# EU Fines Intel a Record €1.06 Billion in Antitrust Case



## alexp999 (May 13, 2009)

Following the news we covered the other day, the verdict is now in, and as expected Intel has been found guilty and fined €1.06 Billion ($1.45b/£948m) by the European Commission for anti-competitive practices. This fine smashes the €497 million fine issued to Microsoft by the EU in 2004 for abusing its dominant market position. Nine years on from when AMD first made a complaint that Intel had paid computer manufacturers not to use AMD chips in Europe the EU have ruled that Intel had given rebates to manufacturer's if they only used their chips, and had also found that a retailer had been paid to sell only Intel based systems.
"Intel has harmed millions of European consumers by deliberately acting to keep competitors out of the market for computer chips for many years," said Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes, "Such a serious and sustained violation of the EU's antitrust rules cannot be tolerated."

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## alexp999 (May 13, 2009)

Although I have written this doesn't mean I agree with it. 

If you ask me, giving rebates to use Intel chips, is very competitive. Its what drives prices down, competition, companies undercutting each other.

Are the EU going to fine car manufacturer's for you buying a car because they were offering you a discount making it cheaper than buying a similar car from another dealer? Wtf is the difference.

I'm getting bored of the EU fining everything that moves


----------



## e6600 (May 13, 2009)

down with the monopolies, we need more regulation like this in the world...



alexp999 said:


> Although I have written this doesn't mean I agree with it.
> 
> If you ask me, giving rebates to use Intel chips, is very competitive. Its what drives prices down, competition, companies undercutting each other.
> 
> ...



smaller companies, and innovation cannot exist with intel as a solid monopoly over the x86 consumer industry

without amd, we would probably be paying $300 for P4's LOL

the biggest problem is countries like the US and UK where too much corporate tolerance holds down the attractiveness of new products from new companies, and well established (starbucks doesnt make the best coffee does it?) companies dominate the market with products that could be better (intel during the P4 days held off amd pretty well)


----------



## WhiteLotus (May 13, 2009)

Good news. I believe this is the right way to go, and i'm glad that it found the correct verdict (as if it ever wasn't). Although i am surprised that it took NINE years and we have only just heard about it.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (May 13, 2009)

The eu are greedy barstewards.Were does the money go? into some fat greedy cun*s back pocket.

And i totally agree alex.


----------



## derFeef (May 13, 2009)

@ tigger
So its okay for you if a company plays unfair? If it would be microsoft you would jump of joy, amiright?


----------



## vanyots (May 13, 2009)

alexp999 said:


> Although I have written this doesn't mean I agree with it.
> 
> If you ask me, giving rebates to use Intel chips, is very competitive. Its what drives prices down, competition, companies undercutting each other.
> 
> ...



But... like you said it in the news:


> Intel had given rebates to manufacturer's if they *only* used their chips, and had also found that a retailer had been paid to sell *only* Intel based systems


The keyword here is *ONLY*, and that's *BAD*, and very UNcompetitive!


----------



## btarunr (May 13, 2009)

Serves them right.


----------



## alexp999 (May 13, 2009)

Just to make myself clear, I agree it was wrong to pay off retailers to only use their stuff, but offering rebates to make manufacturer's "intel" only or whatever doesnt seem bad to me.

EVGA are NVIDIA only (other than X58, but even that has an NF200 on it), and up until very recently XFX was NVIDIA only.

If you ask me (other than paying off retailers), Intel are being very competitive, its not like they have people backed up against a wall and are forcing them to pay more.

They are undercutting the competition, if AMD came up with a better deal, then the manufacturers and retailers could have said no.


----------



## derFeef (May 13, 2009)

alexp999 said:


> If you ask me, giving rebates to use Intel chips, is very competitive. Its what drives prices down, competition, companies undercutting each other.



They gave rebate under the condidtion not to build/sell AMD powered PC´s. Now if that is fair competition, there must be something wrong with your mind


----------



## alexp999 (May 13, 2009)

derFeef said:


> They gave rebate under the condidtion not to build/sell AMD powered PC´s. Now if that is fair competition, there must be something wrong with your mind



Sounds fair to me, manufacturer's could have said no. AMD could have come up with a counter offer. Business is business IMO.


----------



## derFeef (May 13, 2009)

alexp999 said:


> They are undercutting the competition, if AMD came up with a better deal, then the manufacturers and retailers could have said no.



AMD never had the chance come up with a better deal. But well, they play fair. Cheers AMD!


----------



## alexp999 (May 13, 2009)

Business isnt fair. If it was we wouldnt have price wars between retailers and manufacturer's.

Then it would suck to be a consumer. Often like you get big companies (e.g supermarkets) collaborating to rise prices together. THATS anti-competitive.


----------



## Mussels (May 13, 2009)

alexp999 said:


> Sounds fair to me, manufacturer's could have said no. AMD could have come up with a counter offer. Business is business IMO.



if they said no... good bye business.


----------



## alexp999 (May 13, 2009)

They were offering rebates, its not like Intel said, you cant have our products if you buy from AMD too.


----------



## derFeef (May 13, 2009)

alexp999 said:


> Business isnt fair. If it was we wouldnt have price wars between retailers and manufacturer's.
> 
> Then it would suck to be a consumer. Often like you get big companies (e.g supermarkets) collaborating to rise prices together. THATS anti-competitive.



Uhm, but the retailers sold the systems for the normal price, not the rabate price they got from intel.


----------



## alexp999 (May 13, 2009)

derFeef said:


> Uhm, but the retailers sold the systems for the normal price, not the rabate price they got from intel.



Thats their problem, not Intels


----------



## btarunr (May 13, 2009)

alexp999 said:


> They were offering rebates, its not like Intel said, you cant have our products if you buy from AMD too.



You need some research on what are the actual charges leveled against Intel. Previous news. Intel bribed manufacturers to cancel/delay their products based on AMD CPUs, and dictating manufacturers on what share of their products should use Intel processors. It's illegal, and not just in my opinion, but that of not only EU, but also the governments of Japan, and Korea, with investigations backed by US Federal Trade Commission.


----------



## derFeef (May 13, 2009)

alexp999 said:


> They were offering rebates, its not like Intel said, you cant have our products if you buy from AMD too.



Well, thay actually did. "Dont sell AMD products and get our stuff with 30% off"


----------



## alexp999 (May 13, 2009)

btarunr said:


> You need some research on what are the actual charges leveled against Intel. Previous news. Intel bribed manufacturers to cancel/delay their products based on AMD CPUs.



I'm just going by what my source says they were actually fined for. Not everything they _could_ have been fined for.

I agree they have done some anti-competitive/anti-trust practices, but IMO, rebates to manufacturer's shouldnt have been one of them.


----------



## derFeef (May 13, 2009)

alexp999 said:


> Thats their problem, not Intels



Problem? They got a huge GAIN with this. Please, research a bit 

edit - from the source:
In addition to providing rebates to manufacturers that bought almost entirely Intel products, the Commission found that the chipmaker had paid them to postpone or cancel the launch of specific products based on AMD chips.


----------



## Mussels (May 13, 2009)

derFeef said:


> Well, thay actually did. "Dont sell AMD products and get our stuff with 30% off"



"dont sell AMD and get 30% off"
"sell less than 10% AMD and get 20% off"

etc.


Basically in the competitive PC world, it meant if you went with AMD... you lost out. you would never be able to price match your competitors. The general public knew "pentium" they dont know "athlon" - intel had made it so that if you sold AMD, your intel systems would cost too much and never sell, so it was intel or AMD - no middle ground.

And if you gotta pick one or the other, you go the one the public will buy... and that was intel.


----------



## alexp999 (May 13, 2009)

Oh I'm not getting anywhere with this, its my opinion that one of the things they got fined for isnt anti-competitive.

Some of it is the EU as a whole, I'm getting sick of them fining big corps massive amounts, for stupid things.

Take this as my final post here, I'm going round in circles now


----------



## scud (May 13, 2009)

Quite sick of reading posts when people clearly don't have a full understanding of the seriousness of competition offenses!

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

Have a look here; the EU don't just give out Billion Dollar fines for nothing! Theres a reason why it took 9 years! 

Plus, about rebates, this is a practice long been known ILLEGAL in EU rulings. Intel should have been aware of this. This was established years ago when Tyre manufacturers got fined for issuing rebates!

Also, about the fines; this is the main reason why running the competition commission is so cost effective. It means that it can cover it's own costs, at the same time protecting consumers from abuse by dominant firms, these investigations are expensive (not helped by un-cooperative companies), and this means that EU taxpayers don't get burdened with the huge cost!


----------



## derFeef (May 13, 2009)

alexp999 said:


> Oh I'm not getting anywhere with this, its my opinion that one of the things they got fined for isnt anti-competitive.
> 
> Some of it is the EU as a whole, I'm getting sick of them fining big corps massive amounts, for stupid things.
> 
> Take this as my final post here, I'm going round in circles now



You seem to be a smart person, but you are maybe just a fanboy


----------



## Mussels (May 13, 2009)

derFeef said:


> You seem to be a smart person, but you are maybe just a fanboy



now now, please dont go calling him a fanboy.

He's stated clearly, that while he doesnt think intel was correct its just ONE of the things, he sees nothing wrong with.


----------



## derFeef (May 13, 2009)

Mussels said:


> now now, please dont go calling him a fanboy.
> 
> He's stated clearly, that while he doesnt think intel was correct its just ONE of the things, he sees nothing wrong with.



I know I know, I am not serious... not 100%


----------



## alexp999 (May 13, 2009)

I'm in no way a fanboy, I have had equal amounts of setups from different chip manufacturer's, Intel, AMD, NVIDIA, ATI, etc.

In fact I really want AMD to come up with something to beat the i7/i5. Cus I'm board with Intel


----------



## Paintface (May 13, 2009)

thats a billion euros of US intel enthousiasts cash being spent on subsidizing the AMD plant in Dresden 

Good news altogether, the hard hand of European socialists hurts for those who break the laws!


----------



## csendesmark (May 13, 2009)

1060000000€
That's huge!!


----------



## DareD (May 13, 2009)

Just read the REAL full news about it. This link was already posted:
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressRelease...amp;aged=0&amp;language=EN&amp;guiLanguage=en
_Everything is explained understandably!
In its decision, the Commission does not object to rebates in themselves but to the conditions Intel attached to those rebates. Because computer manufacturers are dependent on Intel for a majority of their x86 CPU supplies, only a limited part of a computer manufacturer's x86 CPU requirements is open to competition at any given time.

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. _

What Intel done is totally wrong - even the rebates because of their conditions!


----------



## animal007uk (May 13, 2009)

As far as im concered intel deserve everything they get, many a time in the past i have wanted to go out and buy an AMD cpu only to be told sorry we only stock intel, when asked why they only stock intel i was told its because of agreements with them.

funny thing is over the years all intel shops round by me have gone and most of the places i goto sell more AMD cpu's now than intel.

i now use an intel pc and while the cpu is supose to be fast and cost a lot more than my old amd i realy can't notice any diffrence apart from the price. (intel cpu £109) my slower AMD about £45 but runs just as good for me.

so yeah intel deserve all they get as 1. there a rip of anyway 2.only some ppl find there cpu a lot faster (usualy the ppl who have the money to waist on a £400 cpu)

each to there own tho i hate intel always will and if i had the cash i'd go back to AMD anyday.


----------



## tkpenalty (May 13, 2009)

*Please read alexp999...* 

I really think those people who oppose the EU's ruling should be a bit more empathatic to the consumer, and other corporations which have almost no chance of breaking into the market.

Do you think its fair to pay manufacturers, to NOT use your competitor's products? I'll use an analogy; music artists. They NEED record labels just to get their music to the consumer, and the same goes for CPU manufacturers. If Musician A decides to pay a hefty sum of money to prevent Musician B from being accepted by the music label, due to a rivalry, or a fear of losing sales, do you think thats fair? Hell no and it can land you in strife for *bribery*. Now lets apply it to this court case; intel has basically bribed manufacturers. 

If the EU were truly a bunch of morons who wanted only money, they fine intel enough to cause damage to them, probably half of their assets. However they aren't and understand that killing off Intel (i.e. jailing, etc) would cause much strife to the IT industries around the world.


----------



## Sihastru (May 13, 2009)

So, every exclusivity contract that is in effect now or will be in the future is in fact an illegal contract. Every rebate that someone gets because they made a choice to remain exclusive is illegal.

So Sapphire, exclusively manufacturers ATi cards is in fact on the wrong side of the law. Don't tell me that they are exclusive just because they are in love with ATi. They get certain benefits.

Every exclusivity contract entails (visible or hidden) benefits. Wake up and smell the bullshit. It's common business practice.

In the past the German government helped AMD when they were in financial trouble. Now EU does it again. How much of Intel's money will now go to AMD though more or less visible EU channels, just because AMD has plants and employs EU citizens, in the EU?

I live in an EU country, and I am pro-EU, but this doesn't seem right to me. I'm not saying that Intel's business practices are clean. Intel is not a fluffy cuddly bunny. Every other company in the world will follow it's own interests (AMD included, since it's sister company ATi has exclusivity contracts... as does nVidia - don't shoot me).

So making an example out of #1 just because they actually have the funds to pay the ridiculously high fine is not the way to go. They should fine everyone else too. This happens everywhere, even in hospitals. The bullshitness of it all makes me laugh.

I am not sure about the numbers, but AMD/ATi were under with almost 700 mil. and Intel was somewhat profitable in Q1 2009. I think this fine actually forces Intel to post a loss in the next quarter, bringing them down to AMD's level, a company that has less and less competitive products. So in a crisis situation, turn a company's profit into a loss. Way to go EU! Helping out the global economy... then again, Intel is an US company... oups.


----------



## WarEagleAU (May 13, 2009)

That is funny snakeoil.

On topic, thats alot of cash to be fined. I agree with the findings though, it is shady. If AMD had done that, Intel would have started whining back in the day as well. Im not totally blaming 100% on Intel, AMD has a smudgeon of a part (like 1%) for not getting its name out there. They arent newbies in the chip making world, they should advertise like Intel did. Who remembers Blue Man Group throwing themselves at the wall, sliding down and making a pentium 3 symbol? That was just smart there :rofl:


----------



## Mussels (May 13, 2009)

Sihastru said:


> So, every exclusivity contract that is in effect now or will be in the future is in fact an illegal contract. Every rebate that someone gets because they made a choice to remain exclusive is illegal.
> 
> So Sapphire, exclusively manufacturers ATi cards is in fact on the wrong side of the law. Don't tell me that they are exclusive just because they are in love with ATi. They get certain benefits.
> 
> ...



you're getting it wrong.

businesses themselves are free to choose if they want to be exclusive, or branch out.
The corporations they buy equipment from are not allowed to dictate the terms, however.

Intel has taken the choice away from smaller businesses, its as simple as that. "sell only our stuff, or risk going out of business"


----------



## WarEagleAU (May 13, 2009)

Well said Mussels, I didnt see his post until I posted mine. I am not going into a diatribe here on the whole things, suffice to say, Intel dictated.


----------



## laszlo (May 13, 2009)

alexp999 said:


> I agree they have done some anti-competitive/anti-trust practices, but IMO, rebates to manufacturer's shouldnt have been one of them.



you're confusing a normal rebate (when you buy for ex.5000 CPU at 100 USD/pcs instead of 120) with a conditioned rebate(you buy the 5000 CPU with only 90 if you don't sell AMD)


----------



## Sihastru (May 13, 2009)

Mussels said:


> you're getting it wrong.
> 
> businesses themselves are free to choose if they want to be exclusive, or branch out.
> The corporations they buy equipment from are not allowed to dictate the terms, however.
> ...



I am not sure that you're aware, but for example, ATi didn't allow manufacturers like Sapphire to offer overclocked versions of certain cards. Just recently ATi has allowed the manufacturers to offer non-reference overclocked cards. So ATi dictated there. Just an example. And ATi still dictates the terms of exclusivity contracts.

If you think there is no "behind the curtains" action in there, think again. In every contract there are two sides. Each side has benefits and obligations. They are negotiated in the draft version of the contract. Each side dictates here more or less.

How do they risk going out of business if the competing products were so good? They must have been very good if Intel had to sweeten the deal for it's own low quality, low performing products. The only way they would go out of business is if there were no competing products to be found...

Think what you want of it. To me it looks like a  that EU gives to Intel... "hey buddy, slow it down, we feel very protective of AMD, and we would like them to catch up to you... OR ELSE!".

Just to spice things up:

If I were Intel, I would organize a press conference today and announce that we won't be selling our products in any EU member state anymore. If anyone wants an Intel product they would have to imported on the black market. I can think of a few billion people that would do that. Because they want Intel products more then they want chocolate.

That is very difficult to believe since a world without Intel is a completely different world from ours. It is impossible to imagine the world without Intel. Go ahead, try it... but think about the fact that Intel is not just about CPUs and chipsets.


----------



## Mussels (May 13, 2009)

ATI can do what they like with allowing OC'd cards and the like. What they arent doing is saying "if you sell Nv as well, we'll hike the price"

Intel had a recognised brand name. AMD did not. average joe walked into a store in those days and saw 90% of the machines were intel... so he'd go intel.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (May 13, 2009)

Is it not partly the fault of the manufacturers accepting the "bribes" to only use intel products? I wonder how many companies actually accepted these,i bet its a lot more than we realize.


----------



## Mussels (May 13, 2009)

tigger said:


> Is it not partly the fault of the manufacturers accepting the "bribes" to only use intel products? I wonder how many companies actually accepted these,i bet its a lot more than we realize.



less bribes, more blackmail. Imagine what would have happened if dells costs for CPU's went up 10% - their entire line would have become even less competitive.


----------



## Sihastru (May 13, 2009)

tigger said:


> Is it not partly the fault of the manufacturers accepting the "bribes" to only use intel products? I wonder how many companies actually accepted these,i bet its a lot more than we realize.



There were a lot of them, if it warranted such a big fine. And the reason for this was because for this business sector, it is considered to be a normal thing. This is why I consider this fine to be more or less an EU which-hunt. Everyone does it, everyone is a which here.

So if everyone does it, why is it that only one takes the blame? Funny how things work out...


----------



## Mussels (May 13, 2009)

Sihastru said:


> There were a lot of them, if it warranted such a big fine. And the reason for this was because for this business sector, it is considered to be a normal thing. This is why I consider this fine to be more or less an EU which-hunt. Everyone does it, everyone is a which here.
> 
> So if everyone does it, why is it that only one takes the blame? Funny how things work out...



you fine the big fish first, to scare the smaller ones into obeying the law.


----------



## air_ii (May 13, 2009)

alexp999 said:


> If you ask me, giving rebates to use Intel chips, is very competitive. Its what drives prices down, competition, companies undercutting each other.
> 
> Are the EU going to fine car manufacturer's for you buying a car because they were offering you a discount making it cheaper than buying a similar car from another dealer? Wtf is the difference.



The difference is that Intel paid a dealer for their not selling AMD's stuff. It's not that they said - "Ok, you get 10% off everything because we like you". They said "Ok, you get 10% off as long as you don't sell AMD's crap".


----------



## Sihastru (May 13, 2009)

Mussels said:


> you fine the big fish first, to scare the smaller ones into obeying the law.



This sounds like discrimination. A crime is a crime. Every crime must be punished.

If one day on a highway 100 guys driving 100 Tuned Civics will break the sound barrier and another guy with a Murcielago LP640 does the same thing at arguably the same time, you only stop and fine the guy in the Murcielago?

If at a protest there are 100 white blondes blue-eyed caucasians and a bold black guy and some violence acts are commited by the mob, then you only fine the black guy?

It is very non-EU-esque to discriminate.


----------



## Sihastru (May 13, 2009)

air_ii said:


> The difference is that Intel paid a dealer for their not selling AMD's stuff. It's not that they said - "Ok, you get 10% off everything because we like you". They said "Ok, you get 10% off as long as you don't sell AMD's crap".



Do you know of any VW/Porsche exclusive dealers selling other cars then: VW, Porsche, Seat, Audi, Lamborghini? Have you ever seen a Fiat near a Lamborghini at an exclusive dealer?

EDIT: VW/Porsche/Seat/Audi/Lamborghini are part of the same GROUP. Dealers are exclusive to them because they get special treatment for this exclusiveness.


----------



## Mussels (May 13, 2009)

Sihastru said:


> This sounds like discrimination. A crime is a crime. Every crime must be punished.
> 
> If one day on a highway 100 guys driving 100 Tuned Civics will break the sound barrier and another guy with a Murcielago LP640 does the same thing at arguably the same time, you only stop and fine the guy in the Murcielago?
> 
> ...



if you know 5,000 businesses have committed a crime, who do you go for first. the fish and chip shop down the road, or the multi billion dollar company with world wide market powers.

You go the big one, cause his illegal actions have greater ramifications on the marketplace.

At this point shiastru, I'm of the opinion you are just here to troll and make trouble.


----------



## derFeef (May 13, 2009)

Sihastru said:


> Do you know of any VW/Porsche exclusive dealers selling other cars then: VW, Porsche, Seat, Audi, Lamborghini? Have you ever seen a Fiat near a Lamborghini at an exclusive dealer?



WTH are you talking about. You seem to misunderstand the whole thing.


----------



## Mussels (May 13, 2009)

Sihastru said:


> Do you know of any VW/Porsche exclusive dealers selling other cars then: VW, Porsche, Seat, Audi, Lamborghini? Have you ever seen a Fiat near a Lamborghini at an exclusive dealer?



no. those businesses CHOSE to sell only high end cars of their choice.

If Lamborghini said "we'll give you 10% off, so long as you sell nothing but Lamborghini" or "we'll give you 5% off, so long as you keep audi to less than 5% of your stock" - that would be illegal.

you're coming up with example after example, of things that are completely wrong. please, just stop.


----------



## Evo85 (May 13, 2009)

While I agree with the decision, the fine is absolutely stupid. And just contributes to the "sue happy" world we live in......


----------



## allen337 (May 13, 2009)

Intel should sue every company they gave a discount to and get their money back to pay the fine, that would make EU's BS go away. If it was breaking the law the buyers of the intel products knew also. Sue em Intel.


----------



## Sihastru (May 13, 2009)

I thought we were having a discussion on an open forum. You say something, I reply. I say something, you reply. I don't think I am out of line just because I am trying to defend my point. Calling me a troll (publicly, of all the possible ways) doesn't make me wrong. It just gives me more power.

If you don't want news to be open to discussion, close the threads. I think a news this important deserves an open discussion, with somewhat deeper remarks then just the traditional "serves them right!".

I will just say one last thing, then I will not post on this thread anymore. I have other posts in other threads, people actually considered me helpful. I don't have that many posts, you can check them.

About what I want to say, on the topic. An exclusivity contract is an exclusivity contract. You get rebates because you are exclusive (by definition). If you don't want to be exclusive, no problem, but you don't get the rebate, you pay the full price. There is no mention that the ones that wouldn't be exclusive would pay anything on top of the full price.

Anyway, smarter people then me (us) made the decision. And their decision is final (pending appeal). So that is it. Over and out.


----------



## derFeef (May 13, 2009)

Sihastru said:


> About what I want to say, on the topic. An exclusivity contract is an exclusivity contract. You get rebates because you are exclusive (by definition). If you don't want to be exclusive, no problem, but you don't get the rebate, you pay the full price. There is no mention that the ones that wouldn't be exclusive would pay anything on top of the full price.



But the contract was something like this:
Don not sell AMD products and you will get rebates with our products. Thats not a legal contract and this is what everything is about.


----------



## Darknova (May 13, 2009)

Anti-competition laws are there to stop one company becoming the dominant power in the market and forcing all the other businesses out of the market.

I'm sure I don't need to explain how bad it would be for the consumers if Intel was the only company in the x86 market? Stagnant market, no innovation, a company that can set WHATEVER price it wants. That is very bad for us.

Whatever you think of the A-C laws, what Intel did was against the law, they set out to force AMD out of business by forcing the OEMs, and smaller business to buy their products via various means. That is illegal, therefore they should be punished.


----------



## Scrizz (May 13, 2009)

w8, so once a small company becomes successful and grows then they get fined for being top dog?


----------



## Valdez (May 13, 2009)

Scrizz said:


> w8, so once a small company becomes successful and grows then they get fined for being top dog?



No, please read the topic, before you post something silly.


----------



## laszlo (May 13, 2009)

Scrizz said:


> w8, so once a small company becomes successful and grows then they get fined for being top dog?



top dog is not god to do whatever they want....


----------



## gumpty (May 13, 2009)

*We're all paying for Intel's crimes ...*

Suck it Intel. 

All of you realise that we are paying for these crimes right now, don't you?

These anti-competitive practices were happening back in the days when AMD had processors that could actually compete with Intel's across the board. Because Intel limited and restricted the amount of AMD CPUs that were sold (and sold more of their own), AMD had less money to spend on R&D (and Intel had more). Consequently Intel comes out with Core 2 & i7 & AMD have fallen behind.

Imagine if AMD had had more $$ to research better CPUs? We might have been at a point now where AMD's Phenoms were competing with the i7. Therefore the i7 would probably be a damn sight cheaper. But they're not. We lose. We're stuck paying $1000+ for extreme series processors cause they have nothing to compete against. We lose.


----------



## HTC (May 13, 2009)

derFeef said:


> *They gave rebate under the condidtion not to build/sell AMD powered PC´s.* Now if that is fair competition, there must be something wrong with your mind





btarunr said:


> *You need some research on what are the actual charges leveled against Intel. Previous news. Intel bribed manufacturers to cancel/delay their products based on AMD CPUs, and dictating manufacturers on what share of their products should use Intel processors.* It's illegal, and not just in my opinion, but that of not only EU, but also the governments of Japan, and Korea, with investigations backed by US Federal Trade Commission.





derFeef said:


> Problem? They got a huge GAIN with this. Please, research a bit
> 
> edit - from the source:
> *In addition to providing rebates to manufacturers that bought almost entirely Intel products, the Commission found that the chipmaker had paid them to postpone or cancel the launch of specific products based on AMD chips.*





Mussels said:


> *"dont sell AMD and get 30% off"
> "sell less than 10% AMD and get 20% off"
> 
> etc.*
> ...



This is why i agree that Intel should be fined.



btarunr said:


> The commission can charge as much as 10% of Intel's annual revenue as fine, which was $38 billion in 2008.



Only $1.06 Billion? Intel must be laughing hard: they gave a very serious blow to AMD (worth far more then this fine over the years, IMHO) and only pay this amount when they made $33.8 billion in 2008?

If i were the Intel CEO, i ought to be thinking something like this: "Outstanding!! We've crippled the competition severely and only have this to pay!"


For Intel, doing this payed off


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (May 13, 2009)

They'll pay the fine out of the change tin on the ceo's desk.


----------



## btarunr (May 13, 2009)

HTC said:


> Only $1.06 Billion? Intel must be laughing hard: they gave a very serious blow to AMD (worth far more then this fine over the years, IMHO) and only pay this amount when they made $33.8 billion in 2008?
> 
> If i were the Intel CEO, i ought to be thinking something like this: "Outstanding!! We've crippled the competition severely and only have this to pay!"



Notice I said "up to". 

W1zzard is right. In this conspiracy, Intel ended up gaining more than what the fine imposed attempts to put a stop to. In essence, all these years of proven malpractices were worth it, despite the fine. 1.06 B Euro really is peanuts at the macro-level. All these repercussions IMO are image cleanup, and sympathy harvest that automatically follow such judgements, in order to cushion the stock-price, and preventing a trench.


----------



## gumpty (May 13, 2009)

HTC said:


> This is why i agree that Intel should be fined.
> 
> Only $1.06 Billion? Intel must be laughing hard: they gave a very serious blow to AMD (worth far more then this fine over the years, IMHO) and only pay this amount when they made $33.8 billion in 2008?
> 
> ...




Agreed.

People here are getting riled up about how huge the fine is. €1,060,000,000 is a LOT of money to you, me, and Fred next door; but to Intel, who are worth €85,000,000,000+, it is nothing more than a kick in the nuts. It'll hurt for a bit, and the shareholders will be pissy come the AGM, but they'll get back up and keep riding the wave of the better products they could afford to research with the extra money that these crimes generated.


----------



## HTC (May 13, 2009)

btarunr said:


> *Notice I said "up to".*
> 
> W1zzard is right. In this conspiracy, Intel ended up gaining more that what the fine imposed attempts to put a stop to. In essence, all these years of proven malpractices were worth it, despite the fine. 1.06 B Euro really is peanuts at the macro-level. All these repercussions IMO are image cleanup, and sympathy harvest that automatically follows, in order to cushion the stock-price, and preventing a trench.



I know. Even if the fine was the whole $3.8 billion, it would still be "pocket change" for Intel.

IMHO, a $20 billion fine would be a start ...


----------



## btarunr (May 13, 2009)

HTC said:


> $20 billion fine would be a start ...



$20 B would mean no more Intel in EU for a few years, reason being that Intel would not pay up and simply quit the market (and end up saving in the process). EU won't remain a viable market to sell in. No company in its right mind would pay that much. EU knows it can't overdo this. Market demand, AMD and other CPU makers exploiting conditions, and illegal imports would dent EU, which will then be forced to reconsider the fine. 1.06 B however, doesn't strike the threshold. Intel still has a lot to lose if it doesn't pay up that money.


----------



## HTC (May 13, 2009)

btarunr said:


> $20 B would mean no more Intel in EU for a few years, reason being that Intel would not pay up and simply quit the market (and end up saving in the process). EU won't remain a viable market to sell in. No company in its right mind would pay that much. EU knows it can't overdo this.



I see your point, and i have to agree: Intel would simply not sell to the EU, but they would still have to pay the fine.

There's a way to counter this, though: have EVERYBODY (countries) fine Intel. If so, Intel wouldn't stop selling everywhere, would they?


Still, how much do you think AMD lost?

If Intel hadn't done this, do you agree that AMD would have a better market share of the CPU market?

Let's imagine that AMD would have 15% more market share then it currently has: how much do you think that is worth? A TON more then the fine and don't forget to multiply that figure by the years this was going on ...


----------



## btarunr (May 13, 2009)

HTC said:


> I see your point, and i have to agree: Intel would simply not sell to the EU, but they would still have to pay the fine.
> 
> There's a way to counter this, though: have EVERYBODY (countries) fine Intel. If so, Intel wouldn't stop selling everywhere, would they?



EU lacks the capability to do that. Defaulting the fine would affect Intel's operations only in EU, nowhere else.


----------



## HTC (May 13, 2009)

btarunr said:


> *EU lacks the capability to do that.* Defaulting the fine would only affect Intel's operations in EU, nowhere else.



Yes, yes: i know. What i meant was to have all the other countries present Intel with a fine of their own.

Since the EU can't go after Intel the way they should, the combined fine (total from all the countries) should make a more realistic number: this way, Intel would be properly fined for it's dirty business practices.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (May 13, 2009)

alexp999 said:


> Although I have written this doesn't mean I agree with it.
> 
> If you ask me, giving rebates to use Intel chips, is very competitive. Its what drives prices down, competition, companies undercutting each other.
> 
> ...



I have never heard of Intel giving consumers 'rebates' to use their products, same as most other hardware manufacturers. Seems schemes like this only exist outside Europe.


----------



## lemonadesoda (May 13, 2009)

This is just ASKING for Intel to innovate like this:

1./ Implement a CPU with "licensed" not purchased microcode
2./ Annual fee of $10 to use, just like a road-tax license imposed by governments. The fee could be "waived" at the discretion of Intel, unless
3./ They get dicked around, in which case, the fee becomes due for immediate payment, else
4./ CPUs stop working as soon as they phone home through the internet

Part 4 works if the CPU needs to dial home once in a while to validate the license, otherwise, they expire.


----------



## Millenia (May 13, 2009)

FreedomEclipse said:


> I have never heard of Intel giving consumers 'rebates' to use their products, same as most other hardware manufacturers. Seems schemes like this only exist outside Europe.



No, they were offering rebates to business partners (mainly companies like HP, Fujitsu-Siemens etc) with very strict conditions, effectively nearly forcing OEMs to build Intel systems. This resulted in a situation where AMD would have had to sell their CPUs to business partners for a LOT less than they cost to manufacture, and with AMD being the smaller company here they couldn't afford to.


----------



## btarunr (May 13, 2009)

HTC said:


> Yes, yes: i know. What i meant was to have all the other countries present Intel with a fine of their own.



If moving all countries to do the same thing was that easy, mankind would have colonized the moon, Mars, and Europa by now.


----------



## Darknova (May 13, 2009)

Scrizz said:


> w8, so once a small company becomes successful and grows then they get fined for being top dog?



No, there's a difference between a company that becomes successful through it's own marketing and products, and a company that becomes successful by bribing others.


----------



## laszlo (May 13, 2009)

i forget...

is not only Intel fault;the companies who has bought with special rebates are guilty also; they have charged the final consumer with a high profit margin;they deserve also to be fined


----------



## 15th Warlock (May 14, 2009)

No matter how you cut it, one billion euros seems kinda harsh doesn't it?

I mean, it's not like Intel didn't break the law, and I'm all for breaking bad corporate practices, but with the economy being as bad as it is, do you really think its necessary to rule a fine so high? I know it wont put Intel out of bussiness neither, but in times like this when PC sales are down overall (even Atom shipments have decreased by 33% this quarter) do you have to necessarily beat them to the ground? (even tough Intel has enough cash to pay the fine...). 

The point is they were found guilty by a jury and all, and they certainly have to pay for it and stop these practices immediately; but how do they determine consumers in general have been affectted to the tune of one billion euros by their practices?

Besides, is this money going to be used to benefit the consumers in the end? What will the EU do with all this money? Send relief checks to anyone who bought a PC in Europe in the last 10 years?

Just my two cents...


----------



## Sugarush (May 14, 2009)

Considering that Intel's turnover last year was about 38 billion, and considering how they distorted they free market, 1 billion is nothing. They could have been ordered to pay up to 10% of their turnover.

And don't worry about Intel, they've got about 10 billion in cash, so this fine is peanuts for them.

To all the people whining about the socialist EU who is just subsidizing AMD's EU plants, read the news: Intel is likely to face similar charges in the US as well, oh and I forgot they've been already found guilty of unsound business practice elsewhere...


----------



## air_ii (May 14, 2009)

Sihastru said:


> Do you know of any VW/Porsche exclusive dealers selling other cars then: VW, Porsche, Seat, Audi, Lamborghini? Have you ever seen a Fiat near a Lamborghini at an exclusive dealer?
> 
> EDIT: VW/Porsche/Seat/Audi/Lamborghini are part of the same GROUP. Dealers are exclusive to them because they get special treatment for this exclusiveness.



That's correct, but they are exactly that - VW/Porsche/Seat/Audi/Lamborghini exclusive dealers, whereas this case is about a "Joe's PCs", which isn't officially exclusive to Intel.


----------



## vega22 (May 14, 2009)

its about time this was finished but imo its just a shame it took so long and was such a small amount in comparison to what intel have made and amd have lost, hell i bet this hardly covers the intrest on their past couple of years loans 

they was doing this at a time when they (intel) had the weaker product and as others have said the average joe didnt know who/what amd was. if dell and the likes had been able to promote and sell both platforms on equal terms im sure amd would not of had the financial troubles they have had.


----------

