines them with more


----------



## lemonadesoda (May 13, 2009)

> Ms Kroes joked in her own news conference that Intel would now have to change its latest advertising slogan from "sponsors of tomorrow" to "the sponsor of the European taxpayer".



Kroes should be FIRED for that statement. It clearly represents a conflict of interest; an opportunity to stuff gready pockets with a ruling that should be economically determined to redress the LOSS TO AMD, and not a win to EU taxpayers.

IF there are ANY payments other than to AMD, there should be a REBATE to all purchasers of Intel systems for being ripped off.

There is NO DEFENSIBLE story as to why EU taxpayers (read: quasi-gvt organisations and their insane bugets of over salaries and over expenses for bureaucrats) should be on "the take" for this.

I repeat, *Kroes should be fired for that statement*, irrespective of the ruling. It is just plain incompetent to do that. Intel should countersue and have Kroes struck-off the appeal process.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (May 13, 2009)

I think amd are just QQ coz intel are doing better.Dont they realize its dog eat dog and no prisoners in buisness.Maybe if they make cpu's people actually want to buy then they might sell more.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 13, 2009)

WarEagleAU said:


> I dont call the ruling BS, but a little excessive with the 1.05 billion euros. Intel did this in the height of AMDs heyday with the Athlon 64. As was pointed out by Tkpenalty, they offered discounts to those to not stock AMD chips. Dell was forever without AMD chips I believe in a large part to that. Though they did sell a few AMD computers on HSN and stuff, it wasnt near the volume that they had with intel. Its good for Intel to get its bubble burst every once in a while.
> 
> One thing I will not agree on is AMD saying Intel is being shady with offering of technical support. I dont care who you are a company should offer all the support (Technical or Customer) that they can for their product(s)


Dell didn't offer AMD chips for two decades (1985-2006).  Dell only started to offer AMD processors in Dimension machines after they aquired Alienware which was already offering AMD chips.  As I said in the other thread, offering two different kinds of processors means two different platforms and that adds a lot of extra cost in purchasing, manufacturing, and support.  The reason why they did it was because this was just after Core 2 Duo launch and AMD processors were dirt cheap offseting to the subsequent costs.

There's no indiciation, anywhere, that Intel was bribing (or whatever legal term you want to stick in there) Dell to only sell Intel processors.  The incentive is cost cutting like we see with auto dealers usually sticking to only one brand of cars (only have to stock one set of parts for replacement).


----------



## wiak (May 13, 2009)

last time i checked AMD owned Intel with their Athlon 64 chips, but why did AMD only get upto 20% of the market when they had alot better CPUs in 2003?

99% of the time you go into a retailer you only see intel based PCs just a frew years ago


----------



## allen337 (May 13, 2009)

I wish Intel would fold up and go away for a couple of years and see how AMD starts charging $2000 for processors and video cards you got to buy. Without aggressive competition we all lose. I didnt see where Intel held a gun to noones head to get them to buy their product. Newegg should be next on the list and while were at it XFX-EVGA and Sapphire should be sued. AMD are a bunch of crybabies, I want my mommie I cant compete.  ALLEN


----------



## wiak (May 13, 2009)

allen337 said:


> I wish Intel would fold up and go away for a couple of years and see how AMD starts charging $2000 for processors and video cards you got to buy. Without aggressive competition we all lose. I didnt see where Intel held a gun to noones head to get them to buy their product. Newegg should be next on the list and while were at it XFX-EVGA and Sapphire should be sued. AMD are a bunch of crybabies, I want my mommie I cant compete.  ALLEN


well its not THAT, but it is that intel paid OEMs to exclude AMD chips
its like saying that Coca-Cola pays a store not to sell Pepsi 

AMD IGPs are superior to any intel IGP
Phenom II is just as fast as Core 2 Quad 9000
Phenom I was just as fast as Core 2 Quad Q6000


----------



## mdm-adph (May 13, 2009)

allen337 said:


> I wish Intel would fold up and go away for a couple of years and see how AMD starts charging $2000 for processors and video cards you got to buy. Without aggressive competition we all lose. I didnt see where Intel held a gun to noones head to get them to buy their product. Newegg should be next on the list and while were at it XFX-EVGA and Sapphire should be sued. AMD are a bunch of crybabies, I want my mommie I cant compete.  ALLEN



I don't think you understand the situation at all, or have ever read the allegations in any of the numerous articles and news stories.

Personally, I'm still just shocked that there are people who worship the "free market" and yet somehow justify underhanded kickbacks and secret "rebates" in order to stifle competition.

Perhaps these are the same people who think the Mafia are capitalists...


----------



## allen337 (May 13, 2009)

wiak said:


> well its not THAT, but it is that intel paid OEMs to exclude AMD chips
> its like saying that Coca-Cola pays a store not to sell Pepsi
> 
> AMD IGPs are superior to any intel IGP
> ...




You think that Pepsi is only at Pizza hut and Lees fried chicken because coca cola cant compete with free we need to sue pepsi also


----------



## laszlo (May 13, 2009)

pesi will sue coca and viceversa for using "cola"


----------



## iStink (May 13, 2009)

Are you guys all KIDDING ME!?

Intel has been "aggressively competitive" well boo fucking hoo for AMD.  I'm sick of these companies that lose, then point blame at any place other than back at themselves.

Just like it pissed me off when these car companies required a bale-out for bad business.  They didn't listen to what the consumer wanted, the continued to manufacture junk that nobody would buy, and in the end, even though nobody bought their crap, they were FORCED to buy their crap anyways in a sense with taxes.

So lets put things into the simplest perspective here.  Little Johnny and Susie both have lemonade stands.  Johnny tells passers by that he'll give 30% more lemonade for the same price as Susie, it tastes better, and he also offers an additional discount if the customer buys lemonade for his whole family from him, and not from Susie.  Then Susie cries to mommy that Johnny isn't being fair and Mommy makes Johnny hand over a lot of his money he earned fair and square.  Then Mommy goes out and buys a gigolo and some coke with the money she took from Johnny. 

Take it how you want it, but the above example is the same thing going on here.  AMD is little whiny Susie Creamcheese.


----------



## snakeoil (May 13, 2009)

W1zzard said:


> why was it wrong what intel did? they used their power to do the best for their company, knowing that there would most probably be an investigation and a ruling. yet they did it, and you can bet, they did it because they ran the numbers and realized that even with a big fine it would be worth it.



yes the same thing did hitler.


----------



## iStink (May 13, 2009)

snakeoil said:


> yes the same thing did hitler.



same thing did hitler? Jeez man, ever heard of Godwin's law?

We're not talking about the desecration and extermination of an entire group of people here dude so try not to elevate intel's business practice to such horrendous extremes. 

Back when 939 dominated P4, did Intel complain? Nope.  They stepped up.  

It's a shame that the world is turning out the way it is.  If you're a large enough business, and you do bad, you can point blame at the competition for doing too well and you'll be compensated.


----------



## DonInKansas (May 13, 2009)

btarunr said:


> "Intel takes strong exception to this decision.



I would too if I had to pay out all that cash.


----------



## vontrapp (May 13, 2009)

> highly competitive microprocessor marketplace



I guess if you think 1 competitor is too many yes then it's "highly competitive"


----------



## Steevo (May 13, 2009)

What happens if AMD goes out, and Intel is no longer forced to innovate and can start jumping pricing. AMD got it's foothold as Intel was raping the consumer.


I don't agree with the fine, and what will happen to it, but I honestly do believe that Intel needs a slap on the wrist for what they have done.

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/80486/


A look back at the original market and you can understand AMD's position, they are the only real VIAble competitor to Intel currently. Lets say that you have a Lemonade business, and your neighbor has one also, and you are doing well, you come up with a new formula to sell, that tastes better than your old formula, and your competitors formula. You go to grocery stores and distributors to see if you can get them to sell your lemonade. However your neighbor has bribed the grocers, and distributors, and warehouses to not sell your lemonade. You can't force them to sell yours, even though it is a better product and will allow you to become more profitable and force more competition in the market, thus costing customers less in the long run.


So what do you do? 

If in a few years AMD goes under and a Intel chip costs twice what it does now, and ATI being tied to AMD fails also and Nvidia starts REALLY raping the consumers, just remember. 


You allowed and supported it.

So far as the car market, imagine their only being two players. Ford and Toyota, but Ford has just bribed your city to NOT allow a new Toyota dealership to be built. Now you have one choice, and they can ask what they want, make what they want, and you have no other options.


----------



## iStink (May 13, 2009)

Steevo said:


> What happens if AMD goes out, and Intel is no longer forced to innovate and can start jumping pricing. AMD got it's foothold as Intel was raping the consumer.
> 
> 
> I don't agree with the fine, and what will happen to it, but I honestly do believe that Intel needs a slap on the wrist for what they have done.
> ...



First of all, AMD hasn't made a better tasting lemonade than Intel (lol) but they HAVE improved, and they ARE a viable competitor.  If Intel has given the grocery store incentives not to sell AMD's lemonade, then AMD needs to bring their own incentives to the table.  It's marketing.

By your logic, buy one get one free is a bribe to the customer, and any company that can't offer a similar sale should be compensated for these horrendous sales tactics.

Oh and the ford and toyota analogy has holes in it because Intel never bribed a city, forcing residents within that city a single choice.  Intel was focusing on businesses, and the businesses (only consumer with choice in this situation) made the decision based on common sense.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (May 13, 2009)

If amd did go down,i dont really think people will pay double prices,i think they'll just say feck it,i'll stick with what i've got now.

As far as i'm concerned its just one company crying coz the other company is doing better.I dont think theres such a thing as fair practices in buisness,You do whatever it takes to get people to buy your stuff.Screw the competitors.


----------



## Imsochobo (May 13, 2009)

I wonder why i didnt see amd chips from 2000-2006, when amd pwned intel, over and over. same with ATI.( i see thousands now) all is okey now, except ati needs more share in laptops, which happening.... oh right now  (been on sideline a long time now tho)
Now, stupid talesmen.
They hurt the rival, rival get less R&d money, less fabs, higher production cost, less compotition, higher prices, less performance evolution.


----------



## pmrdij (May 13, 2009)

this is deserving:







what cracks me up the most about all the "this is BS" people ranting off about this ruling and intel's position is the obvious.  intel has been engaged in evil doing (anti-competitive practices) since the late 90's through to this day.  it's pretty obvious that both the intel fan camp and intel themselves do not remember the past decade.  anyone remember when the K6-III's came out?  intel began to lose its hold on the performance crown back then.  Google up the reviews.  once the Slot A and eventual Socket A Athlon's surfaced intel had a problem keeping pace for years to come in the same price bracket with AMD's offerings.  again Google up the reviews.

what has always been the absolute nail in the argument for me is that when the Slot A Athlon's came out sites like Tom's Hardware, [H]ard|OCP and others would stumble upon links to ASUS, MSI and other mobo manufacturers website product descriptions for their Slot A motherboards and in nearly every case for just about a years time the page(s) would vanish once the public domain discovered them.  they were never accessible through the manufacturers sites themselves.  i remember that only a small few (FIC, Tyan and i think EPOX) whom actually had their products existence in plain view through the web and were linked to from within their own websites while the others did everything to hide the very existence of their offerings yet you could definitely go into Fry's or elsewhere and find their products on the shelves for Slot A.  

why would a motherboard maker fear anyone finding technical details on their product?  doesn't take a genius to see how a threat of a "chipset shortage" from intel could possibly be a deterrent to those that catered to the other side of the fence...



iStink said:


> Back when 939 dominated P4, did Intel complain? Nope.  They stepped up.


sure they didn't complain but you also didn't notice any of those they gave the reach arounds to jumping to use the CPU's that beat down on the P4...

- Robert (pMr)dEATHiNjUNE


----------



## Imsochobo (May 13, 2009)

iStink said:


> same thing did hitler? Jeez man, ever heard of Godwin's law?
> 
> We're not talking about the desecration and extermination of an entire group of people here dude so try not to elevate intel's business practice to such horrendous extremes.
> 
> ...



I didnt see a single A64 in a physical retailer.
All the nerds sat with A64 while companies, retailers, schools, anything thats made of companies like HP, dell, acer, ibm/lenovo used intel, there was one company that did use AMD, but that was 100% norwegian.
* edit*
When Athlon XP came, there was some HP models with GF2 series with AMD cpu, but in rare occasions we would ever see amd.


----------



## Ahhzz (May 13, 2009)

I call BS on Intel's Press release.


----------



## mdm-adph (May 13, 2009)

(Whoa -- did that guy just say what I think he said?) 



iStink said:


> Back when 939 dominated P4, did Intel complain? Nope.  They stepped up.
> 
> It's a shame that the world is turning out the way it is.  If you're a large enough business, and you do bad, you can point blame at the competition for doing too well and you'll be compensated.



Buddy, that's _precisely_ when Intel started *breaking the law.*  Their P4 chips sucked, and a lot of businesses were starting to probably make inquires with AMD because their chips were _better_.  

So, instead of making better chips, Intel started threatening vendors and "encouraging" them to use their own crappy chips instead of going to AMD, by threatening not to sell _any_ chips to them (if they start buying from AMD as well).

I swear, if I have to explain this one more time to people I'm going to go nuts. 

Intel is not some "Champion of the FREE MARKET!!!111one" -- they are precisely the kind of company that's helping to destroy it.


----------



## mtosev (May 13, 2009)

W1zzard said:


> why was it wrong what intel did? they used their power to do the best for their company, knowing that there would most probably be an investigation and a ruling. yet they did it, and you can bet, they did it because they ran the numbers and realized that even with a big fine it would be worth it.



i agree. i think Intel is not stupid at all. they know how to make money.


-----

in other news. when DELL wanted to order AMD cpus AMD couldnt manufacture the number of cpu that DELL wanted. So its AMDs problem if they cant make enought CPUs  for their customers. if i dont get what i want in a store i go to another store.


----------



## mdm-adph (May 13, 2009)

mtosev said:


> in other news. when DELL wanted to order AMD cpus AMD couldnt the number of cpu that DELL wanted. So its AMDs problem if they cant make enought CPUs  for their customers. if i dont get want in a store i go to another store.



You're exactly right.

Unfortunately, regardless of what some here have said, Dell were more than willing to buy some chips from AMD and some from Intel, and were more than willing to undertake the necessary costs required to handle two types of chips.  (Since, to the end user, nothing would be different between one computer running an AMD chip and one running an Intel.)  This was because of lots of reasons -- at the time, AMD chips were far better, using less power and operating generally faster.

Intel just couldn't be happy with this, though, and had to resort to bending the law to get their way.


----------



## iStink (May 13, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> (Whoa -- did that guy just say what I think he said?)
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Buddy, offering your product at a lower price with guaranteed dominance in the assembly line of your customer isn't illegal.  "Build all your computers with our processors, and we'll give you an extra 10% off" isn't illegal.  They offered a discount to stay competitive.  Did it ever occur to you guys these companies they "bribed" didn't need to take that discount?  There were plenty that didn't, like HP and Gateway / EMachines.  

I find it amusing when a company like AMD steps up and offers competition, that everyone acts so shocked and surprised that the once dominant Intel doesn't stay exactly the same. 

No, but you guys are right.  From a business perspective, it makes so much more sense to not be competitive, and remain the most illogical and impractical choice for all vendors. What was Intel thinking?

Bottom line, Intel did what they had to do in order to sell more of their product.  When Pizza Hut carries all pepsi products, it's the same exact thing.  I understand the animosity towards any giant company who appears to dominate a market, but if the situation were reversed everyone would be cheering AMD on for being the underdog that brought the heat.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (May 13, 2009)

Here in the UK there have been many OEM companies (now defunct) in the past that have sold mainly AMD systems. Some Europeans may remember OEMS, like Time Computers owned by Granville Technology Group & Tiny Computers who were eventually bought out by Time Computers.

They sold a wide range of systems & they were there since AMD Athlons first hit the market & carried on selling AMD based machines till the day they went into Administration in July 2005.

sometimes, its the small companies that actually make a difference.


----------



## Bl4ck (May 13, 2009)

almost every one here says that the fine is bs, it's not , the fine is about Intel giving companies money/bribes and that way they destroyed the "free" market in EU , they used the same practices in Japan where they where also fined with big fines. Use your brains ppl , EU didn't fine the Intel (almost a monopolist now with their x86 license threats ) for beeing a better chip manufacturer , they fined them because they bribed the "customers" and there for engaged in illegal activities.


----------



## iStink (May 13, 2009)

Bl4ck said:


> almost every one here says that the fine is bs, it's not , the fine is about Intel giving companies money/bribes and that way they destroyed the "free" market in EU , they used the same practices in Japan where they where also fined with big fines. Use your brains ppl , EU didn't fine the Intel (almost a monopolist now with their x86 license threats ) for beeing a better chip manufacturer , they fined them because they bribed the "customers" and there for engaged in illegal activities.



The thing that irritates me about this is, from a business perspective, it doesn't appear they did anything wrong.  If anything, AMD should have countered with their own incentives, and since they didn't, their fair punishment was a loss in market share.  Pepsi gives incentives to places like Pizza Hut to offer only pepsi products.  Motor parts companies like motorcraft offer companies like Ford incentives to only offer motorcraft parts.  Heck, even broadcast companies offer incentives for letting sporting events only be viewed on their network.  Why is it such a big deal that Intel OFFERED an incentive to only carry their product?


----------



## Bl4ck (May 13, 2009)

iStink said:


> The thing that irritates me about this is, from a business perspective, it doesn't appear they did anything wrong.  If anything, AMD should have countered with their own incentives, and since they didn't, their fair punishment was a loss in market share.  Pepsi gives incentives to places like Pizza Hut to offer only pepsi products.  Motor parts companies like motorcraft offer companies like Ford incentives to only offer motorcraft parts.  Heck, even broadcast companies offer incentives for letting sporting events only be viewed on their network.  Why is it such a big deal that Intel OFFERED an incentive to only carry their product?



that depends what you call an "incentive" , lower prices yes, but direct bribes combined with not letting the competition into the play on the market isn't fair .  Lower prices for "only" customers is a Grey Line in the market, but Intel was using brute force tactics. all open "free market" is big BS if you ask me, the money drives big companies mad. :shadedshu


----------



## mdm-adph (May 13, 2009)

iStink said:


> Buddy, offering your product at a lower price with guaranteed dominance in the assembly line of your customer isn't illegal.  "Build all your computers with our processors, and we'll give you an extra 10% off" isn't illegal.



Unless you live on a desert island with no government, what the government says is illegal is illegal.  As the EU has said this is illegal, *it's illegal* (in the EU).  :shadedshu

But that's not even the issue -- the problem is that it's anticompetitive.

What Intel should've done is taken their licks, lost a little bit of business, and then got that business _back_ when they made the Core2 (which is better than anything AMD had at the time).   *That's called capitalism.*

See how it works?  Intel was/is just being greedy.


----------



## Bl4ck (May 13, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> See how it works?  Intel was/is just being greedy.


Amen, you made my point. I rest my case.


----------



## mdm-adph (May 13, 2009)

Bl4ck said:


> Amen, you made my point. I rest my case.



Always glad to help.

What pisses me off the most about this whole business is that _Intel didn't even need to do it._  They were more than capable enough to design a better chip (like the wonderful Core2) and get any lost business back eventually. :shadedshu

They're the bigger, faster, stronger company -- they could've won the race in the end fair and square.

However, instead of using their size to compete, they just tried to push the other guy down, like an overweight bully.

And, unfortunately for them, I guess the teachers were watching.


----------



## Bl4ck (May 13, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> Always glad to help.
> 
> What pisses me off the most about this whole business is that _Intel didn't even need to do it._  They were more than capable enough to design a better chip (like the wonderful Core2) and get any lost business back eventually. :shadedshu



well that sad truth is that after 2000 Intel is beeing run by PR Guys and not the engineers, PR guys say we want a 100$,200$ and a 4000$ Cpu , the tech guys just jump


----------



## iStink (May 13, 2009)

Bl4ck said:


> that depends what you call an "incentive" , lower prices yes, but direct bribes combined with not letting the competition into the play on the market isn't fair .  Lower prices for "only" customers is a Grey Line in the market, but Intel was using brute force tactics. all open "free market" is big BS if you ask me, the money drives big companies mad. :shadedshu


Perhaps I'm over simplifying things.  Did they send them on trips to Hawaii? Did they make sure certain kids got into good schools? What? I'm thinking of it purely on a discount by volume type of deal.  Why is it ok for Pepsi to make sure Pizza Hut only sells their products, and not Cokes? See what I'm saying?



mdm-adph said:


> Unless you live on a desert island with no government, what the government says is illegal is illegal.  As the EU has said this is illegal, *it's illegal* (in the EU).  :shadedshu
> 
> But that's not even the issue -- the problem is that it's anticompetitive.
> 
> ...


I'm looking at this from the perspective of business and marketing.  If I've been a dominant company in a market for a number of years, and another company steps up, what's wrong with offering better prices to keep your customers?  Intel never said, buy it or lose it.  They said buy it, fine, but buy only it, and we'll hook u up on better pricing.  They set up a practical offer that AMD should have countered.  But youre right, it's EU law, and the law's the law.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 13, 2009)

I just started my own line of CPU's. Heres the wafer.




I hope the EU doesn't come after me.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 13, 2009)

way to go intel! tell those EU fascists where they can stick that fine! amd is a pure failure. intel has nothing to do with it.


----------



## mdm-adph (May 13, 2009)

iStink said:


> Intel never said, buy it or lose it.



Actually, according to the reports I've seen from the case in Europe and the ones in Japan, that's exactly what Intel is reported to have said.  :shadedshu

"If you buy from AMD we'll raise the prices on our chips for you, and since AMD can't meet your total demand, you'll be forced to buy our higher price."

And therein lies the problem.  That's "abusing your position within the market."



TheMailMan78 said:


> I just started my own line of CPU's. Heres the wafer.
> http://goodiesfirst.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/11/13/waffle.gif
> I hope the EU doesn't come after me.



How convenient for me -- I can cook your 25-core pastry processor on top of my old Pentium D.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 13, 2009)

a lot of people here misunderstand the basic premise of open competition. if you manufacture a product you have a right to sell that product for whatever price you want to whomever you want. the buyer has no right to demand you lower your selling price or sell a certain quantity of your product to them. the buyer has no right because it is not the buyers property, it is the manufacturers property. this is where bargaining comes in. if nobody buys intel products because of their high prices or because intel pulls their products from clients who also sell the competition, then intel goes under.


----------



## iStink (May 13, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> Actually, according to the reports I've seen from the case in Europe and the ones in Japan, that's exactly what Intel is reported to have said.  :shadedshu
> 
> "If you buy from AMD we'll raise the prices on our chips for you, and since AMD can't meet your total demand, you'll be forced to buy our higher price."
> 
> And therein lies the problem.  That's "abusing your position within the market."



Well that is rotten.  Please excuse my ignorance on the subject.  I didn't realize they said all that.  I thought the most controversial issue here was the fact that they were offering a discount for dominance in the assembly line, not an _increase_ in price for the opposite.


----------



## mdm-adph (May 13, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> a lot of people here misunderstand the basic premise of open competition. if you manufacture a product you have a right to sell that product for whatever price you want to whomever you want. the buyer has no right to demand you lower your selling price or sell a certain quantity of your product to them. the buyer has no right because it is not the buyers property, it is the manufacturers property. this is where bargaining comes in. if nobody buys intel products because of their high prices or because intel pulls their products from clients who also sell the competition, then intel goes under.



Good points.

However, you left something out -- conversely, once your company has reached a certain percentage of market share, you no longer have a right to demand that your buyer buy from *only you*.



iStink said:


> Well that is rotten.  Please excuse my ignorance on the subject.  I didn't realize they said all that.  I thought the most controversial issue here was the fact that they were offering a discount for dominance in the assembly line, not an _increase_ in price for the opposite.



If all they were doing was offering discounts, even I'd have no problem with it.  Selling things at a loss is a time-honored tradition of the free market.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 13, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> Good points.
> 
> However, you left something out -- conversely, once your company has reached a certain percentage of market share, you no longer have a right to demand that your buyer buy from *only you*.



and this is where the socialists always go wrong. who dictates what percentage of market share is enough? the government? so are you saying that once you become highly succesful you actually are punished and lose your right to your own property? since when is being good at what you do illegal? remember, a companies job is to make money, not create competition or increase societal progress.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 13, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> However, you left something out -- conversely, once your company has reached a certain percentage of market share, you no longer have a right to demand that your buyer buy from *only you*.


Put simply, you're discriminating against Intel for being successful.  There's a difference between being a criminal and being successful.  Criminals are to be punished, successful aren't.


----------



## Imsochobo (May 13, 2009)

STOP MISSUNDERSTANDING THE ANTITRUST REASON.

The reason is that intel made rebates or what the word is for it, to not buy amd cpu's, if you bought amd cpu's the intels got more expensive.

Intel had enough money at hand to do this, and make sure their fabs was occupied, and sold enough, made a name....

READ!
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/09/235&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en


----------



## mdm-adph (May 13, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> and this is where the socialists always go wrong. who dictates what percentage of market share is enough? the government? so are you saying that once you become highly succesful you actually are punished and lose your right to your own property? since when is being good at what you do illegal? remember, a companies job is to make money, not create competition or increase societal progress.



Once again, you left something out.  It's not the market share that's the problem, *it's what the company does when it gets there.* 

And _please_ don't start with the whole "socialists" shit again, okay?  

Do you remember what American Political party were the first "trust-busters" and went up against big business?  If I remember correctly, it was the Republican party, led by Teddy Roosevelt.   



FordGT90Concept said:


> Put simply, you're discriminating against Intel for being successful.  There's a difference between being a criminal and being successful.  Criminals are to be punished, successful aren't.



Like I've said before, the Mafia are very "successful" at what they do, too.  They seem to get compliance from their vendors almost 100% of the time.  Not to mention their customer loyalty is unparalleled.


----------



## Imsochobo (May 13, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> Once again, you left something out.  It's not the market share
> Like I've said before, the Mafia are very "successful" at what they do, too.  They seem to get compliance from their vendors almost 100% of the time.  Not to mention their customer loyalty is unparalleled.



Hahaha  made me laugh  very impressive line.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 13, 2009)

The mafioso organisation isn't illegal (it's more or less a family unit but not necessarily by blood), it's the businesses they partake in (e.g. drug running, doing "favors," and things of the sort).  Is Intel running drugs?  No.  Is Intel extorting businesses at gun point?  No.  Is Intel assassinating people that get in the way?  No.  There is no comparison.

The only reason why the mafioso had loyalty is because they got results.  If the mafia said you weren't going to get cut from your job, you weren't going to get cut from your job.  That doesn't necessarily mean someone wouldn't end up dead over it though.  Because of that fact is why they were deemed a hazard to society; however, society lost control over both political and law enforcement processes making it very hard to reestablish government control in cities like Chicago.  The mafioso are still around but they have taken up legal trades (like labor unions).  Their presence isn't near as prominent as it used to be especially when compared to drug cartels.  The main difference between a cartel and mafioso is cartels don't pretend to be innocent.


----------



## mdm-adph (May 13, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The mafioso organisation isn't illegal (it's more or less a family unit but not necessarily by blood), it's the businesses they partake in (e.g. drug running, doing "favors," and things of the sort).  Is Intel running drugs?  No.  Is Intel extorting businesses at gun point?  No.  Is Intel assassinating people that get in the way?  No.  There is no comparison.
> 
> The only reason why the mafioso had loyalty is because they got results.  If the mafia said you weren't going to get cut from your job, you weren't going to get cut from your job.  That doesn't necessarily mean someone wouldn't end up dead over it though.



Whether or not Intel is extorting anyone is still up in the air as far as I'm concerned (at least until the appeals get done) -- and just because they're doing at the end of a business table instead of at the end of a gun doesn't make it any better.  There's _plenty_ of room for comparison.

And please don't defend the mafia's excellent job security practices. They have loyalty because they're criminals who tend to dunk people in acid and chop off legs and arms.  People are scared of them -- they're criminals.  :shadedshu


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 13, 2009)

Imsochobo said:


> STOP MISSUNDERSTANDING THE ANTITRUST REASON.
> 
> The reason is that intel made rebates or what the word is for it, to not buy amd cpu's, if you bought amd cpu's the intels got more expensive.
> 
> ...



we are not misunderstanding the case. we are saying that what intel did is not morally wrong. if a company that sells intel also sells amd, then perhaps intel will lose money. so intel can either INCREASE prices or they can offer rebates to companies as an incentive. basic business.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 13, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> Once again, you left something out.  It's not the market share that's the problem, *it's what the company does when it gets there.*



it doesnt matter what they do so long as they dont physically force people to buy their products. and obviously you do think it is the market share that is the problem because you would not have brought it up. do you believe intel is exploiting consumers somehow by controlling a certain percentage of the market?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 13, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> Whether or not Intel is extorting anyone is still up in the air as far as I'm concerned (at least until the appeals get done) -- and just because they're doing at the end of a business table instead of at the end of a gun doesn't make it any better.  There's _plenty_ of room for comparison.
> 
> And please don't defend the mafia's excellent job security practices. They have loyalty because they're criminals who tend to dunk people in acid and chop off legs and arms.  People are scared of them -- they're criminals.  :shadedshu


Intel isn't, and?  Their successful.  So?  I think I'm missing where in here Intel is in the wrong.  I guess it just sucks to be the best at what you do.


----------



## MilkyWay (May 13, 2009)

Of course intel have more powerful cpu but that isnt the reason why it is dominating the market. It was using underhand techniques to gain a market advantage even when it was more profitable and had a bigger market share.

When AMD had the A64 it was a technically better cpu and intel didnt want its OEM sector being bitten into because lets face it without all the offices of the world running intel all it would be is a niche market with performance king nerds buying its cpus.

They are trying to keep nvidia out of the game too so tell me what about that you dont understand?

Im not saying this because i have an AMD cpu, i am saying it because its fact they used underhand tactics and they got fined.

You cant do things like this and say oh its competitiveness we have to do anything we can to stay at the top, because then it will start to spread to other areas other companies might start to get dirty and it might spread out of just business.

IF when i was younger my gran said give half to your sister and gave you £20 but you could just keep it all would you? Its like that.


----------



## MilkyWay (May 13, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> it doesnt matter what they do so long as they dont physically force people to buy their products. and obviously you do think it is the market share that is the problem because you would not have brought it up. do you believe intel is exploiting consumers somehow by controlling a certain percentage of the market?



not becasue its got a huge market share its because of why it has a huge market share!
your defending bad practise so why dont you defend google or microsoft?

why would there even be a case if it was okay to do things like that?


----------



## mdm-adph (May 13, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Intel isn't, and?  Their successful.  So?  I think I'm missing where in here Intel is in the wrong.  I guess it just sucks to be the best at what you do.



Yeah, that's what it is.  That's why Mark McGwire isn't getting into the Hall of Fame -- because he's the best.

It wasn't because he stuffed his veins full of steroids.  :shadedshu

That's it -- I honestly give up.  If you don't believe that cheating is wrong, or that you can't even decide upon a definition of what cheating is, there's nothing I can do.

There are two types of people in this world -- there are those that like to play fair, and there are Michael Douglass _Wall Street_ types who think that "Greed is a Virtue" and that anything you do to get ahead is okay, since in the end you have the most money and "might makes right."

If you want to be like that, just admit it, okay?


----------



## Steevo (May 13, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> we are not misunderstanding the case. we are saying that what intel did is not morally wrong. if a company that sells intel also sells amd, then perhaps intel will lose money. so intel can either INCREASE prices or they can offer rebates to companies as an incentive. basic business.






> Intel also paid clients to delay or not launch computers incorporating a competitor's CPUs, a conduct which is not linked at all to a company's ability to provide customers with discounts.



So paying a company CEO like Dell to NOT sell AMD is illegal and caused a loss of choice to the main customer base.

What is hard to understand about this. AMD is not getting a penny from this, other than the right to compete fairly with Intel. No more bribes, no more threats.


----------



## MilkyWay (May 13, 2009)

Steevo said:


> So paying a company CEO like Dell to NOT sell AMD is illegal and caused a loss of choice to the main customer base.
> 
> What is hard to understand about this. AMD is not getting a penny from this, other than the right to compete fairly with Intel. No more bribes, no more threats.



that is a fair way to put it, i only hope they use the fine money for a good use!


AMD cant compete because Intel is taking all the business not by popular choice but by underhand tactics like secret deals to large companies, price cuts for certain places, long term relationships.

All that the EU wants is a fairer marketplace that consumer choice will regulate.
Its like Betamax and HD DVD consumer choice won out those times.

If a business chooses not to sell a certain brand or product on its own that is okay but for a competitor to come and go dont sell our competitors products and we will make it worth your while! That is wrong.
Intel even have a hand in macs now.
Intel are trying to stop nvidia attaining a license for making cpus becasue it dosnt want another competitor in the market.


----------



## extrasalty (May 13, 2009)

Probably not the best place to do my first post but here it goes...
It's pretty entertaining to read all the reactions to the fine. It's obvious that some people have not made the effort to understand why this fine was imposed. The biggest reason in my opinion is the readers age. 
There is nothing wrong with Intel offering rebates and incentives. It is entirely different to offer those on the condition to delay or cancel development of competitive products, or to use "shortages" for the OEMs and retailers that don't play along.
This fine is not about who has or had the superior product- both companies had their moments- it's about who got caught breaking the law. Intel have a legal department the size of the entire AMD. Their budget is probably bigger than AMD' R&D. They even have insurance against loses such like the fine. Do you think they didn't do cost-benefit analysis?? They knew a lawsuit will take years- spread the fine over 10 years and it's only 100 mil per year. Intel are probably laughing all the way to the bank that the fine is way lower than the max 10% of their yearly revenue. People should stop with the emotions and fanboism and get the facts straight:
1. Intel willingly and knowingly broke the law *worldwide*. 
2. They got caught.
Whether Nehalem or Penrynn whoops Phenoms' collective arses is irrelevant. 
Whether you like to label people as socialists, fascists or don't agree with government is irrelevant.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 13, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> Yeah, that's what it is.  That's why Mark McGwire isn't getting into the Hall of Fame -- because he's the best.
> 
> It wasn't because he stuffed his veins full of steroids.  :shadedshu


Yeah, he's gonna die of stroke by the age of 60 but, so?  Who is he hurting by doing that besides himself?  The only reason why they ban drugs like steroids is to prevent the entire league from getting drugged.  That's a different debate though and not exactly one I care about either (baseball = blah).





mdm-adph said:


> That's it -- I honestly give up.  If you don't believe that cheating is wrong, or that you can't even decide upon a definition of what cheating is, there's nothing I can do.


The only thing I consider "cheating" in the business world is buying out competitors (ehm, hostile takeover).  Everything else is regulated by the judicial system (business made contract with a customer and broke it, visa versa, and other disputes of the like) and/or customers (your product/customer service/business tactics suck, I won't support you).


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 13, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> How convenient for me -- I can cook your 25-core pastry processor on top of my old Pentium D.


Now your just being ridiculous. 

Anyway on topic I would really love to debate and destroy you all on this but I think its not about Intel vs The EU and what happen. I think this thread is becoming an America vs Europe thread. There is a lot if hate towards the US right now and this EU ruling just seems to bring out the "We stuck it to the man" kinda people. I really don't want to fuel that fire. IF thats the case. Its not good for anyone.


----------



## snakeoil (May 13, 2009)

not a crook


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 13, 2009)

snakeoil said:


> not a crook
> 
> http://forums.techpowerup.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=25804&stc=1&d=1242243143
> 
> http://growabrain.typepad.com/growabrain/images/nixon_crook.jpg



<< I R Serious MailMan

And this is exactly what I'm talking about. There are so many undertones to posts like this. It just ends up being a game of semantics.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 13, 2009)

MilkyWay said:


> not becasue its got a huge market share its because of why it has a huge market share!
> your defending bad practise so why dont you defend google or microsoft?
> 
> why would there even be a case if it was okay to do things like that?



it isnt bad business practice to entice your clients with rebates and lower prices on your products in exchange for them dropping the competition. why would you favor AMD in this case who is backed by the EU? people are so quick to point out how intel is going about their business BUT NOBODY HAS MENTIONED HOW AMD USES THE EU TO ADVANCE ITS FORTUNE.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 13, 2009)

Steevo said:


> What is hard to understand about this. AMD is not getting a penny from this, other than the right to compete fairly with Intel. No more bribes, no more threats.



does the right to compete fairly include Eu dropping their billions in support of Silicon Saxony and AMD?


----------



## IcrushitI (May 13, 2009)

W1zzard said:


> why was it wrong what intel did? they used their power to do the best for their company, knowing that there would most probably be an investigation and a ruling. yet they did it, and you can bet, they did it because they ran the numbers and realized that even with a big fine it would be worth it.



And to top it off their is no punishment for Intel or any other outfit from the USA (just a reminder) in the USA all fines are classified as a business right off. What incentive is there to stop. When the US taxpayers bitch about their taxes going up to support outfits like this and government revenue goes down will you see some pressure on this side of the pond. But then again will it ever stop. When you have a system where a politician cries out: "Please I'll kiss anybodys ass for political contributions, I need to get re-elected."


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 13, 2009)

Ill say it again.....

America Rulz! EU Suxorz!!1!!

I mean thats where all this is going to go..... OR

EU Rulz!  America Suxorz!!1!!


----------



## Steevo (May 13, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> does the right to compete fairly include Eu dropping their billions in support of Silicon Saxony and AMD?




Are they preventing Intel from going there? Nope.

Did Intel prevent AMD from selling to major chains, thus forcing the hand of the majority purchasing a PC to have only one option, aka a monopoly. Yep.



Seems clear cut to me.


Provide proof of EU dropping "billions" to support AMD. as far as I know AMD has chosen the Dresden facility as they don't have the money to really have all their own production done in house. And as I remember they sought outside funding from private parties to do so.

AKA Put up or shut up.


----------



## IcrushitI (May 13, 2009)

[/QUOTE]= The incentive is cost cutting like we see with auto dealers usually sticking to only one brand of cars (only have to stock one set of parts for replacement).[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't be using the auto sector as an example. Were seeing whats happening in the Auto sector. Eg GM or Chrysler.


----------



## Paintface (May 13, 2009)

intel tears taste so good


----------



## Wile E (May 13, 2009)

wiak said:


> last time i checked AMD owned Intel with their Athlon 64 chips, but why did AMD only get upto 20% of the market when they had alot better CPUs in 2003?
> 
> 99% of the time you go into a retailer you only see intel based PCs just a frew years ago


Because AMD couldn't afford to sell their cpus at the low prices Intel could offer OEMs.

Again, I think this ruling is BS. There is no evidence that Intel bribed OEMs to NOT sell AMD. It just appears that they offered better deals that AMD couldn't match. AKA: they undercut AMD. How is that illegal?


----------



## Paintface (May 13, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Because AMD couldn't afford to sell their cpus at the low prices Intel could offer OEMs.
> 
> Again, I think this ruling is BS. There is no evidence that Intel bribed OEMs to NOT sell AMD. It just appears that they offered better deals that AMD couldn't match. AKA: they undercut AMD. How is that illegal?



sorry to disappoint but not even Intel is trying to claim they didnt, read and think before posting.


----------



## snakeoil (May 13, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Again, I think this ruling is BS. There is no evidence that Intel bribed OEMs to NOT sell AMD. It just appears that they offered better deals that AMD couldn't match. AKA: they undercut AMD. How is that illegal?



if you have problems determining what is legal and what not then you will  probably end up in jail.
people with that kind of problems are called criminals.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 13, 2009)

Steevo said:


> Are they preventing Intel from going there? Nope.
> 
> Did Intel prevent AMD from selling to major chains, thus forcing the hand of the majority purchasing a PC to have only one option, aka a monopoly. Yep.
> 
> ...



the problem here is that you believe that intel was acting anti-competitively and i do not. i believe the law is wrong and is actually designed to only benefit the EU and not AMD. notice the money went to the EU, not to AMD. and notice that this ruling will not change anything for AMD because they are still run my morons. 

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090513-716543.html?mg=com-wsj

and the EU has invested billions in the area called silicon saxony

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/dec2008/gb20081222_939565.htm?site=cbs&campaign_id=djm

and doing so gives the EU a vested interest in protecting companies located there. if those companies shutdown then there are jobs lost and moved and tax dollars no longer coming in. again, notice how the fine money goes to the EU and not AMD. if anything, this will only cause intel to raise their prices, they will still control 80 percent of the market, you will pay more for chips when you buy intel and you wont have any more of a choice since AMD cant get their heads out of their collective ass.


----------



## Wile E (May 13, 2009)

snakeoil said:


> if you have problems determining what is legal and what not then you will  probably end up in jail.
> people with that kind of problems are called criminals.


I have no problems determining right and wrong. I see nothing that shows Intel did something wrong. Whether it's legal or not is another story. If it is illegal to offer a better deal, then it shouldn't be. It's called competition.


----------



## Hayder_Master (May 14, 2009)

intel open the hell door when they begin fight AMD about x86 license before few months


----------



## IcrushitI (May 14, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> the problem here is that you believe that intel was acting anti-competitively and i do not. i believe the law is wrong and is actually designed to only benefit the EU and not AMD. notice the money went to the EU, not to AMD. and notice that this ruling will not change anything for AMD because they are still run my morons.
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090513-716543.html?mg=com-wsj
> 
> ...



Slow down, don't get your panties tied into a knot. Intel has as far as i've read 6 billion invested in europe, Ireland comes to mind. Just recently did they not shut the chip plant down. Ops I see tears swelling up in your eyes for the workers who lost their jobs. What penalty, read my lips, as W Bush would say, American companies are allowed under USA law to write off fines and penalties as a tax write off. Some American companies have no incentive to change their corrupt ways, the American people right now are paying for the ill gotten gains of these corrupt companies. When was the last time you read the business section or watched your own news stations, the stories about American corruption are their every night. 
 When the system changes from " Hey George we just got fined a billion", "don't fret it Fred, just put it in the same loss column as the rest of our fines and at the end of the year the taxpayers will take care of it." to " Hey George, I'm off to jail for I don't know for what."


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 14, 2009)

IcrushitI said:


> Slow down, don't get your panties tied into a knot. Intel has as far as I've read 6 billion invested in Europe, Ireland comes to mind. Just recently did they not shut the chip plant down. Ops I see tears swelling up in your eyes for the workers who lost their jobs. What penalty, read my lips, as W Bush would say, American companies are allowed under USA law to write off fines and penalties as a tax write off. Some American companies have no incentive to change their corrupt ways, the American people right now are paying for the ill gotten gains of these corrupt companies. When was the last time you read the business section or watched your own news stations, the stories about American corruption are their every night.
> When the system changes from " Hey George we just got fined a billion", "don't fret it Fred, just put it in the same loss column as the rest of our fines and at the end of the year the taxpayers will take care of it." to " Hey George, I'm off to jail for I don't know for what."



 I called it. Here come the anti-American rhetoric. I love it how when people talk about a company thats based in the United States the argument always leads to Bush or the massively corrupt government. As if the EU is completely immune to corruption. You are from Canada IcrushitI I guess you guys are angles huh.

But lets get down to brass tacts here. When did the EU take away the power to attack "cartels" from the European commission? 


> In the EU, the Modernization Regulation 1/2003 means that the European Commission is no longer the only body capable of public enforcement of European Community competition law. This was done in order to facilitate quicker resolution of competition-related inquiries. In 2005 the Commission issued a Green Paper on Damages actions for the breach of the EC antitrust rules, which suggested ways of making private damages claims against cartels easier.


 The EU isn't "protecting" anyone but their own pockets. It sucks a lot of people buy into their crap. But then again it shows peoples true colors.


----------



## DrPepper (May 14, 2009)

Another day another fine. 

Anyway I believe marketing practices such as undercutting the competition and destroyer pricing are illegal in the EU and not in the US. So it does not surprise me that they were fined for something in the EU which is legal in the US. I disagree with those laws that limit companies such as intel from being competitive but for now we should respect EU law because in the end they won.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 14, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> Another day another fine.
> 
> Anyway I believe marketing practices such as undercutting the competition and destroyer pricing are illegal in the EU and not in the US. So it does not surprise me that they were fined for something in the EU which is legal in the US. I disagree with those laws that limit companies such as intel from being competitive but for now we should respect EU law because in the end they won.



DrPepper see my post above yours. I was in an edit when you posted. The EU modifies the law to make themselves paydays. They found a pot of gold in 2005. I wonder whos next.....


----------



## aGeoM (May 14, 2009)

No, new news, for me.

It's a common practice by Intel, are you guys forgetting this one: http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=62140 

Intel, do this _moral_ (my ass...) thinking way, of doing business, for a long time, it's just a question of time an more will come to surface...


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 14, 2009)

aGeoM said:


> No, new news, for me.
> 
> It's a common practice by Intel, are you guys forgetting this one: http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=62140
> 
> Intel, do this _moral_ (my ass...) thinking way, of doing business, for a long time, it's just a question of time an more will come to surface...



Naa didn't forget. Just thought that was BS too.


----------



## DrPepper (May 14, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> DrPepper see my post above yours. I was in an edit when you posted. The EU modifies the law to make themselves paydays.



I'm not saying its a just system but if they change the law intel would need to change their marketing in europe. I personally love competition. It forces other companies to innovate which causes great advances. Now the EU limiting competition to be "fair" is only causing large companies to lose money because the competition can't compete because they're incompetant etc. If AMD cpu's were so good and intel saw it as a threat to their market share they would do all they could to block the sales of AMD cpu's and if that means selling theirs at low prices and subsiding the cost themselves to keep market share is their choice and obviously they can't keep that up forever. Anyway I was meandering off there in my own thoughts. Since the EU targets larger companies E.G microsoft and Intel because they dominate the market because the competition can't keep up is rediculous because as we know each other company has a chance to gain market share and if they don't then they go bust and thats how it works. How is it right for the EU to decide what is fair in a market that is as fiercely competitive as the CPU industry where billions are spent every year to be the latest and greatest. Where those who innovate and can sell at the lowest price deserve the large market share they earned. If that doesn't make sense its because I'm insanely tired and exhausted.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 14, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> I'm not saying its a just system but if they change the law intel would need to change their marketing in europe. I personally love competition. It forces other companies to innovate which causes great advances. Now the EU limiting competition to be "fair" is only causing large companies to lose money because the competition can't compete because they're incompetant etc. If AMD cpu's were so good and intel saw it as a threat to their market share they would do all they could to block the sales of AMD cpu's and if that means selling theirs at low prices and subsiding the cost themselves to keep market share is their choice and obviously they can't keep that up forever. Anyway I was meandering off there in my own thoughts. Since the EU targets larger companies E.G microsoft and Intel because they dominate the market because the competition can't keep up is rediculous because as we know each other company has a chance to gain market share and if they don't then they go bust and thats how it works. How is it right for the EU to decide what is fair in a market that is as fiercely competitive as the CPU industry where billions are spent every year to be the latest and greatest. Where those who innovate and can sell at the lowest price deserve the large market share they earned. If that doesn't make sense its because I'm insanely tired and exhausted.


 Just go cover yourself up with a kilt and have a sip of whiskey. Well know what your saying. shhhhhhhhhhhh. Nighty night.


----------



## aGeoM (May 14, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Naa didn't forget. Just thought that was BS too.





There will be more BS to come. 

Be kicked hurts


----------



## DrPepper (May 14, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Just go cover yourself up with a kilt and have a sip of whiskey. Well know what your saying. shhhhhhhhhhhh. Nighty night.





Yeah I'm going to look at that in the morning and think wtf.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 14, 2009)

aGeoM said:


> There will be more BS to come.
> 
> Be kicked hurts



Well if the BS keeps coming then you'll lose Intel. I hope you enjoy 10,000 Euro AMD cpus you'll soon have.


----------



## DrPepper (May 14, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Well if the BS keeps coming then you'll lose Intel. I hope you enjoy 10,000 Euro AMD cpus you'll soon have.



I don't think either company would stick the prices up that much. Or else they wont have as much as if they sold them super cheap en masse.


----------



## aGeoM (May 14, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Well if the BS keeps coming then you'll lose Intel. I hope you enjoy 10,000 Euro AMD cpus you'll soon have.



No if Intel plays fair, and put out some good stuff as they do, they sell, less but sell, I'm sure. This it's just to put a stop on greed, pure and simple.

Just another note: Why, Intel CPU's are infact, more expensive than AMD's, if they can afford selling them to OEM's at better price? 

Think a litte about it.


----------



## IcrushitI (May 14, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I called it. Here come the anti-American rhetoric. I love it how when people talk about a company thats based in the United States the argument always leads to Bush or the massively corrupt government. As if the EU is completely immune to corruption. You are from Canada IcrushitI I guess you guys are angles huh.
> 
> But lets get down to brass tacts here. When did the EU take away the power to attack "cartels" from the European commission?
> The EU isn't "protecting" anyone but their own pockets. It sucks a lot of people buy into their crap. But then again it shows peoples true colors.


(In the EU, the Modernization Regulation 1/2003 means that the European Commission is no longer the only body capable of public enforcement of European Community competition law. This was done in order to facilitate quicker resolution of competition-related inquiries. In 2005 the Commission issued a Green Paper on Damages actions for the breach of the EC antitrust rules, which suggested ways of making private damages claims against cartels easier.)

" If I got this right, the reason was to hurry the proceedings, because in the states you can stall a case untill the party dies or a company goes bankrupt. This was designed to fast track proceedings."
As for being Canadian I have already admitted in this and any other forum that we in Canada were economically taken over years ago and are the 51st state. Just ahead of Puerto Rico. So yes we also have corruption.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 14, 2009)

aGeoM said:


> No if Intel plays fair, and put out some good stuff as they do, they sell, less but sell, I'm sure. This it's just to put a stop on greed, pure and simple.
> 
> Just another note: Why, Intel CPU's are infact, more expensive than AMD's, if they can afford selling them to OEM's at better price?
> 
> Think a litte about it.


 Well they do have faster CPU's. You get what you pay for. Plus they can sell THEIR product for whatever price they want.



IcrushitI said:


> " If I got this right, the reason was to hurry the proceedings, because in the states you can stall a case until the party dies or a company goes bankrupt.


 Nice jab at our judicial system but its a no go. The EU changed its own laws and made them retroactive to penalize companies and create "paydays". If anyone is acting like the mob its the EU in this case. You can't change the rules in the middle of a game.


----------



## aGeoM (May 14, 2009)

Guys! This have nothing to do with EU, USA, or any Region in the world, have to do with a business practice done by one company, in this case Intel, could be any other one with the same practices, there have been other similar cases, with other company's from different areas of economy, all over the globe, so please, be rational.


----------



## aGeoM (May 14, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Well they do have faster CPU's. You get what you pay for. Plus they can sell THEIR product for whatever price they want.



ya, sure... on an Monopoly market, yes... I guest they can...

Man open your eyes, if you don't see it it's because you don't want to see.


----------



## erocker (May 14, 2009)

aGeoM said:


> Guys! This have nothing to do with EU, USA, or any Region in the world, have to do with a business practice done by one company, in this case Intel, could be any other one with the same practices, there have been other similar cases, with other company's from different areas of economy, all over the globe, so please, be rational.



So what bad business practice did Intel do to deserve a fine?  Specifically.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 14, 2009)

aGeoM said:


> ya, sure... on an Monopoly market, yes... I guest they can...
> 
> Man open your eyes, if you don't see it it's because you don't want to see.


 Welcome to Capitalism.



erocker said:


> So what bad business practice did Intel do to deserve a fine?  Specifically.



They are guilty of being an "Evil" American company making money off the poor innocent EU citizens. In other words.......absolutely nothing.


----------



## aGeoM (May 14, 2009)

erocker said:


> So what bad business practice did Intel do to deserve a fine?  Specifically.



Who said that?... *bad business practice *, i didn't...

Anyway, specifically speaking you should ask to all court judge's all over the globe, the reason and facts, why they decided what they decided.

I'm not an judge or lawyer, to be specific.


----------



## WhiteLotus (May 14, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Welcome to Capitalism.



And even capitalism doesn't work. Just look at the American automobile industry. Falling left right and center.


----------



## aGeoM (May 14, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Welcome to Capitalism.



Capitalism should be only possible in Democracy, freedom of choice, free market, that kind of stuff, Monopoply is more a kind of proper an aceptable business practice on an Totalitary regime, don't you think so?





> They are guilty of being an "Evil" American company making money off the poor innocent EU citizens. In other words.......absolutely nothing.



AMD is an American company and... really I don't mind to spend every spare euros I have in AMD products. 

You should be older than what looks like from you post.


----------



## ghost101 (May 14, 2009)

W1zzard said:


> why was it wrong what intel did? they used their power to do the best for their company, knowing that there would most probably be an investigation and a ruling. yet they did it, and you can bet, they did it because they ran the numbers and realized that even with a big fine it would be worth it.



I knew my game theory courses could be used in real life situations one day. 

Heres the actual press release by the commission.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressRelease...format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

I want those complaining to explain how this is competition. A lovely example of the ridiculous distortions created by Intel's practices raised in the link above.



> Intel structured its pricing policy to ensure that a computer manufacturer which opted to buy AMD CPUs for that part of its needs that was open to competition would consequently lose the rebate (or a large part of it) that Intel provided for the much greater part of its needs for which the computer manufacturer had no choice but to buy from Intel. The computer manufacturer would therefore have to pay Intel a higher price for each of the units supplied for which the computer manufacturer had no alternative but to buy from Intel. In other words, should a computer manufacturer fail to purchase virtually all its x86 CPU requirements from Intel, it would forego the possibility of obtaining a significant rebate on any of its very high volumes of Intel purchases.
> 
> Moreover, in order to be able to compete with the Intel rebates, for the part of the computer manufacturers' supplies that was up for grabs, a competitor that was just as efficient as Intel would have had to offer a price for its CPUs lower than its costs of producing those CPUs, even if the average price of its CPUs was lower than that of Intel.
> 
> ...



The conditions were such that firms werent allowed to even take free processors.


----------



## Wile E (May 14, 2009)

WhiteLotus said:


> And even capitalism doesn't work. Just look at the American automobile industry. Falling left right and center.



That's part of capitalism. It is one of the defining features of capitalism. The companies that make bad business decisions go under. I wouldn't have it any other way. Our govt is a bunch of asshats for bailing them out.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 14, 2009)

WhiteLotus said:


> And even capitalism doesn't work. Just look at the American automobile industry. Falling left right and center.



Thats capitalism at its finest. Bailing them out isn't.



aGeoM said:


> You should be older than what looks like from you post.



Don't make this personal. You'll lose.


----------



## Wile E (May 14, 2009)

ghost101 said:


> I knew my game theory courses could be used in real life situations one day.
> 
> Heres the actual press release by the commission.
> 
> ...


Did you read everything in the ruling by chance? Did they list any proof of this happening?


----------



## ghost101 (May 14, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Did you read everything in the ruling by chance? Did they list any proof of this happening?



Well this isnt a legally binding ruling. Intel will appeal and it will go to the courts. I'm guessing the commission knew that Intel would appeal and so there will be evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_First_Instance


----------



## aGeoM (May 14, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Thats capitalism at its finest. Bailing them out isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't make this personal. You'll lose.



yah sure, already lose my time, sorry. Bye.

*EDIT*: my quote: 





> Guys! This have nothing to do with EU, USA, or any Region in the world, have to do with a business practice done by one company, in this case Intel, could be any other one with the same practices, there have been other similar cases, with other company's from different areas of economy, all over the globe, so please, be rational.



your quote: 





> They are guilty of being an "Evil" American company making money off the poor innocent EU citizens. In other words.......absolutely nothing.



Again, sorry I didn't wanted to sound personal, just to make you read what you wrote and thought about it. That's all. I'm editing because I thought twice in what I wrote, I thought you deserved a better apologize.


----------



## ghost101 (May 14, 2009)

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressRelease...format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

Simple Q&A here which covers most of people's questions be that on this forum or anywhere on the web atm.



> *What must Intel do to comply with EU law? *
> 
> The Decision sets out how Intel has breached EU antitrust law by engaging in two types of practices which have harmed competition. First, Intel gave wholly or partially hidden rebates to computer manufacturers on condition that they bought all, or almost all, their x86 central processing units (CPUs) from Intel. Intel also made direct payments to a major retailer on condition it stock only computers with Intel x86 CPUs. Second, Intel made direct payments to computer manufacturers to halt or delay the launch of specific products containing a competitor's x86 CPUs and to limit the sales channels available to these products. Intel is obliged desist from the specific practices identified in this case and not to engage in these or equivalent practices in the future.
> 
> ...


----------



## snakeoil (May 14, 2009)

*intel horrors surface*

*intel horrors surface*:

The EU antitrust commission reveals terrible details surrounding intel business practices during the last years.

at that time AMD was so desperate finding all the manufacturers doors closed that had to resort to offer its processors for free but...

''For example, rival chip manufacturer AMD offered one million free CPUs to one particular computer manufacturer. If the computer manufacturer had accepted all of these, it would have lost Intel's rebate on its many millions of remaining CPU purchases, and would have been worse off overall simply for having accepted this highly competitive offer. In the end, the computer manufacturer took only 160,000 CPUs for free.''

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressRelease...amp;aged=0&amp;language=EN&amp;guiLanguage=en


----------



## tkpenalty (May 14, 2009)

*I reiterate, being competetive is one thing, but bribery is a totally different story. Competetiveness of a firm means that they put loads of money into R&D and try to produce the better product with more desireable aspects. Competetiveness does not mean anything to do with exclusive business deals, by preventing your competitor from selling their products, and thus its not the fact that the consumer is not satisfied with AMD's products, but its the fact that Intel has prevented AMD from selling any in the first place. 

For those who STILL oppose this ruling, no offense, but PLEASE realise that BRIBERY IS AN ILLEGAL MARKET PRACTISE.*



Wile E said:


> Because AMD couldn't afford to sell their cpus at the low prices Intel could offer OEMs.
> 
> Again, I think this ruling is BS. There is no evidence that Intel bribed OEMs to NOT sell AMD. It just appears that they offered better deals that AMD couldn't match. AKA: they undercut AMD. How is that illegal?



_    * Intel gave rebates to computer manufacturer A from December 2002 to December 2005 conditional on this manufacturer purchasing exclusively Intel CPUs
    * Intel gave rebates to computer manufacturer B from November 2002 to May 2005 conditional on this manufacturer purchasing no less than 95% of its CPU needs for its business desktop computers from Intel (the remaining 5% that computer manufacturer B could purchase from rival chip maker AMD was then subject to further restrictive conditions set out below)
    * Intel gave rebates to computer manufacturer C from October 2002 to November 2005 conditional on this manufacturer purchasing no less than 80% of its CPU needs for its desktop and notebook computers from Intel
    * Intel gave rebates to computer manufacturer D in 2007 conditional on this manufacturer purchasing its CPU needs for its notebook computers exclusively from Intel._

If you dont understand, rebates for SECONDARY INDUSTRIES to NOT use your competitor's products is very uncompetetive. The Secondary Industry does NOT serve the consumer (i.e. Intel, AMD, any graphics card companies, basically component manufacturers). Competition is defined as a consumer response to the final product, avaliable from Tertiary firms, such as the OEM's retail branches. This applies to everything. Basically in order for AMD and Intel just to sell products, they need the use of Retailers. Anti-competetive behavior is defined as not allowing/limiting consumer response of your competitor's product. By using rebates, it is equivalent to a bribe, as the OEM gets funds returned; its "we pay you $XXXXXXX if you dont use AMD" reworded to "if you dont use AMD we will offer $XXX rebates" In any case they are still considered as bribes.  Learn to accept someone else's opinion for once. It will improve you. 

Have a think. Thanks to Intel, the poor performance of netbust architecture CPUs has caused some pretty bad damage to the market. You may go "as if", but its pretty clear. Take Windows vista for example. If AMD had a 50/50 market share with intel without these henious practises, the majority of users would be better off. I mean, users of slightly older K8 CPUs didn't have to bear the heartache that the majority, the consumer had, and if the majority used it, Vista wouldn't have been shunned so much. AMD would have had more money for R&D, and so would Intel, as Vista would have sold better thus a demand for more computers, and software, leading onto much more demand from the CPU market. 

Instead Intel decided to take the easy and sleasy way out, and bribed manufacturers to kill off any competition.


----------



## Yukikaze (May 14, 2009)

snakeoil said:


> *intel horrors surface*:
> 
> The EU antitrust commission reveals terrible details surrounding intel business practices during the last years.
> 
> ...



In other words, if they accepted the 1,000,000 CPUs for free, they would have lost Intel rebates worth more than that money. In other words, the Intel offer was still better money wise. I bet that if AMD offered 10,000,000 free CPUs said OEM wouldn't have mulled over it as long, or made the same decision as it did.

In short, they didn't make a better offer, end of story.

The whole issue at hand, as I see it, is the fact that the EU gets to decide when a company is big enough to get nailed down, but the law itself is not clear. If the law stated: "Once above X % of the market share for Y months according to EU data, you're no longer allowed to do A,B,C and/or D", this is one thing. However, nailing a company for practices completely okay for smaller companies (Imagine the uproar if Intel would be giving out 1,000,000 free CPUs - Effectively "selling" them under-cost, or the lack of any care over the exclusive deals for selling Coke or Pepsi) is penalizing a company for success - This is discrimination, not law. 

Either fix the law (And not retroactively, of course), or stop the BS. Finally, if AMD is the one so harmed by this, they are the ones that should be reimbursed by the decision, with a much smaller amount of the fine going into the EU coffers.


----------



## ghost101 (May 14, 2009)

Yukikaze said:


> In other words, if they accepted the 1,000,000 CPUs for free, they would have lost Intel rebates worth more than that money. In other words, the Intel offer was still better money wise. I bet that if AMD offered 10,000,000 free CPUs said OEM wouldn't have mulled over it as long, or made the same decision as it did.
> 
> In short, they didn't make a better offer, end of story.



How does it make sense not to take free CPUs? There should be absolutely no cost to the  OEM. Remember that giving away CPUs is basically paying an OEM to use your CPU. Of course if AMD offered monetary value greater than Intel's discount they would accept. but can't you see that it is unsustainable for AMD to give away CPUs? Should they begin to just give away CPUs to everyone? How long will such a business last? That is why this is uncompetitive if this happens. No one can startup a business in this environment. Intel increase their monopoly power and you end up with welfare losses.



> The whole issue at hand, as I see it, is the fact that the EU gets to decide when a company is big enough to get nailed down, but the law itself is not clear. If the law stated: "Once above X % of the market share for Y months according to EU data, you're no longer allowed to do A,B,C and/or D", this is one thing. However, nailing a company for practices completely okay for smaller companies (Imagine the uproar if Intel would be giving out 1,000,000 free CPUs - Effectively "selling" them under-cost, or the lack of any care over the exclusive deals for selling Coke or Pepsi) is penalizing a company for success - This is discrimination, not law.



Yes selling them undercost is illegal. But it was a reaction by AMD to ridiculous behaviour by Intel. AMD had produced CPUs which they couldn't sell because of Intel's practices. Any firm will sell them at whatever price they can rather than end up with rapidly depreciating stock. In this case, they couldn't even give them away.

As for size of a company. It is very clear the size of Intel allows it to practice such uncompetitive behaviour. Whenever a firm is large enough to get away with such behaviour in open markets, they then should be monitored.



> Either fix the law (And not retroactively, of course), or stop the BS. *Finally, if AMD is the one so harmed by this*, they are the ones that should be reimbursed by the decision, with a much smaller amount of the fine going into the EU coffers.



If AMD are harmed, it is upto them to file a suit. The commission is paid for by taxpayers money and represents the consumer. It also attempts to correct the market for optimality so that in the future, consumers do not suffer.

The other role of the fine is to act as a deterrent. To tell other companies and Intel, that financially it isn't worthwhile using uncompetitive practices.

The funny thing is, even with perfect hindsight and this 1bn EUR fine, Intel would do the exact same thing. Look at where AMD are now compared to where they could have been. The extra profits Intel will recieve in the decades to come due to their practices will net them much more than the 1bn EUR fine.


----------



## WhiteLotus (May 14, 2009)

Wile E said:


> That's part of capitalism. It is one of the defining features of capitalism. The companies that make bad business decisions go under. I wouldn't have it any other way. Our govt is a bunch of asshats for bailing them out.





TheMailMan78 said:


> Thats capitalism at its finest. Bailing them out isn't.



Why did i never state that. Gay. stupid me:shadedshu


----------



## W1zzard (May 14, 2009)

imagine what would happen if intel pulled all their products from the eu market. companies would go broke left and right, the eu would beg intel to come back after half a year


----------



## WhiteLotus (May 14, 2009)

Intel wouldn't. It would lose too much of a market. If it did, AMD would be raking it in and that is something that Intel simply wont allow.


----------



## W1zzard (May 14, 2009)

intel makes a lot more than just cpus, i'm not even sure if amd has the capacity to satisfy intel's EU demand. does anyone use amd cpus in servers?


----------



## WhiteLotus (May 14, 2009)

I thought they can use opterons? or something. Besides if you have a server why upgrade it. And if they did need to then AMD would fill the gap with a rebranded Server athlon chip or something.

Intel wont leave the EU market. Why would it? It makes no business sense. It'll lose too much money and other countries wont be happy paying the difference so Intels shareholders remain happy. If and IF it does, it'll be the shareholders demanding that Intel expand their operations back into the EU.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 14, 2009)

W1zzard said:


> intel makes a lot more than just cpus, i'm not even sure if amd has the capacity to satisfy intel's EU demand. does anyone use amd cpus in servers?


It crossed my mind, but no.  I have an one-way Opteron in a desktop, and Xeons in my two-way server.

The Kentsfield-based Xeons are just much higher performance than the 65nm Opterons they were offering at the time.


----------



## W1zzard (May 14, 2009)

WhiteLotus said:


> Intel wont leave the EU market. Why would it? It makes no business sense. It'll lose too much money and other countries wont be happy paying the difference so Intels shareholders remain happy. If and IF it does, it'll be the shareholders demanding that Intel expand their operations back into the EU.



yes, you are correct. i wasn't saying that they are going to, was just thinking about possible consequences if they did in a hypothetical scenario


----------



## WhiteLotus (May 14, 2009)

W1zzard said:


> yes, you are correct. i wasn't saying that they are going to, was just thinking about possible consequences if they did in a hypothetical scenario



Well that hypothetical scenario is AMDs wet dream.


----------



## allen337 (May 14, 2009)

W1zzard said:


> imagine what would happen if intel pulled all their products from the eu market. companies would go broke left and right, the eu would beg intel to come back after half a year




Intel needs to make this move I would love it. How do you bribe someone not to buy someone elses product? If amd had a better deal any OEM would go for it and tell Intel to go pound sand. Amd needs their mommie sniff sniff


----------



## Steevo (May 14, 2009)

Most are dickering around here as if this were a sandbox and Jimmy was playing mean with Johnny.



This is business, and companies manipulate situations every day to gain better foothold and a better position. This suit initiated by AMD is just to shove Intel around a bit, and to stop the bribes and threats. How much has AMD sunk in legal costs they can't recover? How much has Intel been drug through the mud in the eyes of the general populace?


Really all AMD is looking for here is the same business punch as Intel pulled don them, and they won. But instead of it being short lived, this is going to haunt Intel for awhile, they will have their business scrutinized and looked at under a microscope. If nothing else, it will make them keep their nose clean for awhile and get back to the business of making better processors.



Anyone looked at AMD's website today? I wonder if they will be running ad's?


----------



## Frederik S (May 14, 2009)

Yet another ridiculous ruling by the EC. Anyhow when I worked at a large PC manufacturer the problem with AMD was always availability, somehow Intel actually manages to produce almost enough chips at launch to meet demands. AMD is just trying to combat Intel's growth, and this is just one way to go about it.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 14, 2009)

WhiteLotus said:


> Why did i never state that. Gay. stupid me:shadedshu



Was that sarcasm?


----------

