# Intel Appeals Against EU Antitrust Verdict



## btarunr (Jul 23, 2009)

Earlier this year in May, the European Commission for anti-competitive practices found Intel guilty of various antitrust practices. The company was then slapped with a massive 1.06 billion Euro (US $1.45 billion) fine, the single largest antitrust fine it has ever meted out to a company. On Wednesday, Intel explored its legal option of appealing against the fine with Court of First Instance in Luxembourg, Europe's second highest judicial body. The company argues that the EC regulator failed to consider the evidence that supported Intel's contention during the trial. 

In a telephone interview with ComputerWorld, Robert Manetta, an Intel spokesperson said "We believe the Commission misinterpreted some evidence and ignored other pieces of evidence." Meanwhile, apart from the fine Intel is expected to pay within three months of the verdict, the ruling also puts a stop to Intel's rebates to PC manufacturers and retailers on condition of near or total exclusivity, among several other deemed malpractices. Authorities in South Korea and Japan found similar irregularities in Intel's marketing methods, while the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and New York Attorney General's office are investigating the company for abuse of its monopoly position.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## AltecV1 (Jul 23, 2009)

i hope the fine will stay! intel need to be punished


----------



## erocker (Jul 23, 2009)

Fight corrupt, greedy, and ignorant governments! Yay! If the fine does go through who do you think will pay for it? Intel's customers. Prices will go up. I would love to see Intel just pull out selling anything in the EU all together. They would probablly save money in the end by not selling to greedy, money hungry countries. It's sad the US is becoming one of them. At least India is getting it right.


----------



## Easo (Jul 23, 2009)

Admit! You Did All That Shiz!!! Pay Now And Stfu!!!


----------



## suraswami (Jul 23, 2009)

can the fine be increased to 1.06 trillion Euros to make them shut up


----------



## mtosev (Jul 23, 2009)

lets see what Intel can do about this.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jul 23, 2009)

like intel was somehow prohibiting amd from actually making better processors...no im not an intel fanboy, im a capitalism fanboy


----------



## mdm-adph (Jul 23, 2009)

erocker said:


> Fight corrupt, greedy, and ignorant governments! Yay! If the fine does go through who do you think will pay for it? Intel's customers. Prices will go up. I would love to see Intel just pull out selling anything in the EU all together. They would probablly save money in the end by not selling to socialist, money hungry countries. It's sad the US is becoming one of them. At least India is getting it right.



If I didn't know you better, I'd say that post was a troll.  

I'll begin:

1)  Intel isn't going to pull out of Europe, regardless of how much they're fined.  You should know that.

2)  Intel can appeal all they want -- the world's in a recession.  The fine's going to stay.

3)  Intel doesn't need a reason to raise prices.


----------



## ZoneDymo (Jul 23, 2009)

mdm-adph


How funny would it be if they did gave this as a reason for prices going up? XD
"Yeah we did stuff that is against the law, they caught us and gave us a fine, so now we ask more money to compensate for the money we lost doing stuff agains the law"


----------



## btarunr (Jul 23, 2009)

ZoneDymo said:


> mdm-adph
> 
> 
> How funny would it be if they did gave this as a reason for prices going up? XD
> "Yeah we did stuff that is against the law, they caught us and gave us a fine, so now we ask more money to compensate for the money we lost doing stuff agains the law"



If they increase prices of their current chips, it's their funeral. AMD has a decent CPU lineup which will bite them in the back with their low prices.


----------



## erocker (Jul 23, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> If I didn't know you better, I'd say that post was a troll.
> 
> I'll begin:
> 
> ...



Only a troll if you disagree I guess. But that would make you a troll too then. Having a different opinion does not constitute being a troll, thank you though, I completely agree on number 3. Really I see no difference between some government and a corporation, they are both ruled by greed and make their money off of ignorance.


----------



## $ReaPeR$ (Jul 23, 2009)

erocker said:


> Only a troll if you disagree I guess. But that would make you a troll too then. Having a different opinion does not constitute being a troll, thank you though, I completely agree on number 3. Really I see no difference between some government and a corporation, they are both ruled by greed.



i agree but nevertheless they need to be checked by us


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jul 23, 2009)

erocker said:


> Fight corrupt, greedy, and ignorant governments! Yay! If the fine does go through who do you think will pay for it? Intel's customers. Prices will go up. I would love to see Intel just pull out selling anything in the EU all together. They would probablly save money in the end by not selling to socialist, money hungry countries. It's sad the US is becoming one of them. At least India is getting it right.



We spend more on the US military than the top 10 healthcare systems in the world combined. 

Socialist policies are everywhere in the US as it always has been. You are just persuaded by old propaganda like many in the USA who have failed to do the research.

Current Socialist organizations that have been around for ages:
All public schools, Military, and Police etc. 

NHS works fine in other countries so why would the people in the USA be too ignorant to be able to accomplish it. The money is there.... we can fork over any amount of money to destroy life but we are always insisting we don't have the money to take care of the sick and wounded. 

Anything government run and not for profit, for the benefit of the people, is a socialist policy. Everybody should be required to learn about politics and finance in school and we won't have this problem. 

Its all about money. If the USA had a NHS the many hospitals and doctors would make just a little less while we would make sure the number one growing reason for bankruptsy would completely disappear(healthcare expenses).


Would it mean lower quality care? No. France has the most heavily socialized healthcare system and its always rated the best in every way for many years. 

Longer healthier lives are worth more than having enough armaments to destroy the entire world right? If we would take half of the funding we put into killing people better, and put it into taking care of the population we are supposedly protecting. Then we would still have the most powerful military in the world by far. Just look at the statistics and you will find its true. 

And still we scream socialism in fear of what we do not understand. Maybe one day the USA will care more about its own people than killing people in other countries for the financial gain of the few.

*BTW Intel should not be fined in any way. Its not socialism attacking Intel for money. Its the "EU world government" trying to steal from a productive US company because it wants money to throw around. I believe the EU should be disbanded for taking away rights and adding regulation that takes away attention from much more pressing matters in Europe.*


----------



## a111087 (Jul 23, 2009)

erocker said:


> Fight corrupt, greedy, and ignorant governments! Yay! If the fine does go through who do you think will pay for it? Intel's customers. Prices will go up. I would love to see Intel just pull out selling anything in the EU all together. They would probablly save money in the end by not selling to socialist, money hungry countries. It's sad the US is becoming one of them. At least India is getting it right.



lol, i don't think so.  by setting higher prices, Intel will loose customers accordingly, making it less competitive and ... well, they will earn about as much money as with normal prices.  its a basic economy theory where the number of customers will depend on the amount they have to pay for the product.  cpu's are also not a gasoline, which we are forced to buy because we need to travel a lot and bike will simply not do.  when it comes to CPU's, AMD is right there waiting for you eagerly.  
Also, Intel will not really feel any different after paying this fee, for us it may sound a lot, but for them it's not.  but u know how greed works... yet, i'm not saying that intel should be fined or any other way around, because i don't think we know all the details to really judge this case.  and i really don't understand why u people sit here and act as if u know everything that was going on there. yes, u know some sketchy details from articles, but if u think thats enough for u to make a definitive decision on ur part, then i'm truly sorry for u

a bit off topic, but u r asked for it   In my view, Obama is not a socialist, like someone already said, he doesn't even act like liberal. catching phrases from TV is the fashion lately, and i understand that, but sometimes u just need to stop and think for yourself.  no offense to anyone.


----------



## erocker (Jul 23, 2009)

DaedalusHelios said:


> We spend more on the US military than the top 10 healthcare systems in the world.
> 
> Socialist policies are everywhere in the US as it always has been. You are just persuaded by old propaganda like many in the USA who have failed to do the research.
> 
> ...



Puhlease. I know all about Socialism. I come from a city that is Socialist. Up until the McCarthy hoo-ha era many local politicians ran as Socialist. My parents are/were Socialist and their parents. I believe in Socialism on a local level. That being said, I didn't have a single comment about socialism in my posts, I was talking about greed. THAT being said, I find your post spot-on! 

***Lol, Just realized I did use the words "Socialist, money hungry countries".  My bad. All countries are money hungry regardless of political affiliation.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jul 23, 2009)

Oh, I didn't know you meant something else with what you said. Sorry about that.


----------



## kyle2020 (Jul 23, 2009)

They best not pull out of the EU market, the thought of becoming an AMD only patch of world makes me shudder.

*edit* Im not being an intel fanboy when I say that or anything, just the thought of a one brand market seems pathetic. No competition on prices, no variety in systems, etc etc.


----------



## AltecV1 (Jul 23, 2009)

i hate when fanboys start a war:shadedshu  European Union is only doing its job to protect consumers and other companies from monopolic companies like intel!!


----------



## kyle2020 (Jul 23, 2009)

So youd rather have a market dominated by one ultimate brand? No competition over prices, so ultimately they can charge whatever they damn please?

Dont call me a fanboy, I clearly explained my reason behind posting such a comment.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jul 23, 2009)

AltecV1 said:


> i hate when fanboys start a war:shadedshu  European Union is only doing its job to protect consumers and other companies from monopolic companies like intel!!



Nah, the EU should protect the mighty VIA from monopolistic companies like AMD and Intel!


----------



## mdm-adph (Jul 23, 2009)

erocker said:


> Only a troll if you disagree I guess. But that would make you a troll too then. Having a different opinion does not constitute being a troll, thank you though, I completely agree on number 3. Really I see no difference between some government and a corporation, they are both ruled by greed and make their money off of ignorance.



Well, like you realized in a later post, the only reason I said your post looked like a troll is because you brought up "socialism" in a story that had nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with plain old money.  



btarunr said:


> If they increase prices of their current chips, it's their funeral. AMD has a decent CPU lineup which will bite them in the back with their low prices.



But AMD can't meet the demand, which is what started this whole business in the first place.  :shadedshu

Intel knows that it's got people by the balls, and that's what enabled them to make the shady deals excluding AMD from the market in the first place.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the price of Intel's chips went up soon.


----------



## AltecV1 (Jul 23, 2009)

kyle2020 said:


> So youd rather have a market dominated by one ultimate brand? No competition over prices, so ultimately they can charge whatever they damn please?
> 
> Dont call me a fanboy, I clearly explained my reason behind posting such a comment.



read it to the end and then start commenting,because you got no idea what i wrote(PS: im laughing because you ignorance is amusing me)


----------



## erocker (Jul 23, 2009)

AltecV1 said:


> read it to the end and then start commenting,because you got no idea what i wrote(PS: im laughing because you ignorance is amusing me)



I'm uncertain if it's just because of the language barrier but I don't see anyone being a "fanboy". Also, keep your comments directed at the topic, not at other members.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jul 23, 2009)

AltecV1 said:


> read it to the end and then start commenting,because you got no idea what i wrote(PS: im laughing because you ignorance is amusing me)



Come on man. You are just insulting him. Please try to be more civil.

If you like AMD more than Intel I am sure you have your reasons. But there is no reason to get offensive.


----------



## mdm-adph (Jul 23, 2009)

DaedalusHelios said:


> Come on man. You are just insulting him. Please try to be more civil.
> 
> If you like AMD more than Intel I am sure you have your reasons. But there is no reason to get offensive.



You know what's funny?  I have the utmost respect for Intel's designers, engineers, hell -- even their marketers.  

I have nothing but scorn for their lawyers, upper management, and accountants.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jul 23, 2009)

intel cannot be blamed for the woes of AMD. when AMD bought ATI the shit truly hit the fan. it had to be the most disorganized unifcation of organizations ever. amd lacks a strong marketing strategy as well. if they want to sell more chips they have to create demand for them!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 23, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> 2)  Intel can appeal all they want -- the world's in a recession.  The fine's going to stay.


Pretty much.  No matter if the EU is in the wrong or not, that fine ain't going away.  In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the EU raises the original fine for wasting the court's time.


----------



## kyle2020 (Jul 23, 2009)

If im honest I have not once seen an advert for AMD (besides laptops with Turions in them) on the TV or in newspapers, wheras Intel splash there logo + sound everywhere. Ask anyone who doesnt know anything about PC's and im sure they can hum the Intel sound thing 

Excellent marketing on Intels part, and your point is so very true rhino.


----------



## mdm-adph (Jul 23, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> intel cannot be blamed for the woes of AMD. when AMD bought ATI the shit truly hit the fan. it had to be the most disorganized unifcation of organizations ever. amd lacks a strong marketing strategy as well. if they want to sell more chips they have to create demand for them!



No, the shit hit the fan when Intel made shady deals with people behind the scenes basically saying, "If you do business with AMD, even if they have a better price, we won't sell any chips to you, and you'll suffer because only we can supply the volume you need."

You know, as they've already been convicted twice of doing, once in Japan, and once in the EU.


----------



## tastegw (Jul 23, 2009)

latest news,  intel takes over europe and now agrees to pay the fine in full by next monday.


but to be real, that is one heck of a fine,  i wonder where that number actually came from.


----------



## rpsgc (Jul 23, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> No, the shit hit the fan when Intel made shady deals with people behind the scenes basically saying, "If you do business with AMD, even if they have a better price, we won't sell any chips to you, and you'll suffer because only we can supply the volume you need."
> 
> You know, as they've already been convicted twice of doing, once in Japan, and once in the EU.



You forgot Korea. But of course if it's the EU then they are just money-hungry socialist commies right? Right? Tools.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jul 23, 2009)

kyle2020 said:


> If im honest I have not once seen an advert for AMD (besides laptops with Turions in them) on the TV or in newspapers, wheras Intel splash there logo + sound everywhere. Ask anyone who doesnt know anything about PC's and im sure they can hum the Intel sound thing
> 
> Excellent marketing on Intels part, and your point is so very true rhino.



thanks. people can argue that what intel did was wrong until they are blue in the face but it doesnt change the fact that amd runs a disorganized business, lacks a good marketing campaign and makes inferior chips (purposely at a lower price not saying it is a bad thing). even if intel decided against being awesome and offering rebates (which i do not think is wrong) amd would still be in a bad position.


----------



## mdm-adph (Jul 23, 2009)

tastegw said:


> latest news,  intel takes over europe and now agrees to pay the fine in full by next monday.
> 
> 
> but to be real, that is one heck of a fine,  i wonder where that number actually came from.



Intel's a huge, huge company with lots of money.  The fine has to fit the crime, and ability of the entity to repay the fine, or else the fine is not really a punishment at all.

At least in theory.



rpsgc said:


> You forgot Korea. But of course if it's the EU then they are just money-hungry socialist commies right? Right? Tools.



Didn't even know about Korea -- when was that?


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jul 23, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> No, the shit hit the fan when Intel made shady deals with people behind the scenes basically saying, "If you do business with AMD, even if they have a better price, we won't sell any chips to you, and you'll suffer because only we can supply the volume you need."
> 
> You know, as they've already been convicted twice of doing, once in Japan, and once in the EU.



I do not belive thats true. Its rebates for exclusivity. They never said we won't sell any chips to you. 

The agreement was Intel lowers its prices on chips sold to companies that will not use AMD processors in their machines. It was never: 





> "we won't sell any chips to you, and you'll suffer because only we can supply the volume you need."


----------



## mdm-adph (Jul 23, 2009)

DaedalusHelios said:


> I do not belive thats true. Its rebates for exclusivity. They never said we won't sell any chips to you.
> 
> The agreement was Intel lowers its prices on chips sold to companies that will not use AMD processors in their machines. It was never:



That's what _Intel_ said happened.  

The backroom threats that were made were apparently quite different, I'd think.


----------



## El Fiendo (Jul 23, 2009)

Ah yes, and you know these backroom threats because you're omniscient. We obviously forgot this. 

Lets all just stick to facts and what's known instead of applying mafioso exaggerations onto things to improve our own point.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jul 23, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> That's what _Intel_ said happened.
> 
> The backroom threats that were made were apparently quite different, I'd think.



The court case was about what I said in my post. I have no idea where the speculation came from. A company the size of Intel does not communicate threats. Trust me I have dealt with their reps before back when I worked for Time Warner. They take you out to dinner and they make offers. Its not threats. 

Exclusivity is what all companies shoot for. Its called gaining market share by being attractive to your customer's needs.


----------



## AltecV1 (Jul 23, 2009)

DaedalusHelios said:


> The court case was about what I said in my post. I have no idea where the speculation came from. A company the size of Intel does not communicate threats. Trust me I have dealt with their reps before back when I worked for Time Warner. They take you out to dinner and they make offers. Its not threats.
> 
> Exclusivity is what all companies shoot for. Its called gaining market share by being attractive to your customer's needs.



it might work in "THE GRATE AND POWERFULL USA" but in europe we call that a bribing and it is very bad


----------



## Frick (Jul 23, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> You know what's funny?  I have the utmost respect for Intel's designers, engineers, hell -- even their marketers.
> 
> I have nothing but scorn for their lawyers, upper management, and accountants.



That can be applied to pretty much every single company in the world.


----------



## mdm-adph (Jul 23, 2009)

DaedalusHelios said:


> The court case was about what I said in my post. I have no idea where the speculation came from. A company the size of Intel does not communicate threats. Trust me I have dealt with their reps before back when I worked for Time Warner. They take you out to dinner and they make offers. Its not threats.
> 
> Exclusivity is what all companies shoot for. Its called gaining market share by being attractive to your customer's needs.



It's called a monopoly.  And in the end the consumer loses, always.  

Come on -- it's not like the EU is calling for the breakup or expulsion on Intel. It's just a fine.

You want to do business in the EU, you gotta play by their rules.  I don't see Intel pulling out of the market, so to me that means they agree.



Frick said:


> That can be applied to pretty much every single company in the world.



Oh, I know.  I was just being nice.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jul 23, 2009)

AltecV1 said:


> it might work in "THE GRATE AND POWERFULL USA" but in europe we call that a bribing and it is very bad



Actually European markets don't have the same laws against bribery as the USA. Thats why US based defense contractors have trouble gaining marketshare over there. Because US based defense contractors still have to operate within US law they are limited to actions within our laws. I heard that from friend that works at Boeing.

Also Russia is in Europe which has the worst problems with bribery the whole world over. Please read more about the situation before posting.

PS. Taking people out to dinner to discuss business is not against the law in any country Intel operates in and that includes Europe so I am not sure what you are getting at.


----------



## AltecV1 (Jul 23, 2009)

russia is not in eu to your homework before you are trying to look smart


----------



## mdm-adph (Jul 23, 2009)

DaedalusHelios said:


> Actually European markets don't have the same laws against bribery as the USA. Thats why US based defense contractors have trouble gaining marketshare over there. Because US based defense contractors still have to operate within US law they are limited to actions within our laws. I heard that from friend that works at Boeing.
> 
> Also Russia is in Europe which has the worst problems with bribery the whole world over. Please read more about the situation before posting.
> 
> PS. Taking people out to dinner to discuss business is not against the law in any country Intel operates in and that includes Europe so I am not sure what you are getting at.



Yeah -- in the US you just get your former CEO elected to Vice-President, and then you get all the defense contracts you want, right?


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jul 23, 2009)

i would argue that the EU's legal action against Intel has actually hurt the consumer there. with all the added regulations the EU has on industry as a whole and the massive tax preventing Intel from charging low prices like they do in the US.


----------



## tastegw (Jul 23, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> Intel's a huge, huge company with lots of money.  The fine has to fit the crime, and ability of the entity to repay the fine, or else the fine is not really a punishment at all.
> 
> At least in theory.



i agree somewhat,  but lets say an ordinary man commits murder and gets caught,  he gets 25 to life,  then OJ or any other rich person does the same thing,  they get 25 weeks in court,  then walk.

but back to intel, what crime did they commit in europe?  last i checked, giving rebates was a good thing.

as for the comment about amd's advertisement being non existent,  i 110% agree with that,  I have never seen one of their ads other than on the internet. and ya,  i can hum that intel tune (5 tones)

with all of that said,  i like AMD more than i do Intel just because I pull for the underdog most of the time.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jul 23, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> Yeah -- in the US you just get your former CEO elected to Vice-President, and then you get all the defense contracts you want, right?



You are talking about Abrams or Halliburton. GW Bush at one time worked as a higher up in Abrams, and Cheney used work with Halliburton in various positions in the company. Not Boeing as it makes passenger aircraft and a whole lot more than just that.

Also you are talking about the republican political party leaders as they have deep connections to the military industrial complex. The US currently has Obama which has banking connections, not military connections. So its irrelevant as it has nothing to do with business practices regarding the European Union.

If you just want to poke the USA I think you need to make another thread as it has nothing to do with the EU case currently being reported on. But if it helps you cope with justifying the theft of billions from a companies coffers to have EU parlament have better vacations or money for local pork(free money for their connections) in a failing world economy, go for it. 

I think the EU is wasting time and coming up with things to try and make you not notice that they are not doing their job of making your economies recover. But you could always pretend that they are doing the right thing to comfort yourself.


----------



## Paintface (Jul 23, 2009)

shame that intel even with the one billion fine made about 9 billion profit cause of this criminal act, should punish them way way harder, and not just by means of fine.


----------



## ghost101 (Jul 23, 2009)

I think people will find that the ECC doesn't go solely after American companies but all companies which abuse their market power.

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/news_archive.html

Look through the news archive and you'll find that the 1bn euro fine isnt even the biggest handed out. Theres a €1.3 billion ruling and there are multiple fines above  €500mn.


----------



## Flyordie (Jul 23, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> No, the shit hit the fan when Intel made shady deals with people behind the scenes basically saying, "If you do business with AMD, even if they have a better price, we won't sell any chips to you, and you'll suffer because only we can supply the volume you need."
> 
> You know, as they've already been convicted twice of doing, once in Japan, and once in the EU.



In South Korea too.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 23, 2009)

I cannot belive I missed this thread for so long. Man If I didnt have such a crazy deadline to meet I would write a book on how ass backward the EU is on this Intel case. So just to sum things up quick. Capitalism for the win. Socialist for the lose. Now let me get back to work so I can make money for MY family and not YOURS.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 23, 2009)

Socialism has nothing to do with this. Japan and S. Korea have similar cases against Intel, another one is brewing up in New York, and the last thing you'd attribute with them is socialism.  

It's as legit an antitrust trust case as the 100s that may have been contested in American courts, only maintaining a lower profile, involving smaller companies.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 23, 2009)

btarunr said:


> Socialism has nothing to do with this. Japan and S. Korea have similar cases against Intel, another one is brewing up in New York, and the last thing you'd attribute with them is socialism.
> 
> It's as legit an antitrust trust case as the 100s that may have been contested in American courts, only maintaining a lower profile, involving smaller companies.



Apparently you have never been to New York.

Anyway nothing Intel did had to do with anti-trust laws of the U.S. The EU rewrites the rules as they go to suit their crooked ass needs. Intel is now an "easy" target because the EU found them "guilty" of whatever made up scenario they conjured up. So yeah since everyone is now broke you are going to see a LOT of lawsuits towards the guy with the deepest pockets. All in the name of "justice". After all we need to make sure everyone is "equal"


----------



## btarunr (Jul 23, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Apparently you have never been to New York.
> 
> Anyway nothing Intel did had to do with anti-trust laws of the U.S. The EU rewrites the rules as they go to suit their crooked ass needs. Intel is now an "easy" target because the EU found them "guilty" of whatever made up scenario they conjured up. So yeah since everyone is now broke you are going to see a LOT of lawsuits towards the guy with the deepest pockets. All in the name of "justice". After all we need to make sure everyone is "equal"



Apparently you don't seem to know that New York uses the same "anti-trust laws of the U.S", and the same laws are governing yet another antitrust lawsuit in the making. It's pretty simple, Intel stifled competition in EU, got penalised. The money EU makes isn't going to AMD, so it's not socialism, it's like any other penal code in the world.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 23, 2009)

btarunr said:


> Apparently you don't seem to know that New York uses the same "anti-trust laws of the U.S", and the same laws are governing yet another antitrust lawsuit in the making. It's pretty simple, Intel stifled competition in EU, got penalised. The money EU makes isn't going to AMD, so it's not socialism, it's like any other penal code in the world.



Remember when I talked about different cultures and such in that other thread? This is exactly what I was talking about. NY and California play by their own set of rules. So many cases have come out of those states having to do with civil liberties and such it would blow your mind. Seems like every damn case ends up in the Supreme court too. You know what happens then? The Supreme court tells them to bug off because NY and California interpretation of the law is all screwed up.

They are the most socialistic minded states in the union. So I'm not surprised NY is suing Intel for having to much money. I'm more surprised California isn't involved.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 24, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> So I'm not surprised NY is suing Intel for having to much money. I'm more surprised California isn't involved.



Uh they haven't sued anyone yet. The one investigating it is USFTC, which is a federal agency.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 24, 2009)

btarunr said:


> Uh they haven't sued anyone yet. The one investigating it is USFTC, which is a federal agency.



You said NY. 

Anyway the USFTC has to investigate now. I won't go into that. That will completely derail this thread.


----------



## hat (Jul 24, 2009)

Meh... I guess company A is anti-competative twoards company B because A makes better stuff than B.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 24, 2009)

hat said:


> Meh... I guess company A is anti-competative twoards company B because A makes better stuff than B.



No because company A sells more than company B so they must be doing something unfair.


----------



## Nick89 (Jul 24, 2009)

erocker said:


> Fight corrupt, greedy, and ignorant governments! Yay! If the fine does go through who do you think will pay for it? Intel's customers. Prices will go up. I would love to see Intel just pull out selling anything in the EU all together. They would probablly save money in the end by not selling to greedy, money hungry countries. It's sad the US is becoming one of them. At least India is getting it right.



I have to agree erocker, I think Microsoft should do the same thing.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 24, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> You said NY.
> 
> Anyway the USFTC has to investigate now. I won't go into that. That will completely derail this thread.



It involves the NY Attorney General's office, so if investigations reveal something funny, it will be taken up in NY. The investigating agency, however, is federal so they are not going to build a NY/CA-centric interpretation of your laws. Again, at the end of the day, it's going to be under the American law that Intel gets penalised, if it's found guilty. For an investigation of this kind to even proceed in US, only goes on to show that the case has nothing to do with "socialism" and only to do with pure law enforcement.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 24, 2009)

btarunr said:


> It involves the NY Attorney General's office, so if investigations reveal something funny, it will be taken up in NY. The investigating agency, however, is federal so they are not going to build a NY/CA-centric interpretation of your laws. Again, at the end of the day, it's going to be under the American law that Intel gets penalised, if it's found guilty. For an investigation of this kind to even proceed in US, only goes on to show that the case has nothing to do with "socialism" and only to do with pure law enforcement.



It will be NY Attorney General's office interpretation of the law that will go to the USFTC. With the anti-business mentality that the current administration has it won't surprise me if they drum up some charges. How much do you want to bet this ends up in the Supreme court?


----------



## Nick89 (Jul 24, 2009)

AltecV1 said:


> i hate when fanboys start a war:shadedshu  European Union is only doing its job to protect consumers and other companies from monopolic companies like intel!!



EU Just needs money so they are fining intel. Where do you think that 1.45 bilion is going to go?

said by an AMD fanboi lol.


----------



## a_ump (Jul 24, 2009)

idk all the fact or "leaked facts", but IIRC, wasn't EU's fine against when intel was still using P4 and PD, which at that time AMD had superior CPU's so the statements of "intel didn't keep AMD from making better processors" and the such are pointless. I mean, why would P4's outsell AMD systems so greatly back then? marketing is one thing, but it's not like Dell and HP look at marketing. They knew AMD was there and had better performance yet....i can't recal seeing a single AMD system in Dell's ads in magazines, tv, etc. 3 convictions in 3 different countries/unions yea i think intel was guilty. Personally i agree with what a few have said, this appeal is pointless and the only reason i could see intel doing this is because.....?they want to look innocent to the fullest? idk i mean if us TPU members can pretty well agree its pointless what's intels purpose in filing an appeal?

on another note, does anyone know why AMD's marketing is non-existant? Like said, publically, intel is known just bout everywhere and is everywhere. AMD however is the opposite. I don't see anythign wrong with AMD taking over ATI, i mean they're doing fine now and who knows what K11 will do? Nehalem really isn't that much of an increase of core2 architecture and AMD finally caught up with that. maybe their next architecture will match nehalem, if they had enough money to come up with Phenom II's architecture, surely the revenue which has been superior this past year and still growing can pay for more work on a greater CPU architecture. I see now reason now for ATI to fail as they're on par with Nvidia imo(not necessarily performance wise but how well off they are, i believe they're equal).


----------



## erocker (Jul 24, 2009)

As far as AMD marketing goes, I really don't think they have ever had the budget. Large television campaigns cost a ton of money. Currently Intel has a market cap of 108.8 Billion and AMD is 2.4 Billion. There would need to be 45 AMD's to reach Intel.


----------



## a_ump (Jul 24, 2009)

dammmm, i didn't thk intel was that much larger than AMD, i mean i knew there was good difference but i was thking like 8:1, not 50:1. still a few ads in even magazines couldn't cost that much could it?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 24, 2009)

a_ump said:


> idk all the fact or "leaked facts", but IIRC, wasn't EU's fine against when intel was still using P4 and PD, which at that time AMD had superior CPU's so the statements of "intel didn't keep AMD from making better processors" and the such are pointless. I mean, why would P4's outsell AMD systems so greatly back then? marketing is one thing, but it's not like Dell and HP look at marketing. They knew AMD was there and had better performance yet....i can't recal seeing a single AMD system in Dell's ads in magazines, tv, etc. 3 convictions in 3 different countries/unions yea i think intel was guilty.


 It isnt just about the quality of the product. Its about the demand and meeting it. The orders that HP and Dell had at that time were far greater than AMD could provide for. Having a late shipment can cost you more than you took for your margin of profit. One day late can cost you all profit from that shipment. Two days cost you what it took to make the product. Three days you owe THEM money. So on and so on. 

Also never EVER underestimate the power of marketing. What do you think presidential campaigns are won with?


----------



## a_ump (Jul 24, 2009)

bullshit of course


----------



## btarunr (Jul 24, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> It will be NY Attorney General's office interpretation of the law that will go to the USFTC. With the anti-business mentality that the current administration has it won't surprise me if they drum up some charges. How much do you want to bet this ends up in the Supreme court?



Even if it doesn't, even if Intel gets acquitted, it becomes evident that your law doesn't permit what Intel has been found guilty of doing in EU, Japan, and Korea, either.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 24, 2009)

erocker said:


> As far as AMD marketing goes, I really don't think they have ever had the budget. Large television campaigns cost a ton of money. Currently Intel has a market cap of 108.8 Billion and AMD is 2.4 Billion. There would need to be 45 AMD's to reach Intel.


According to Fortune 500 2009 list...
Intel is at 61: 37.586 billion in revenue.
AMD is at 481: 5.881 billion in revenue.

Intel made 6.39 times more than AMD in 2008.

Market capitalization represents the public's opinion of a businesses' net worth.  Said differently...

Intel makes 6.39 times as much as AMD.  Investors are 45.33 times more confident in Intel than AMD.


Advertising is an investment AMD refuses to make.  Every dollar spent in advertising should more than come back in improved sales.  AMD has their head stuck in this concept of "the product sells itself."  Simply put, that concept has never created a market segment leader.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Jul 24, 2009)

$ReaPeR$ said:


> i agree but nevertheless they need to be checked by us



By us the ignorant?


----------



## Wile E (Jul 24, 2009)

Well, all I can say is, I hope the ruling gets overturned. It should not be illegal to offer discounts for exclusivity.

That said, I know I'm just hoping against hope.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 24, 2009)

btarunr said:


> Even if it doesn't, even if Intel gets acquitted, it becomes evident that your law doesn't permit what Intel has been found guilty of doing in EU, Japan, and Korea, either.


 If they are acquitted that means they are Innocent. In the U.S. you are Innocent until proven guilty.

Think of the world market as a pack of starving sharks swimming. Intel is a pretty big shark and it ain't starving. However another big starving shark E.U. just bit it. Now there's blood in the water. What do you think all the other sharks are going to do? Its a feeding frenzy on Intel's ass.......ets. Now what I'm saying is Intel didn't deserve to be bit. However its to late now. There's blood in the water and everyone wants a bite whether the deserve it or not.


----------



## tkpenalty (Jul 24, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> thanks. people can argue that what intel did was wrong until they are blue in the face but it doesnt change the fact that amd runs a disorganized business, lacks a good marketing campaign and makes inferior chips (purposely at a lower price not saying it is a bad thing). even if intel decided against being awesome and offering rebates (which i do not think is wrong) amd would still be in a bad position.



When rebates are offered to a secondary producer and not the consumer instead then this is not really a rebate, but a bribe. These exclusivity deals basically prevent most of what AMD produces from ever reaching the consumer, and it means that they have less of a consumer base accessible. That isnt fair because that means that where the competition happens, AMD does not get much exposure versus intel, and thanks to humans being animals that flock, we generally use whats popular.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 24, 2009)

tkpenalty said:


> When rebates are offered to a secondary producer and not the consumer instead then this is not really a rebate, but a bribe.



Bullshit. Who said a company has to pass rebates on to the consumers? It's their choice to do so.


----------



## tkpenalty (Jul 24, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Bullshit. Who said a company has to pass rebates on to the consumers? It's their choice to do so.



Read above post. A secondary producer is a producer such as AMD, while the tertiary companies are the companies such as ACER. AMD CANNOT make profits at all if they have no market to sell their products because intel, bribed them not to sell anything AMD, and the market exists at the tertiary companies. That is entirely unfair, because of LESS MARKET EXPOSURE. In some nations AMD had no exposure at all. 

Please do not see rebates as a rebate that you get back from newegg, but see them as a transfer of funds; a sum of money.


----------



## HammerON (Jul 24, 2009)

Nick89 said:


> EU Just needs money so they are fining intel. Where do you think that 1.45 bilion is going to go?
> 
> said by an AMD fanboi lol.



I would be curious as to where that 1.45 billion will go. Anyone know?


----------



## DareD (Jul 24, 2009)

"Antitrust: Commission imposes fine of €1.06 bn on Intel for abuse of dominant position; orders Intel to cease illegal practices

The European Commission has imposed a fine of €1 060 000 000 on Intel Corporation for violating EC Treaty antitrust rules on the abuse of a dominant market position (Article 82) by engaging in illegal anticompetitive practices to exclude competitors from the market for computer chips called x86 central processing units (CPUs). The Commission has also ordered Intel to cease the illegal practices immediately to the extent that they are still ongoing. Throughout the period October 2002-December 2007, Intel had a dominant position in the worldwide x86 CPU market (at least 70% market share). The Commission found that Intel engaged in two specific forms of illegal practice. First, Intel gave wholly or partially hidden rebates to computer manufacturers on condition that they bought all, or almost all, their x86 CPUs from Intel. Intel also made direct payments to a major retailer on condition it stock only computers with Intel x86 CPUs. Such rebates and payments effectively prevented customers - and ultimately consumers - from choosing alternative products. Second, Intel made direct payments to computer manufacturers to halt or delay the launch of specific products containing competitors’ x86 CPUs and to limit the sales channels available to these products. The Commission found that these practices constituted abuses of Intel’s dominant position on the x86 CPU market that harmed consumers throughout the EEA. By undermining its competitors’ ability to compete on the merits of their products, Intel’s actions undermined competition and innovation. The Commission will actively monitor Intel’s compliance with this decision. The world market for x86 CPUs is currently worth approximately €22 billion (US$ 30 billion) per year, with Europe accounting for approximately 30% of that.

Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes said: "Intel has harmed millions of European consumers by deliberately acting to keep competitors out of the market for computer chips for many years. Such a serious and sustained violation of the EU's antitrust rules cannot be tolerated".

The computer manufacturers concerned by Intel's conduct in the Commission’s decision are: Acer, Dell, HP, Lenovo and NEC. The retailer concerned is Media Saturn Holding, owner of the MediaMarkt chain

Conditional rebates and payments

Intel awarded major computer manufacturers rebates on condition that they purchased all or almost all of their supplies, at least in certain defined segments, from Intel:

    *      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.

Furthermore, I*ntel made payments to major retailer Media Saturn Holding from October 2002 to December 2007 on condition that it exclusively sold Intel-based PCs in all countries in which Media Saturn Holding is active.

Certain rebates can lead to lower prices for consumers. However, where a company is in a dominant position on a market, rebates that are conditional on buying less of a rival's products, or not buying them at all, are abusive according to settled case-law of the Community Courts unless the dominant company can put forward specific reasons to justify their application in the individual case.

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.

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.

*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.*

As a result of Intel's rebates, the ability of rival manufacturers to compete and innovate was impaired, and this led to reduced choice for consumers.

Rebates such as those applied by Intel are recognised in many jurisdictions around the world as anti-competitive and unlawful because the effect in practice is to deny consumers a choice of products.

Payments to prevent sales of specific rival products

Intel also interfered directly in the relations between computer manufacturers and AMD. Intel awarded computer manufacturers payments - unrelated to any particular purchases from Intel - on condition that these computer manufacturers postponed or cancelled the launch of specific AMD-based products and/or put restrictions on the distribution of specific AMD-based products. The Commission found that these payments had the potential effect of preventing products for which there was a consumer demand from coming to the market. The Commission found the following specific cases:

    *      For the 5% of computer manufacturer B’s business that was not subject to the conditional rebate outlined above, Intel made further payments to computer manufacturer B provided that this manufacturer :

    *      sold AMD-based business desktops only to small and medium enterprises
    *      sold AMD-based business desktops only via direct distribution channels (as opposed to through distributors) and
    *      postponed the launch of its first AMD-based business desktop in Europe by 6 months.

    *      Intel made payments to computer manufacturer E provided that this manufacturer postponed the launch of an AMD-based notebook from September 2003 to January 2004.
    *      Before the conditional rebate to computer manufacturer D outlined above, Intel made payments to this manufacturer provided that it postponed the launch of AMD-based notebooks from September 2006 to the end of 2006.

The Commission obtained proof of the existence of many of the conditions found to be illegal in the antitrust decision even though they were not made explicit in Intel’s contracts. Such proof is based on a broad range of contemporaneous evidence such as e-mails obtained inter alia from unannounced on-site inspections, in responses to formal requests for information and in a number of formal statements made to the Commission by the other companies concerned. In addition, there is evidence that Intel had sought to conceal the conditions associated with its payments.

x86 CPUs are the main hardware component of a computer. The decision contains a broad range of contemporaneous evidence that shows that AMD, essentially Intel's only competitor in the market, was generally perceived, by computer manufacturers and by Intel itself, to have improved its product range, to be a viable competitor, and to be a growing competitive threat. The decision finds that Intel's practices did not constitute competition on the merits of the respective Intel and AMD products, but rather were part of a strategy designed to exploit Intel's existing entrenched position in the market.

Intel’s worldwide turnover in 2007 was €27 972 million (US$ 38 834 million). The fine in this case takes account of the duration and gravity of the infringement. In accordance with the Commission's 2006 Guidelines on Fines (see IP/06/857 and MEMO/06/256 ) the fine has been calculated on the basis of the value of Intel's x86 CPU sales in the European Economic Area (EEA). The duration of the infringement established in the decision is five years and three months.

The Commission’s investigation followed complaints from AMD in 2000, 2003 and 2006 (the last having been sent to the German competition authority and subsequently examined by the European Commission). The Commission's decision follows a Statement of Objections sent in July 2007 (see MEMO/07/314 ), a Supplementary Statement of Objections sent in July 2008 (see MEMO/08/517 ) and a letter sent to Intel in December 2008 setting out additional factual elements relevant to the final decision. Intel's rights of defence have been fully respected in this case."

LINK!



HammerON said:


> I would be curious as to where that 1.45 billion will go. Anyone know?



It's not really hard to find out!

"*Where does the money go?*

Once final judgment has been delivered in any appeals before the Court of First Instance (CFI) and the Court of Justice, the money goes into the EU’s central budget, thus reducing the contributions that Member States pay to the EU."


----------



## HammerON (Jul 24, 2009)

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

And it states the money will go to:
Where does the money go?

Once final judgment has been delivered in any appeals before the Court of First Instance (CFI) and the Court of Justice, the money goes into the EU’s central budget, thus reducing the contributions that Member States pay to the EU. 

Very strange 

sorry DareD didn't catch your post before I replied~


----------



## HalfAHertz (Jul 24, 2009)

From what I've read so far in this thread, I get the impression that the fine they recieved is actually too small and insignificant for the damage they've caused on AMD's public image and sales for a period of around 3 years! Two companies that make bilions yearly and the fine is less than 10% of that. Dunno if I'm correct, but isn't it that when you break the law and proffit illegaly, all the funds that you made in that period should be taken away? Now I'm not saying that the EU or anyone else should fine Intel for 15 bilion or something. I would in no way wish for intel to be forced into bancruptcy, but they should at least be penalized for a longer period of time, like for example limit the ammount of their sales for a similar period of time or something, the same way AMD was forced to.


----------



## mtosev (Jul 24, 2009)

I think that there are 2 different systems of doing buissness. The US and EU. what's accepted in the US is not in the EU.
And that Intel is just in the crossfire.


----------



## vega22 (Jul 24, 2009)

i love the way most americans were slating intle for this last year and now it seems they are getting all patriotic over that fact that they will have to pay somthing for the crimes they (intel) committed to another government.

i said back then the fine was too small and still think that today, i hope the appeal board ptsl and double it. are you going to tell me that they cant pay 25% of their profits without needing to harm the end user? let alone the 12.5% of their profit that the $1b fine is, this is how much profit they made during the biggest global economic downturn in a century.

fuck em, let them pull out of europe, its cheaper for us to buy from the states and impoprt it anyway ffs.

@halfahertz
yea, if i was selling crack and made $8billion a year they would take it all not just a measly 12.5% but they wont do that to intel.


----------



## HalfAHertz (Jul 24, 2009)

marsey99 said:


> i love the way most americans were slating intle for this last year and now it seems they are getting all patriotic over that fact that they will have to pay somthing for the crimes they (intel) committed to another government.
> 
> i said back then the fine was too small and still think that today, i hope the appeal board ptsl and double it. are you going to tell me that they cant pay 25% of their profits without needing to harm the end user? let alone the 12.5% of their profit that the $1b fine is, this is how much profit they made during the biggest global economic downturn in a century.
> 
> fuck em, let them pull out of europe, its cheaper for us to buy from the states and impoprt it anyway ffs.



That would be even worse and completely unnacceptable! As an EU citizen I demand to have the right of choice I was promised to! I want to be able to choose from at least two products with similar prices and abilities! And it's up to the goverment( every goverment in the world for that matter) to protect the rights of its citizens!

If I cannot buy an AMD product because of intel Intel should be pennalized. The same goes for AMD or anyone else that would prohibit the sales of Intel products or any product for that matter...

Edit:
And please don't think of the EU as a single goverment. It's combination of all of the 27 member states. We the citizens ellect the commisioners and the parlament yes, but I don't understand how some people state that they hate the EU...How can you hate an organization represented by the individuals of every nation? Stating that you hate the EU is pretty much the same as stating that you hate each nattionality in that union. all have aggreed to the same criterias, etc. but each nationality has kept its cultural differences and uniqueness. For example you cannot tell me that the scandinavian people are the same as the mediteranians because they are just not... How can you hate all these nationalities without first having to know them and having the chance to understand their point of view? 

In my understanding, that's pretty much like stating that you support gennocide...they are different, not like us - so they must be worse than us, they don't deserve to have rights, they are nothing don't deserve anything.

Why, just why?

It's not that anyone stated they hate the EU but there is alot of negativity towards it and I don't think that the EU deserves it


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 24, 2009)

HalfAHertz said:


> That would be even worse and completely unnacceptable! As an EU citizen I demand to have the right of choice I was promised to! I want to be able to choose from at least two products with similar prices and abilities! And it's up to the goverment( every goverment in the world for that matter) to protect the rights of its citizens!
> 
> If I cannot buy an AMD product because of intel Intel should be pennalized. The same goes for AMD or anyone else that would prohibit the sales of Intel products or any product for that matter...
> 
> ...


 Getting a little dramatic are we? Genocide? Really? The fine is going to the EU's "budget". This is nothing more than a payday and has nothing to do with justice.


----------



## HalfAHertz (Jul 24, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Getting a little dramatic are we? Genocide? Really? The fine is going to the EU's "budget". This is nothing more than a payday and has nothing to do with justice.



Just stating my point of view. I think the fine is justified and that the EU is not the big bad evil Socialist(read communist) goverment, and is in fact just doing what's necessary to protect the right of its citizens.

The genocide part was a bit over the top I admit, but at least gets the message through


----------



## Sugarush (Jul 24, 2009)

So here we go again: Intel/US/Capitalism fanboys bitching about the greedy/socialist EU, which just made up the accusations against Intel to get some cash. 

Never mind that Intel was found guilty of the same things in Japan and South Korea, another two greedy and socialist strongholds 

Basically only the US laws are to be considered, even if you do business somewhere else in the world. Yeah! Screw them funny foreign laws, them dodgy anyways!


----------



## Frederik S (Jul 24, 2009)

This is a borderline funny thread. Keep it up!
I do not see the problem here rebates like that happen all the time. Whether you are buying grain, salt, or CPUs. The more business you move to one source the better prices you get. Only thing Intel is guilty of is being less than good at covering it up. 

Socialism is fun here in Denmark people with the lowest income pay 45% in tax and the ones who actually cared and got an education, hence making real money get fined whoop-di-dooh with a tax level of 65%. Now that is socialism


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 24, 2009)

HalfAHertz said:


> I think the fine is justified and that the EU is not the big bad evil Socialist(read communist) goverment, and is in fact just doing what's necessary to protect the right of its citizens.


 So by fining/stealing from foreign companies and lining bureaucrats pockets is the way the EU is protecting its citizens? Wow what a concept.


----------



## Frederik S (Jul 24, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> So by fining/stealing from foreign companies and lining bureaucrats pockets is the way the EU is protecting its citizens? Wow what a concept.



Yeah it rocks or not. But do not be surprised the EU is extremely odd and very bureaucratic take for instance the parlament which gets moved back and forth between Bruxelles and Strasbourg 12 times a year because they cannot agree on who "has the most right" to house it  

They are idiots, pure and simple.


----------



## 3870x2 (Jul 24, 2009)

erocker said:


> Fight corrupt, greedy, and ignorant governments! Yay! If the fine does go through who do you think will pay for it? Intel's customers. Prices will go up. I would love to see Intel just pull out selling anything in the EU all together. They would probablly save money in the end by not selling to greedy, money hungry countries. It's sad the US is becoming one of them. At least India is getting it right.



I entirely agree with that, pull out of europe entirely, punish europe for their money hungry ways.  Always trying to attack american companies...


----------



## mdm-adph (Jul 24, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> If they are acquitted that means they are Innocent. In the U.S. you are Innocent until proven guilty.



On Klingon, you are guilty until proven innocent.  Intel should count their blessings that their trial wasn't held in the court of General Chang!


----------



## El Fiendo (Jul 24, 2009)

Refraining from correcting a Star Trek reference.

I like how earlier in the thread one member wishes the EU to limit how much Intel is allowed to sell. And in the very next post demands he be allowed free choice.



To elaborate in case you don't see the issue:
What happens when Intel reaches that limit? You're forced to buy AMD or you wait until the limit resets itself? Do they do a yearly limit? Perhaps a 5 year limit. If Intel hits that limit in the 1st year of the 5 year period, well then I guess SOL for you. So much for free choice.

Governments should most definitely NOT be allowed to 'limit sales' to control the economy. Fine them as they may for whatever reason they choose or figure they can justify.

If people really don't like Intel? Don't buy them. Go AMD for all that it matters. It (should be) your word that controls a product. I rarely go to a store and purchase whatever they have. If I want a Toshiba TV I'm not walking out with a 'Cloneshiba' because I was told that was all that was available.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 24, 2009)

El Fiendo said:


> Refraining from correcting a Star Trek reference.
> 
> I like how earlier in the thread one member wishes the EU to limit how much Intel is allowed to sell. And in the very next post demands he be allowed free choice.
> 
> ...



Damn you and your free thought.


----------



## El Fiendo (Jul 24, 2009)

I freely think that I should be damned as well.


----------



## tastegw (Jul 24, 2009)

> If I want a Toshiba TV I'm not walking out with a 'Cloneshiba' because I was told that was all that was available.



could not have said it better myself.

if i really want a big mac,  why on earth would i go to burger king?
but i dont want the big mac nor the whopper, so i think i will go to taco bell


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 24, 2009)

tastegw said:


> could not have said it better myself.
> 
> if i really want a big mac,  why on earth would i go to burger king?


 Because the Whopper pawns the Big Mac.


----------



## mdm-adph (Jul 24, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Because the Whopper pawns the Big Mac.



Or you own Burger King stock.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 24, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> Or you own Burger King stock.



Mmmmmm Burger King.


----------



## Meecrob (Jul 24, 2009)

way i see it, this is karma for all the crap intels pulled over the years, hope it bites them good and they learn a lesson


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 24, 2009)

Meecrob said:


> way i see it, this is karma for all the crap intels pulled over the years, hope it bites them good and they learn a lesson



I agree. If it wasn't for Intel we would all be living in cloud castles and have rainbow slides to our unicorn stables. Damn those murderous bastards.


----------



## El Fiendo (Jul 24, 2009)

Wait, so Intel is No Heart, Shreeky and Beastly? And AMD is the Carebears?






 VS.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 24, 2009)

El Fiendo said:


> Wait, so Intel is No Heart, Shreeky and Beastly? And AMD is the Carebears?



Ether you have kids or your F*%ked up level just went up two notches.


----------



## a_ump (Jul 24, 2009)

i work at Burger King so yep the whopper pawns the Big Mac , i mean we actually put on onion rings not shredded onions, everyone likes more crunch in a burger 



Frederik S said:


> This is a borderline funny thread. Keep it up!
> I do not see the problem here rebates like that happen all the time. Whether you are buying grain, salt, or CPUs. The more business you move to one source the better prices you get. Only thing Intel is guilty of is being less than good at covering it up.



eh the only problem is that intel didn't just say hey buy more of our CPU's and we'll cut what your actually paying per CPU by blah% amount. They said "buy only or mostly from us and *not AMD*, then you get the rebate, don't abide by that and the price you pay for our product will skyrocket."  I see where Intel went wrong on this, but then i think aren't the companies just as much at fault as intel for accepting these proposals? but if what some people posted that AMD would not be able to keep up with the demand if the companies had denied intel's proposal. so Intel somewhat blackmailed the companies knowing only they could keep up with the demand 100% so the companies couldn't have said no. But idk for fact and haven't seen any factual info to back up the statement "AMD wouldn't have been able to keep up with demand", if true intel is foresure the only wrong do-er, but if that statement isn't true then i feel the companies are just as much at wrong as intel. 

the fine?  what a joke, and wasn't like 60% of the fine supposed to go to AMD? that's what i thought i'd heard in the previous thread about this trial. I also think the fine should have been not just 1billion but more like 1billion every year for 3-5 years, just as many years as intel broke the EU's law.


----------



## Meecrob (Jul 24, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I agree. If it wasn't for Intel we would all be living in cloud castles and have rainbow slides to our unicorn stables. Damn those murderous bastards.



no, but if they didnt use dirty business practices to stay ahead the market would be in better shape, sorry but im not one of you people who belive that business should be allowed to do anything and everything it wants to make a profit and stay ahead, guess that means im not a true capitalist.

ps, i hate the carebears.....


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 24, 2009)

Meecrob said:


> no, but if they didnt use dirty business practices to stay ahead the market would be in better shape, sorry but im not one of you people who belive that business should be allowed to do anything and everything it wants to make a profit and stay ahead, guess that means im not a true capitalist.
> 
> ps, i hate the carebears.....



No it just means your naive about how companies make money. Also the EU and how THEY make money.


----------



## Meecrob (Jul 24, 2009)

hey, if we follow people like you's ideals companies should be able to hire assassins to go around killing the competition and anybody who could possibly cause them to loose/not make as much money.

sounds like fun, give me that job, walk around clubing people like they are baby seals....sounds acceptable since it would be for the all mighty goal of true and total capitalism!!! 

P.S. I am quite well versed in how companies make money, the fact is not all of them threaten and bully their way to the top, some just provide the better product at the better price and let the market decide, others like apple with the ipod do an AMAZING job marketing their goods(the ipods mediocre at best quality wise, but its got killer marketing and name recognition behind it)


----------



## a_ump (Jul 24, 2009)

Meecrob said:


> apple with the ipod do an AMAZING job marketing their goods(the ipods mediocre at best quality wise, but its got killer marketing and name recognition behind it)



very very true, if apple can go around marketing like they do the ipod and be this successful with it then surely intel could have done the same by just marketing and still being ahead esp with AMD's lack of advertisement. AMD had better processors until core2 time(Q2 2006 i thk?). 2002-Q1 2006 amd should have lead the market but we now understand why, because intel blocked AMD out. I myself didn't have a clue amd was better than intel for that many years simply because i'd only seen intel CPU's, i mean shit like said previously the general public know of intel but not AMD. However i think AMD is definitely making a comback from their previous financial position the past 2-3 years with ATI doing very well as well as Phenom II showing great performance/dollar which i hope continues with their next architecture release.


----------



## El Fiendo (Jul 24, 2009)

Yes, offering rebates and knocking out knee caps are one in the same. That's what he was advocating.

Look, why aren't people getting huffy with the computer retailers? Intel didn't force them to choose to exclusively carry Intel. They gave them rebates. Price incentives. If you only put our processors in your computer, the entire shipment will cost less. Maybe its shady, but then again the businesses themselves seemed to go with it.

So why aren't the store owners involved getting fined? They stifled the competition just as much by accepting to pay less. They stood to gain just as much. If it costs them less and they don't pass on the savings, they're pocketing your money that you still agreed to pay for the item. But Intel is the only one getting fined? 

Why don't they fine Coca Cola and Pepsi? Everywhere in Canada (maybe not the States, dunno) has basically one of the two brands per restaurant. The restaurant agreed to only sell Coke or Pepsi products, but not both. The competition is being stifled, why isn't this an issue?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 24, 2009)

Meecrob said:


> hey, if we follow people like you's ideals companies should be able to hire assassins to go around killing the competition and anybody who could possibly cause them to loose/not make as much money.
> 
> sounds like fun, give me that job, walk around clubing people like they are baby seals....sounds acceptable since it would be for the all mighty goal of true and total capitalism!!!
> 
> P.S. I am quite well versed in how companies make money, the fact is not all of them threaten and bully their way to the top, some just provide the better product at the better price and let the market decide, others like apple with the ipod do an AMAZING job marketing their goods(the ipods mediocre at best quality wise, but its got killer marketing and name recognition behind it)



Another drama queen I see.

If Apple got to where they are via only marketing why couldn't Intel? At the time Intel was accused of doing anti-competitive practices "Pentium" was a house hold name. Even today few people have any idea who AMD is and what they offer. I think you managed to prove my point while you made your argument. 

Why would Dell or HP push an "unproven" product when Intel already did all the marketing? Not only could AMD not meet the demand at the time but Intels foot hold on the industry was in the mind of the people. Intel may not have had the product but by far they had the brains.

Anyway all this is besides the point. If this was about justice the money would go to AMD. But its not. Its going to buy more yachts in the EU.


----------



## Sugarush (Jul 24, 2009)

El Fiendo said:


> Intel didn't force them to choose to exclusively carry Intel.



Ahmm, that exactly what Intel did, please read the official accusations.

Arguing that the retailers are equally responsible, because they'd accepted this practice, is like saying it's your fault if somebody pushes you off the road and you don't try to crash your car into them (and total it) to stay on it.

And please everybody refrain from arguments like: "It's OK to to do this kind of stuff, this is free market etc. and yay capitalism is great" - grow up!

Forcing retailers to buy your product only is not "free", the free market is not wild west free, but is supposed to have fair rules, otherwise it is not efficient but becomes abusive and the consumers suffer.


----------



## Meecrob (Jul 24, 2009)

hp infact has had amd systems as far back as the k5, so did other large OEM's but those disappeared due to intel threats of higher prices or to totally cut off supplies due to a "shortage" that would magically happen if said companies either used non-intel or pushed non-intel systems to hard.

they have been convicted of this in japan and other non-EU counties, its not just the EU picking on people in this case(yes they do-do that but i agree with at least part of their complaints and this is one) 

when you threaten in order to get your way, you are being a bully and also IMHO quite un-ethical.

if they simply said they would give a bigger discount if you refrained from using the competitors product that wouldn't be a big deal to me, but thats NOT WHAT INTEL DID, and intel KNEW this could happen, they made enough that if they do pay the fine, its a drop in the bucket compared to what they made by doing this shit for many many years.

intel knew this could/probably would happen, but also knew it wouldn't even touch the money they made by doing it so they win either way.


----------



## a_ump (Jul 24, 2009)

many have mentioned that AMD didn't have the resources to supply every manufacturer with the demand that would've taken place if companies had denied intel>intel raised prices>companies buy much less intel CPU's>AMD gets large demand>AMD can't cope>companies have to purchase and go along with intel's "proposals". that is my understanding. could be wrong


----------



## Wile E (Jul 25, 2009)

tkpenalty said:


> Read above post. A secondary producer is a producer such as AMD, while the tertiary companies are the companies such as ACER. AMD CANNOT make profits at all if they have no market to sell their products because intel, bribed them not to sell anything AMD, and the market exists at the tertiary companies. That is entirely unfair, because of LESS MARKET EXPOSURE. In some nations AMD had no exposure at all.
> 
> Please do not see rebates as a rebate that you get back from newegg, but see them as a transfer of funds; a sum of money.


No, Intel did not bribe them as far as I am concerned. They offered them discounts. The lack of market exporsure for AMD is AMD's marketing dept's problem.



Meecrob said:


> hp infact has had amd systems as far back as the k5, so did other large OEM's but those disappeared due to intel threats of higher prices or to totally cut off supplies due to a "shortage" that would magically happen if said companies either used non-intel or pushed non-intel systems to hard.
> 
> they have been convicted of this in japan and other non-EU counties, its not just the EU picking on people in this case(yes they do-do that but i agree with at least part of their complaints and this is one)
> 
> ...


Intel never threatened the supply, only the price.

Either way, I still think the fine is bureaucratic BS. It's nothing more than a way for govts to make money on a successful business. Same with the Japan and S. Korea cases. I still hope Intel wins the appeal.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 25, 2009)

Wile E said:


> No, Intel did not bribe them as far as I am concerned. They offered them discounts. The lack of market exporsure for AMD is AMD's marketing dept's problem.



They were actively bribed to not source raw-material from AMD (CPUs), and to delay launches of products based on AMD, so it doesn't get adequate market exposure. 

And "uh..AMD should have done something similar" in general is a lame argument. You don't fight a crime with another crime. It becomes mafia, not business.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Jul 25, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Another drama queen I see.
> 
> If Apple got to where they are via only marketing why couldn't Intel? At the time Intel was accused of doing anti-competitive practices "Pentium" was a house hold name. Even today few people have any idea who AMD is and what they offer. I think you managed to prove my point while you made your argument.
> 
> ...



There are some ppl who think AMD is an inferior rip of


----------



## btarunr (Jul 25, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> If they are acquitted that means they are Innocent. In the U.S. you are Innocent until proven guilty.



Like I said, if American laws didn't prohibit the practice Intel has been penalised of in the EU, the investigation would not have commenced in the first place. The company will face a trial only once the investigations are complete. The fact that an investigation by a federal agency such as USFTC was launched into this, shows that your law disallows Intel's practices too, regardless of what happens in the courtroom or what's its outcome. In the US, nobody knows better than USFTC about what's legal and what's not when it comes to businesses. So again, Intel being charged under your law, or slipping/buying its way out of the case, becomes immaterial.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 25, 2009)

btarunr said:


> They were actively bribed to not source raw-material from AMD (CPUs), and to delay launches of products based on AMD, so it doesn't get adequate market exposure.
> 
> And "uh..AMD should have done something similar" in general is a lame argument. You don't fight a crime with another crime. It becomes mafia, not business.



No, AMD's lack of market share has nothing to do with these "bribery" cases. It has to do with their total lack of marketing since, umm, I don't know, EVER.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 25, 2009)

Wile E said:


> No, AMD's lack of market share has nothing to do with these "bribery" cases. It has to do with their total lack of marketing since, umm, I don't know, EVER.



When you are pretty much capped at 20% market share, and a global customer base, it becomes all the more impossible to carry out marketing. The marketing becomes futile when the larger player steps up his marketing beyond the point of you being able to counter it, even more so when the larger player abuses his position by buying off major OEMs' product-design divisions, distributors, etc.

Step one towards marketing in AMD's case is to get rid of that illegal market share cap Intel forced. If it can't do it being a company 1/10 the size of its competitor, it will seek the help of an entity 1000x the size of Intel to do the work, since that larger entity ends up getting a healthier market at the end.

And yes, the bribery cases do have a role to play against AMD, otherwise they wouldn't be part of the investigations in the first place. European companies were bribed to avoid/postpone AMD product launches.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 25, 2009)

btarunr said:


> When you are pretty much capped at 20% market share, and a global customer base, it becomes all the more impossible to carry out marketing. The marketing becomes futile when the larger player steps up his marketing beyond the point of you being able to counter it, even more so when the larger player abuses his position by buying off major OEMs' product-design divisions, distributors, etc.
> 
> Step one towards marketing in AMD's case is to get rid of that illegal market share cap Intel forced. If it can't do it being a company 1/10 the size of its competitor, it will seek the help of an entity 1000x the size of Intel to do the work, since that larger entity ends up getting a healthier market at the end.
> 
> And yes, the bribery cases do have a role to play against AMD, otherwise they wouldn't be part of the investigations in the first place. European companies were bribed to avoid/postpone AMD product launches.



I understand being small limits the amount of possible marketing, but it does not eliminate it altogether. AMD has practically no ads, or anything of that nature. That's nobody's fault but their own.

Sorry, but I still don't buy into it. The fine should be overturned.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 25, 2009)

Can Cuba invade US? No? Then AMD's ad campaign would be futile, any number of ads it can afford. Intel forces its OEM partners that benefit from its dubious schemes to play the Intel jingle after every PC/notebook ad, Intel has its own ad campaign + uses the typically 95% of any given OEM's product lineup that uses Intel processors to its marketing credit (more products = more brochures and product lists carrying "Intel")

Sorry, but I don't buy into it. Every country with decent trade laws, a half-decent conscience, and the ability to enforce its laws, should similarly fine Intel.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 25, 2009)

btarunr said:


> Can Cuba invade US? No? Then AMD's ad campaign would be futile, any number of ads it can afford. Intel forces its OEM partners that benefit from its dubious schemes to play the Intel jingle after every PC/notebook ad, Intel has its own ad campaign + uses the typically 95% of any given OEM's product lineup that uses Intel processors to its marketing credit (more products = more brochures and product lists carrying "Intel")
> 
> Sorry, but I don't buy into it. Every country with decent trade laws, a half-decent conscience, and the ability to enforce its laws, should similarly fine Intel.



Well, then, I just flat disagree with you, and we should probably leave it at that. I've already spoken my peace on the issue.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Jul 25, 2009)

AMD did ads, ive never seen one


----------



## HammerON (Jul 25, 2009)

How did Intel hurt (monetarily) the EU , Japan or any other country? AMD was the one who lost sales. So why should a country or union be able to profit from Intel's alleged inappropriate business transactions?


----------



## El Fiendo (Jul 25, 2009)

Sugarush said:


> Ahmm, that exactly what Intel did, please read the official accusations.
> 
> Arguing that the retailers are equally responsible, because they'd accepted this practice, is like saying it's your fault if somebody pushes you off the road and you don't try to crash your car into them (and total it) to stay on it.
> 
> ...



I repeat myself. 





> If you only put our processors in your products.


 In other words, don't sell AMD processors in your pre-builts or as officially recorded 'canceling their (AMD prebuilt) product lines'. Thank you, I did read them. And no, Intel did NOT force them. Retailers made the willing choice out of their own greed (capitalism) to go with more money for themselves by giving themselves a higher margin of profit on each Intel chip. Intel didn't point a gun at anyone's head. They didn't say I'm going to kill your kids. They offered rebates. I agree, its shady. Illegal? I don't believe so. Again, I've provided other examples of companies that do it yet aren't under scrutiny. I'm sure I could find many more.

Your analogy is false and kind of non sensical. If you want a better one that applies, its like someone telling you to shoot someone in the head. You agree. Then when brought up on murder charges you don't think they should charge you because you say 'they told me to'.  Sorry, you're still guilty. So again, why the focus on Intel? Because they've got the pockets and government wants in on them.

So we're not allowed to argue for capitalism because you view it as childish? Let me try.

"Everyone! No more responses unless you agree with me! I mean grow up!"

Dunno, don't think that'll fly.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 25, 2009)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> AMD did ads, ive never seen one



One of their recent ads. They had to rope in Vishwanathan Anand.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RA_TJb_VbYE


----------



## Sugarush (Jul 25, 2009)

El Fiendo said:


> And no, Intel did NOT force them. Retailers made the willing choice out of their own greed (capitalism) to go with more money for themselves by giving themselves a higher margin of profit on each Intel chip. Intel didn't point a gun at anyone's head. They didn't say I'm going to kill your kids. They offered rebates. I agree, its shady. Illegal? I don't believe so. Again, I've provided other examples of companies that do it yet aren't under scrutiny. I'm sure I could find many more.



You have to think trough the economics of the whole thing: Intel is in a dominant position on the market. They offer exclusivity rebates - if the retailer isn't going for it, he gets a huge cost/price disadvantage and obviously loses a lot of business (as Intel chips dominate the market) to his competitors, who go for the rebates. This is potentially a bankrupt case for him.

So because Intel is dominant player, they are in fact forcing the retailers to accept these rebates, otherwise they will suffer huge losses and maybe go out of business. 



El Fiendo said:


> Your analogy is false and kind of non sensical.



Well...that's a good argument.



El Fiendo said:


> If you want a better one that applies, its like someone telling you to shoot someone in the head. You agree. Then when brought up on murder charges you don't think they should charge you because you say 'they told me to'.  Sorry, you're still guilty. So again, why the focus on Intel? Because they've got the pockets and government wants in on them.



Your analogy doesn't account for the fact, that Intel essentially did force the retailers to accept the rebates, so applied to your analogy that would be pointing a gun at someone's head and telling him to shoot the other guy.



El Fiendo said:


> So we're not allowed to argue for capitalism because you view it as childish? Let me try.
> 
> "Everyone! No more responses unless you agree with me! I mean grow up!"
> 
> Dunno, don't think that'll fly.



It is indeed childish to explain Intel's malpractices by the capitalistic system. It is not a matter of capitalism vs. socialism. It is a case of illegal vs. legal. You know capitalist societies have laws too.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 25, 2009)

btarunr said:


> Like I said, if American laws didn't prohibit the practice Intel has been penalised of in the EU, the investigation would not have commenced in the first place. The company will face a trial only once the investigations are complete. The fact that an investigation by a federal agency such as USFTC was launched into this, shows that your law disallows Intel's practices too, regardless of what happens in the courtroom or what's its outcome. In the US, nobody knows better than USFTC about what's legal and what's not when it comes to businesses. So again, Intel being charged under your law, or slipping/buying its way out of the case, becomes immaterial.


 Bta your logic is 100% correct. In a perfectly functioning American society. Honestly I really wish you were right too. However it simply doesn't work this way. The U.S. government is dominated with knee jerk reactions now. Ill give you a good example. A while back during the super bowl Janet Jackson showed her nipple. A 3 second shot of a nipple with a pasty on it. The FCC flipped out. Within a month 2 major DJs were ripped off the air and everyone was afraid to say anything. Millions of dollars worth of fines were handed out for just saying the word ass on the air. All of this happened because of a 3 second nipple shot. It was sad and pathetic. 

So now we have the USFTC and its suspicion of Intel. I say suspicion because I haven't heard of any formal charges yet from the USFTC. After Enron and all the other crap that has been going on in the U.S. market this screams knee jerk reaction. Witch hunts have become a favorite pastime of our government lately. Of course the USFTC is going to investigate Intel after the EU "fined" them. I'm surprised we haven't read of any charges yet. Like I said, there's blood in the water.



HammerON said:


> How did Intel hurt (monetarily) the EU , Japan or any other country? AMD was the one who lost sales. So why should a country or union be able to profit from Intel's alleged inappropriate business transactions?


 Oh no its not profit. Its "justice". 



Sugarush said:


> You have to think trough the economics of the whole thing: Intel is in a dominant position on the market. They offer exclusivity rebates - if the retailer isn't going for it, he gets a huge cost/price disadvantage and obviously loses a lot of business (as Intel chips dominate the market) to his competitors, who go for the rebates. This is potentially a bankrupt case for him.
> So because Intel is dominant player, they are in fact forcing the retailers to accept these rebates, otherwise they will suffer huge losses and maybe go out of business.
> Your analogy doesn't account for the fact, that Intel essentially did force the retailers to accept the rebates, so applied to your analogy that would be pointing a gun at someone's head and telling him to shoot the other guy.
> It is indeed childish to explain Intel's malpractices by the capitalistic system. It is not a matter of capitalism vs. socialism. It is a case of illegal vs. legal. You know capitalist societies have laws too.


 I guess by forcing you mean they had guns to thier children's heads? I ask because thats much more likely to happen than for HP and Dell not to own phones. One phone call to the USFTC would have brought this to a halt. But you know why they didn't call? Because their legal departments at the time saw nothing wrong with what Intel was doing and everyone made a killing. Please there are no victims in this case but Intel.


----------



## Meecrob (Jul 25, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> In the U.S. you are Innocent until proven guilty.



I will respond to this with so  of your own words



TheMailMan78 said:


> your logic is 100% correct. In a perfectly functioning American society. Honestly I really wish you were right too. However it simply doesn't work this way.


sad part, this system isnt perfectly functional, its corrupt, If you have enough money, you can get away with anything if you really want to try, just get some good lawers and keep fighting it in court till they give up.



[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> There are some ppl who think AMD is an inferior rip of



I have had people tell me that AMD is a cheap Chinese knockoff of the all American Intel cpu and that its not to be trusted.........after I explain the facts and that what they said was a load of BS about 1/2 of them are fine with it and actually consider AMD  systems of the other 50% about half get extremely mad and storm off and the other half still aren't sure but enlarge decide if the AMD system has the same reliability and performance of the intel system, but costs less then they are willing to give it a shot.

Its shocking how un-informed people are.

I once had a person bring in a system they got at frys(frys special) it had a c7 cpu and some HORRIBLE ddr ram, it was pretty pathetic, when I explained that the cpu wasnt capable of what they wanted to do(record video from a tv card that had NO encoding onboard at all) took me alot of explaining to make them understand the SLOW ASS via c7 in the system was NOT DESIGNED FOR THAT and that frys shouldn't have sold them the system for that use, It was a great little netbox tho, just couldnt really deal with what they wanted it for(htpc/mpc) 

also getting the person to understand the diffrance between via, amd and intel was....HELL, the guy also argued with me that intel made them all it was just diffrent models ROFL.......

blah, I still stan by the fact that I dont think intel should get out of any of the fines the worlds levied against them, and they did do things that where unethical, You break the law/rules you take your chances, If you get caught, you should just say "aww shit" and pay your bills.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 25, 2009)

Meecrob said:


> I will respond to this with so  of your own words
> 
> 
> sad part, this system isn't perfectly functional, its corrupt, If you have enough money, you can get away with anything if you really want to try, just get some good lawers and keep fighting it in court till they give up.
> ...



Meecrob you are right about the justice system and money. I won't argue that. As for the Intel part I have to disagree but I do respect your opinion.


----------



## Meecrob (Jul 25, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Meecrob you are right about the justice system and money. I won't argue that. As for the Intel part I have to disagree but I do respect your opinion.



I have had enough experienceI myself and watching friends/family deal with our in-justice system that I have lost total respect for it.

I know this is a bit off topic but I think its relevant to most people here.

Why is it in the US "justice system" that they say "innocent till proven guilty" then lock you up and do everything they can to prove you did it?  Check the laws and job descriptions, In reality its the prosecutors job to insure that the innocent are protected, this should be especialy true when they are falsely accused of a crime.....but its not.

Why is it that somebody can get 6 months in county jail+probation for having a scape bag with some weed crumbs in it, and yet somebody who was DRUNKEN DRIVING can get out of jail the next day(when they sober up) and ends up with a traffic ticket and nothing else?

Why is the RIAA/MPAA/EXCT allowed to run their own little police forces and arrest/sue people?

blah, I could go on and on and on, the fact is our system is screwed up for the same reasons our govt as a whole has gone down the shitter.

I would continue this but I dont want to take the thread any farther OT, basically our system needs formated and reinstalled.


----------



## a_ump (Jul 25, 2009)

such a nice debate lol i love threads like this, kinda opens my mind more about legal things as i have no knowledge of legal systems. and its nice to see respectful responses and not insults. it would seem this thread will only go back and forth though


----------



## Sugarush (Jul 25, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Oh no its not profit. Its "justice".
> 
> I guess by forcing you mean they had guns to thier children's heads? I ask because thats much more likely to happen than for HP and Dell not to own phones. One phone call to the USFTC would have brought this to a halt. But you know why they didn't call? Because their legal departments at the time saw nothing wrong with what Intel was doing and everyone made a killing. Please there are no victims in this case but Intel.



Intel broke the law, they got a fine as a penalty. Why is everybody so concerned with 'EU cashing in". If you're speeding you get a ticket...

As for the forcing issue: we don't know if the retailers found those rebates OK or not, they might have gone along with it even though they realized it could be illegal.

I'd say the victims are AMD and the consumers. AMD' market share was artificially capped and the consumers didn't get the products they could have gotten (and I mean the average Joe who doesn't know much about computers).


----------



## rpsgc (Jul 25, 2009)

Sugarush said:


> Intel broke the law, they got a fine as a penalty. Why is everybody so concerned with 'EU cashing in".



Because an American corporation could never do harm, they are always innocent and the EU is just a bunch of greedy socialist commies just because they PUNISH people who BREAK THE LAW unlike in the US where they BRIBE their way out of this situations.


Oh yes, I can generalize too, do you like? Or my post is going to be deleted because I'm not some idiot randomly bashing the EU just because?


----------



## $ReaPeR$ (Jul 25, 2009)

rpsgc said:


> Because an American corporation could never do harm, they are always innocent and the EU is just a bunch of greedy socialist commies just because they PUNISH people who BREAK THE LAW unlike in the US where they BRIBE their way out of this situations.
> 
> 
> Oh yes, I can generalize too, do you like? Or my post is going to be deleted because I'm not some idiot randomly bashing the EU just because?



oh come on you know that the bribe its not only an American phenomenon it is used all around the world almost on any chanse given. 
i also would like to state that on points i agree with almost everyone. nice conversation


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 25, 2009)

rpsgc said:


> Because an American corporation could never do harm, they are always innocent and the EU is just a bunch of greedy socialist commies just because they PUNISH people who BREAK THE LAW unlike in the US where they BRIBE their way out of this situations.
> 
> 
> Oh yes, I can generalize too, do you like? Or my post is going to be deleted because I'm not some idiot randomly bashing the EU just because?



Excellent Troll. I give it a 8/10.


----------



## Meecrob (Jul 25, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Excellent Troll. I give it a 8/10.



its called satire/sarcasm, and I agree with his point.

the way I see it, You break the laws you take your chances, when you get caught you shouldn't try and get out of it.

A quote from another member here fits this very well.



			
				DarkNova said:
			
		

> if you get imprisoned for murder, you can't turn around and say "this is bullshit, i did it because I got paid to, it was a good business decision" YOU BROKE THE DAMN LAW


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 25, 2009)

Meecrob said:


> its called satire/sarcasm, and I agree with his point.
> 
> the way I see it, You break the laws you take your chances, when you get caught you shouldn't try and get out of it.
> 
> A quote from another member here fits this very well.



No its a troll.

Anyway do you know when this EU law was written and established?


----------



## btarunr (Jul 25, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Anyway do you know when this EU law was written and established?



It doesn't matter. You can make a law and enforce it five minutes later. It's still a law.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 25, 2009)

btarunr said:


> It doesn't matter. You can make a law and enforce it five minutes later. It's still a law.



Oh it does matter. It matters a great deal. When was this law established?


----------



## btarunr (Jul 25, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Oh it does matter. It matters a great deal. When was this law established?



No it doesn't matter, to no extant. At least not to make a mudsling point.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 25, 2009)

btarunr said:


> No it doesn't matter, to no extant.



If there was no law at the time to make it illegal then no law was broken.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 25, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> If there was no law at the time to make it illegal then no law was broken.



Pretty much commonsense. They won't take up a case against something that isn't illegal.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 25, 2009)

btarunr said:


> Pretty much commonsense. They won't take up a case against something that isn't illegal.



I want facts. Do you know when the law was established? Because commonsense doesn't take an investigation to establish.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 25, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I want facts. Do you know when the law was established? Because commonsense doesn't take an investigation to establish.



Competition Act 1998, Enterprise Act 2002. Both coined well before the legal proceedings against Intel from EU even began. Shared between UK and EU.

http://www.out-law.com/page-5811


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 25, 2009)

btarunr said:


> Competition Act 1998, Enterprise Act 2002. Both coined well before the legal proceedings against Intel from EU even began. Shared between UK and EU.
> 
> http://www.out-law.com/page-5811



They are being fined for actions well before these dates. Welcome to the EU payday. I rest my case.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 25, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> They are being fined for actions well before these dates. Welcome to the EU payday. I rest my case.



No, for everything it continued doing till it was finally charged.

By the way, I was wrong (in a good way). EC competition law existed since 1994 in Euro-zone countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Community_competition_law


----------



## erocker (Jul 25, 2009)

I wouldn't get too worked up MailMan, you need to save your energy for when the US starts taking more and more money from taxpayers and businesses. It's starting to happen, it's change we can believe in.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 25, 2009)

erocker said:


> I wouldn't get too worked up MailMan, you need to save your energy for when the US starts taking more and more money from taxpayers and businesses. It's starting to happen, it's change we can believe in.



I know, I know........:shadedshu


----------



## btarunr (Jul 25, 2009)

The only change you can really believe in is the one you get in return for a $10 bill....40 quarters


----------



## $ReaPeR$ (Jul 25, 2009)

erocker said:


> I wouldn't get too worked up MailMan, you need to save your energy for when the US starts taking more and more money from taxpayers and businesses. It's starting to happen, it's change we can believe in.



and give them to the banks that created the worldwide economical crisis.


----------



## Meecrob (Jul 25, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> They are being fined for actions well before these dates. Welcome to the EU payday. I rest my case.



as bta said, its for stuff they KEPT DOING after the laws where writen, honestly do you think intel stayed on top of the market with the p4 because the p4 was better or cheaper?



$ReaPeR$ said:


> and give them to the banks that created the worldwide economical crisis.



welcome to a global ecoimy.

welcome to a nation/world run by lobbists.

the banks lobbied to get the laws changed to allow them to give out sub-prime and high risk loans, then didnt make sure they could cover it when it all went to hell, they made a bunch of money, and spent it on cars, vacations, bonuses for the management, and on and on, BUT had we let them all fail, we would currently be in "the great depression MK2" with even more people out of work standing in souplines.

I dont agree with bailing them out like we have, BUT i dont agree with those who think we should have just let it fail and to hell with the consequences.

I also dont agree with the current public health bill that obama is trying to push into law, BUT I feel we need a national healthcare system, YES it would cost money to get started, but once up and running IF they follow a good example it would SAVE MONEY IN THE LONG RUN.

When an UN-ensured person gets sick or is feeling bad the dont go to doctor, they sit around till it gets so bad they endup in the emergency room, and since enlarge they cant afford to pay for medical care, they dont pay the bill, the govt ends up paying it, costing FAR more then if the person had basic health coverage and went to doctor and got looked at b4 things got really bad.

I saw a great example of this a few weeks back when i was waiting with a family friend in the emergency room, a lady came in, older woman, very friendly BUT she had a huge bulge on her leg, they got her back pretty quick, turned out she had known her leg wasnt right for over 2 weeks and because she didnt have any insurance she didnt see a doctor, it was a bloody SLIVER that got infected, they had to spend over 2hrs giving her iv antibiotics and draining/cleaning it(smelled horrible), im sure the bill is over $3000 (they had to keep her to make sure she didnt get blood poisoning) 

had she been insured, she would have gone in, doc would have found the silver, removed it, maby given her a script and been done with it, costing maby 150bucks tops!!!

and she had no $ so she isnt gonna be able to pay her hosp bill, its gonna fall back on the taxpayers!!!

its a pain in the ass, but its how things are currently.

all this fear of having a govt health option and the tax payer having to foot the bill is BULLSHIT stirred up by the private insurers who want to get everybody paying them for "consumer based plans" these plans allow them to dump the people who are costing more then they are feeding into the system AND on top of it dump their medical bills on them as well!!!  

BLAH this country needs a reformat and reinstall, its like its running on windows 95


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 25, 2009)

Meecrob said:


> as bta said, its for stuff they KEPT DOING after the laws where writen, honestly do you think intel stayed on top of the market with the p4 because the p4 was better or cheaper?


It stayed on top because Intel advertised (remember the Blue Man Group playing with a 4?).  Advertisments have the ability to convince a buyer that their product is the best thing since sliced cheese.  Obviously, their mind might change once they buy the product but, the transaction has already been completed so hindsight is irrelevant from a sales standpoint. XD


----------



## hat (Jul 25, 2009)

I remember seeing a commercial with the Blue Man Group messing around with a PIII logo lol


----------



## Meecrob (Jul 25, 2009)

amd did some advertising, but the fact was, you couldnt find an AMD in most bigbox stores, because INTEL bullied the OEM's and Stores into not stocking/promoting them.

Its stupid but the fact is most people really dont even know what a cpu is, they just know they turn on the magic box, and can play games, download porn/music, twitter,myspace,email, exct, and they dont really care if its amd, intel, via, or whatever, just like most people i been running into really couldnt care less if its windows, they know what windows is, but they also refer to ms office as windows...and no they never know what version of office they have unless its 2007, and even then its at best 50/50 shot if they will know if they are even using ms office.

its funny in a sad way, because so many people think they are good with computers and know computers and yet they dont understand them at all really.

oh, and in the late athlon xp/early k8 days i had alot of people try and tell me they had an intel athlon ROFL!!!!


----------



## mtosev (Jul 25, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I know, I know........:shadedshu



like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVFdAJRVm94

 I had to post this.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 25, 2009)

The only computer brand I know of that was exclusive to Intel was Dell.  Compaq, HP, and Gateway offered AMDs.  That was over 50% of the market share up until 2005/2006.  If anything, the EU should be suing Dell, not Intel.  Dell said that did not offer AMDs because the customers didn't demand AMDs.  Once Dell purchased Alienware (when FX-57 was all the rage), they had a paradigm shift and a reason to offer AMDs.


It reminds me of how Seagate got sued for Microsoft's mistake.  Seagate labeled their drives properly as GB but Microsoft labeled hard drive capacity improperly by calculating for GiB but displaying GB.  Seagate lost the class action suit.  They weren't to blame at all for Microsoft's mistake.  Now, whenever "GB" is used, the packaging says "1 GB = 1 billion bytes" so that they (I quoted a Verbatim DVD+R DL cakebox there), too, don't get sued for Microsoft's mistake.


----------



## Meecrob (Jul 25, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The only computer brand I know of that was exclusive to Intel was Dell.  Compaq, HP, and Gateway offered AMDs.  That was over 50% of the market share up until 2005/2006.  If anything, the EU should be suing Dell, not Intel.  Dell said that did not offer AMDs because the customers didn't demand AMDs.  Once Dell purchased Alienware (when FX-57 was all the rage), they had a paradigm shift and a reason to offer AMDs.
> 
> 
> It reminds me of how Seagate got sued for Microsoft's mistake.  Seagate labeled their drives properly as GB but Microsoft labeled hard drive capacity improperly by calculating for GiB but displaying GB.  Seagate lost the class action suit.  They weren't to blame at all for Microsoft's mistake.  Now, whenever "GB" is used, the packaging says "1 GB = 1 billion bytes" so that they (I quoted a Verbatim DVD+R DL cakebox there), too, don't get sued for Microsoft's mistake.



in computers KB/MB/GB have always e been calculated as 1024 tho because its binary, and HDD makers started using the non-tech related definition in order to cheat people, they all ended up doing this, orignaly tho some held out and gave you what you paid for.
Hitchi for example rather then cheat people would sell a 15.7gb drive that when formated was 15+gb 

The fact is that HDD makers got themselves in that situation by moving from binary to decimal.

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



> .....In order to address this confusion, the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) has been promoting the use of the term gibibyte for the binary definition. This position is endorsed by other standards organizations including the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), the International Committee for Weights and Measures (CIPM) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) but has seen limited acceptance.


 
the term gibibyte and related terms are NEW and where not around when computers where invented.

JEDEC dosnt agree with the changes and still revers to a gigabyte as JEDEC memory standards uses the IEEE 100 nomenclatures which defines a gigabyte as 1,073,741,824bytes where hdd makers and now most flashdrive and other storege makers want to use 1,000,000,000 bytes, this is because they can SCREW YOU OVER by saying a drive is larger the it really is.

IMHO drives should be sold at their FORMATED CAPACITY and selling them marked higher should=false advertising and be illegal.

As to the intel thing, intel has threatened most large OEM's, its been proven over and over, they use unethical tactics to get ahead and stay there, It wouldn't be so clear if so much of the rest of the world hadn't found them guilty of it!!!

not that it really matters, when they loose the appeal they will endup making some kinda settlement with the EU, pay a fine, and keep making bank off the market.

all pulling out of the EU would do is hurt intel and help AMD, and that would work for many of us, intel isnt that stupid 

just like ms wont pull out of the EU market despite all the fines and changes they had to make to the EU version of windows, because they still make bank off those markets!!!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 25, 2009)

Giga- means 1 billion (1,000,000,000) just as mega- means 1 million (1,000,000).
Gibi- means 2^30 (1,073,741,824) just as mebi- means 2^20 (1,048,576).

Prior to ~2002, giga- was used to describe gibi- (incorrectly).  The -bi- prefix was introduced and standardized to make it known that gibi- is not equal to giga-.  Microsoft has not adapted this but pretty much the rest of the industry has.  If not outright adopting it, clarify what "GB" is used.

Seagate has always labeled their drives correctly.  When you buy a 500 GB drive, you literally get at least 500 billion bytes.  Microsoft labels it incorrectly saying 500 GB is 465 GB.  That is an inequality unless you clarify 465 is actually GiB which makes it an equality.


Seagate has never been misleading, Microsoft was (still is).  At bare minimum, Microsoft needs to put a "1 GB = 1,073,741,824 bytes) notice on their hard drive properties page.


Metal platters as well as optical mediums and networking equipment aren't constrainted to bits like physical transistors are in a memory.  That is, the data in a given segment may not always satisfy this equation:

bits % 8 = 0

This is why they use base 10 instead of base 2--base 2 is irrelevant to those applications and base 10 is the defacto numbering system world-wide.


SSDs and Flash memory sticks do have transistors like their other memory counterparts where base 2 is relevant.  They should be labeled as GiB just like RAM and cache memory.



Drives can be formatted using multiple formating standards.   The capcity for one type of format won't necessarily equal the size of another format.  Raw size is a good, universal standard.


----------



## HammerON (Jul 26, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Giga- means 1 billion (1,000,000,000) just as mega- means 1 million (1,000,000).
> Gibi- means 2^30 (1,073,741,824) just as mebi- means 2^20 (1,048,576).
> 
> Prior to ~2002, giga- was used to describe gibi- (incorrectly).  The -bi- prefix was introduced and standardized to make it known that gibi- is not equal to giga-.  Microsoft has not adapted this but pretty much the rest of the industry has.  If not outright adopting it, clarify what "GB" is used.
> ...



I learn something new every day!


----------



## tkpenalty (Jul 26, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Getting a little dramatic are we? Genocide? Really? The fine is going to the EU's "budget". This is nothing more than a payday and has nothing to do with justice.



Note you guys are the ones who have loaned the most amount of money from overseas. You are merely repaying the EU for your loans.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 26, 2009)

You mean Intel is paying illegitimate loans made by the USA government?  I'd rather sentence the politicians to a lifetime of hard labor and give Intel their money back.  Intel isn't at fault. 


Oh right, Intel is being fined because AMD didn't move product.  All the same I suppose.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 26, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> You mean Intel is paying illegitimate loans made by the USA government?  I'd rather sentence the politicians to a lifetime of hard labor and give Intel their money back.  Intel isn't at fault.
> 
> 
> Oh right, *Intel is being fined because AMD didn't move product*.  All the same I suppose.


And that's pretty much how I feel about it.


----------



## tkpenalty (Jul 26, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> You mean Intel is paying illegitimate loans made by the USA government?  I'd rather sentence the politicians to a lifetime of hard labor and give Intel their money back.  Intel isn't at fault.
> 
> 
> Oh right, Intel is being fined because AMD didn't move product.  All the same I suppose.



Use some logic.

Intel Gives money to OEMs not to sell AMD = According to Intel a "rebate".

However, rebate = money.

And money to do something anti-competetive = bribe.

Bribe = Illegal 

It is very unfair, and illegal to prevent a secondary firm from even having any market exposure through under-the-table dealings, and especially if they use money to do so. Intel could have used price fixing if OEMs promised to exclusively sell Intel at the ratio , or a direct under-the-table bribe, but however, they used "Rebates", something that has a positive connotation.

In the end its still money moving from one firm to another for depriving a third party of any market exposure, and their profits. 

Hence, illegal.

Get it? Read my post PROPERLY. I'd really slam the United State's legal system as a sham for not uprooting these schemes earlier. Freedom in the united states? my arse. Theres barely any freedom in the markets when the majority of people are conformists who protect the big and wealthy not realising what it means for themselves and those who are unfortunate.

Not saying that Intel is crap or deserves to die however, but this fine should go ahead regardless, AND they should really sack the perpretrators of this; their accountants, their marketing and distribution who are responsible. 

Anyway many of you guys ALWAYS seem to take sides. When someone says intel is being such and such, theres always a stupid reply such as: "but AMD doesnt have enough supply". Well. If you have a company thats pretty much deprived of their profits, then they cant really have a flexible supply of goods, and anyway when that occured the world was in a boom, and a shortage of goods is normal. 

And consider the bigger you grow, the more extra money to burn you have. AMD didnt have that luxury at all because, their nice and fast athlons which kicked the shit out of the Prescotts, didnt make their way into the market because manufacturers simply didnt accept them because of shady dealings; i.e. the nicely named bribes-"rebates".

Considering how Intel stopped these henious practises since the Core 2s raped, and still are raping AMD, its fairly obvious that Intel did that to save their asses as they entered into technical inferiority, and thus kept their market position. 

Guys who think that Intel is innocent and that the EU are a bunch of money loving pricks who are just using this to save themselves. Read this over and over again. You'll see the irony in what you're saying.



Wile E said:


> And that's pretty much how I feel about it.



Mate. How hard is it to understand that its illegal when a manufacturer pays (or "rebates") a shop not to sell a competing manufactuers' products? 

And you may be thinking "how the fuck is that illegal? stop whining", and its  simple:

Primary sector-mining, agriculture <- Money <- Secondary - Manufacturers etc, may be many in between <- Money <- Tetiary - retail <---- Consumer --- where the money is supposed to come from. (Wages/Salaries profits compensate). You probably know this very well but you've probably forgotten about it. 

For AMD they've essentially had part of that flow almost nullified, and it just means the company begins to shrink until a point, where they cant get any crappier. And we DEFINATELY saw that, despite their clear dominance during the Prescott days from a technological perspective. And the only reason how is from evidence. Intel's dealings. it HAS happened. Its a very simple anti-competetive trick and I believe that they're lucky they've been given a light slap on the wrist.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 26, 2009)

I don't care how anyone tries to justify the fine. To me, what they did, while maybe not the most ethical, should not have been illegal. Not paying as much money for the product, is not the same as getting paid to buy the product, like you are insinuating.

How hard is to understand that I think the entire case is bullshit, and completely unjustified? It doesn't matter how many times you, or anyone else tries to explain it. When I think the entire thing is a farce to gain money out of a huge corporation, rehashing the same arguments over and over is not going to convince me. It will take new facts, not another interpretation of what's already been posted.


----------



## tkpenalty (Jul 26, 2009)

Wile E said:


> I don't care how anyone tries to justify the fine. To me, what they did, while maybe not the most ethical, should not have been illegal. Not paying as much money for the product, is not the same as getting paid to buy the product, like you are insinuating.
> 
> How hard is to understand that I think the entire case is bullshit, and completely unjustified? It doesn't matter how many times you, or anyone else tries to explain it. When I think the entire thing is a farce to gain money out of a huge corporation, rehashing the same arguments over and over is not going to convince me. It will take new facts, not another interpretation of what's already been posted.



Its not hard when I see you as a very conservative person.


----------



## tastegw (Jul 26, 2009)

when the p1-p4's were out, i knew nothing about AMD, i had never even heard of them.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 26, 2009)

Rebate = partial manufacturer refund

That is, the product is being sold at a value higher than the actual cost to bring it to you.  For those that care, they can get some of that income back from the manufacturer.  For some it is an incentive to buy and to others, it is like a gift from the manufacturer for taking your time to inform them who bought their product.

Bribe = money up front for a favor

e.g. paying a politician to see things your way


A bribe is not a rebate and a rebate is not a bribe.  Bribes are illegal, rebates are not.  Rebates artificially alter the price of a product.  When an OEM buys extra products from one manufacturer, it naturally decreases the likelihood that said OEM will buy products from another manufacturer unless the original can't keep up with demand or costs too much.  That's economics.


----------



## Sugarush (Jul 26, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Rebate = partial manufacturer refund
> 
> That is, the product is being sold at a value higher than the actual cost to bring it to you.  For those that care, they can get some of that income back from the manufacturer.  For some it is an incentive to buy and to others, it is like a gift from the manufacturer for taking your time to inform them who bought their product.
> 
> ...



"Certain rebates can lead to lower prices for consumers. However, *where a company is in a dominant position on a market, rebates that are conditional on buying less of a rival's products, or not buying them at all, are abusive according to settled case-law of the Community Courts* unless the dominant company can put forward specific reasons to justify their application in the individual case."

The rebates are OK, as such, but the conditions on which the were offered by the dominant supplier make them illegal.
The key factors here are: Intel's dominant position on the market and their conditions for the rebates.
The consumers didn't get the products they could have gotten, not because Intel simply outrun AMD in the price/performance factors, but because they artificially excluded AMD from the market.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 26, 2009)

A rebate can't be illegal in one situation and legal in another.  That is a double standard.  It doesn't matter who is bigger than who, the end result is always the same (move product).

In dealing with semiconductors, the profit margins come down to manufacturing process.  *Intel has always been on equal or smaller process than AMD.*  From that statement, we know that price-wise, Intel has *always been capable of selling their products for the same amount or less*.

Again, AMD got spanked because AMD was/is being AMD (no ads, generally behind on processing power, poor decisions, slow to change process, etc.).  Intel was just doing what they have been doing for the past two decades: selling great products at competitive prices (rebate or not--irrelevant).

If the majority of consumers actually cared if their computer had an Intel or AMD processor, Dell wouldn't have been offering only Intel processors for over two decades.  I highly doubt rebates had anything to do with Dell's decision--it was market demand (or lack of).


----------



## Sugarush (Jul 26, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> A rebate can't be illegal in one situation and legal in another.  That is a double standard.  It doesn't matter who is bigger than who, the end result is always the same (move product).
> 
> In dealing with semiconductors, the profit margins come down to manufacturing process.  *Intel has always been on equal or smaller process than AMD.*  From that statement, we know that price-wise, Intel has *always been capable of selling their products for the same amount or less*.
> 
> ...



Rebates are supposed to be based on the sales of your own product (buy more, get it cheaper per piece / pay within 30 days get it cheaper etc), not on the sales of your competitors.

Intel was/is the dominant player, so by excluding AMD from the market, they were establishing a quasi monopoly for themselves.

So both, Intel's dominant market position and the exclusivity rebates were essential for this ruling.

If Intel were doing so great then why not compete fair by offering great products at competitive prices, why exclude the inferior AMD from the market?

You're right the majority of the people don't care whether it's an Intel ar AMD chip in their PC, but this majority didn't even get to see the AMD chips in pre built PCs because Intel effectively excluded AMD from the market. So the discussion about better marketing etc. becomes irrelevant altogether.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 26, 2009)

Automotive makers should be fined too. I mean I've gotten several "loyalty" rebates over the years. Why doesn't the EU go after BMW? I got 5,000 dollar rebate for buying a second BMW and not another brand. I only got that rebate because I bought another BMW. If I would have bought a Benz and skipped a purchase from BMW that rebate would have been lost the next time I bought a one (BMW). So yeah rebates do work based off of a competitors sale.

Also what about El Fiendo point about restaurants selling only Coke and not Pepsi. Or vise versa. SO many other industries do what Intel did its pathetic. I'm not going to argue whether Intel broke the law or not. All I'm saying is whats good for the goose is good for the gander. This is why I feel its a payday and not "justice".


----------



## Sugarush (Jul 26, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Automotive makers should be fined too. I mean I've gotten several "loyalty" rebates over the years. Why doesn't the EU go after BMW? I got 5,000 dollar rebate for buying a second BMW and not another brand. I only got that rebate because I bought another BMW. If I would have bought a Benz and skipped a purchase from BMW that rebate would have been lost the next time I bought a one (BMW). So yeah rebates do work based off of a competitors sale.
> 
> Also what about El Fiendo point about restaurants selling only Coke and not Pepsi. Or vise versa. SO many other industries do what Intel did its pathetic. I'm not going to argue whether Intel broke the law or not. All I'm saying is whats good for the goose is good for the gander. This is why I feel its a payday and not "justice".



First of all there are a lot more car manufacturers than CPU manufacturers and none of them has a dominant market share.
Secondly it is you, the consumer, who has made the decision to go for BMW and not for ALL those other manufacturers among them Merc.

In case of Intel that choice was effectively taken from the consumers, if the average buyer went to the retailers he would get (almost) only a pre-built PC based on Intel CPU.

As for Coke vs Pepsi, it is not an issue of rebates, but rather explicit agreements between the soft drink producer and a particular restaurant (chain). And the producers compete for these agreements, the one offering better terms gets the exclusive deal.

In case of Intel vs AMD, AMD didn't get to compete with Intel, as the OEM/retailers could not refuse Intel's rebates, as they largely depended on Intel for the most of their supplies, and by doing so the were risking huge losses. Hence Intel practically dictated their terms and excluded AMD from the market.


----------



## Meecrob (Jul 26, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Giga- means 1 billion (1,000,000,000) just as mega- means 1 million (1,000,000).
> Gibi- means 2^30 (1,073,741,824) just as mebi- means 2^20 (1,048,576).
> 
> Prior to ~2002, giga- was used to describe gibi- (incorrectly).  The -bi- prefix was introduced and standardized to make it known that gibi- is not equal to giga-.  Microsoft has not adapted this but pretty much the rest of the industry has.  If not outright adopting it, clarify what "GB" is used.
> ...



in the computer industry they ALL started out labeling drives as 1024k=1MB, even seagate, if you need some proof i can probably dig up a 650mb Seagate or the like at home and show you, it was when all the top makers started to shift over to the 1billion bytes bullshit that the consumer started getting screwed, google about it, there are articles apon articles 
about it, drive makers YES ALL OF THEM use to use BINARY LABLES, there was no such thing as a mibibyte or gibibyte, those are NEW TERMS made up to allow the hdd makers to get away with what effectively is false advertising.

the fact is that MS is following JEDEC specs for memory capacity ratings, read the link i sent, it explains how the hdd industry is pushing the term gibibyte(and the other like terms) its pretty clear if you have been in computers as long as I have been(since the early 90's) that HDD makers made the change then when it became an issue they desided to change the definition of the words used in order to avoid lawsuits and looking like the bastards they really are.

Kilobyte
megabyte
gigabyte
terabyte
petabyte

all of these are terms only used in computerized technology and have a set meaning form when computers got their start, changing the meaning now to allow your industry to effectively screw people by making noobs think 500GB=500gb when it really is 465gb once formated.

even seagate didnt use to use binary, they changed over around the time most hdd makers started changing over, it was when GB drives where still pretty young, when i get back (gotta do some running around) I may have to lookup articals about it for you that explain when and why all this stuff started and why the NEW TERMS gibi/mibi/kibi and now even tibi came into excistance, because these are not terms that excisted back when computers where young :/


----------



## a_ump (Jul 26, 2009)

i didn't even know about gibi/mibi/kibi, etc. sounds like horseshit terms never to be used for a proper reason , interested to see what you find


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 26, 2009)

Sugarush said:


> If Intel were doing so great then why not compete fair by offering great products at competitive prices, why exclude the inferior AMD from the market?


They were competitive prices becuase Intel and AMD are both still around.  If Intel undercut AMD, Intel's bottome line would take a hit because they wouldn't be making money on processors sold and AMD would be out of business because they would run out of revenue.  Cost over value prevents what you are suggesting from ever happening (at least for long).




Sugarush said:


> First of all there are a lot more car manufacturers than CPU manufacturers and none of them has a dominant market share.


Toyota is dominating now.  Ford/GM were dominating a few years ago (before the economic collapse).




Sugarush said:


> In case of Intel that choice was effectively taken from the consumers, if the average buyer went to the retailers he would get (almost) only a pre-built PC based on Intel CPU.


As I said, that claim is false.  Only Dell didn't offer AMD and they said it was because consumers didn't demand AMD products.


AMD is where they are because they are being AMD.  Remember, for over a decade, all AMD did was reverse engineer Intel processors.  AMD has never had the geniuses required to design, manufacturer, and sell a great product.  They got close once and got put back in their place.  That is the story of AMD.  You can't blame Intel for AMD constantly dropping the ball.




Meecrob said:


> in the computer industry they ALL started out labeling drives as 1024k=1MB, even seagate, if you need some proof i can probably dig up a 650mb Seagate or the like at home and show you


The oldest hard drive I have at hand is a Western Digital Caviar 12500.  *Stated capacity is 2559.8 MB*.

Stats
4960 cylinders, 16 heads, 63 sectors/track, 512 bytes per sector

Multiply that you get: 2559836160 bytes

divide by 1,000,000 to convert from bytes to megabytes and you get: *2559.8 MB*

The *exact same number on the drive*.  That drive is from somewhere between 1993 and 1997.  The lawsuit was in 2005-2006.


Go ahead, dig it up.  It wasn't relevant to the lawsuit but still would be intesting to see if HDDs ever used MiB or GiB instead of MB or GB.




Meecrob said:


> all of these are terms only used in computerized technology and have a set meaning form when computers got their start, changing the meaning now to allow your industry to effectively screw people by making noobs think 500GB=500gb when it really is 465gb once formated.


False.  500 GB = 465 GiB.  Here's a picture:





285,470,289,920 bytes / 1,073,741,824 = 265.864925384521484375 GiB
214,626,701,312 bytes / 1,073,741,824 = 199.886692047119140625 GiB
500,096,991,232 bytes / 1,073,741,824 = 465.751617431640625 GiB

285,470,289,920 bytes / 1,000,000,000 = 285.470289920 GB
214,626,701,312 bytes / 1,000,000,000 = 214.626701312 GB
500,096,991,232 bytes / 1,000,000,000 = 500.096991232 GB

Microsoft calculates GB wrong.  They are calculating GiB and labeling GB.

The difference formatted/unformated is about 8 MiB used for NTFS.  The capacity of the drive doesn't change.


----------



## Meecrob (Jul 26, 2009)

your wrong, theres no such thing as a GiB, its a NEW TERM made up by the HDD manufacturers to avoid being sued over false advertising, JEDEC specs and even IEEE specs defined a Gigabyte as 1024megabytes and a megabyte as 1024kelobytes and a kelobyte as 1,024bytes, IEEE only started backing the kibi/mibi/gibi/tibi/pibi prefixes years after the HDD manufactures came up with them as a way to avoid being sued into oblivion for selling drives at false capacitys.

and I have a 650MB drive thats 650mb FORMATED, its a seagate mind you, drives in the GB range are where they slowly stated converting over to decimal, and then it was only so that they could sell a drive that was really far smaller as if it was larger, eventually somebody got sick of it and sued.

I know this is all b4 your time, but I also have a 2mb hdd, 5mb hdd, 15mb hdd, an a massive 20mb hdd, all format out very close to their stated capacitys, loose a little space to the file system but not much.

this site explains it better then I have

http://www.dewassoc.com/kbase/hard_drives/binary_v_decimal_measurement.htm



> One of the more difficult problems you will face when working with computer hardware, especially hard drives, is the two different measurement definitions or terms used to calculate drive capacity. Capacity measurements are usually expressed in kilobytes (thousands of bytes), in megabytes (millions of bytes), or gigabytes (billions of bytes), however, due to a mathematical coincidence there are two different meanings for each of these measures.
> 
> Computers are digital, and with that store data using binary numbers, or powers of two, although we are accustomed to using decimal numbers, expressed as powers of ten. As it turns out, two to the tenth power, 2^10, is 1,024, which is very close in value to 1,000 (10^3).  Similarly, 2^20 is 1,048,576, which is approximately 1,000,000 (10^6), and 2^30 is 1,073,741,824, close to 1,000,000,000 (10^9). As computer development became more prominent and binary numbers began to be used on a regular basis, computer scientists took note of this similarity and began using the abbreviations normally associated with decimal numbers, and applied them to binary numbers. This led to 2^10 being given the prefix "kilo", 2^20 given the prefix "mega", and 2^30 referred to as "giga".
> 
> ...


there is more there, but that explains the fact that in COMPUTERS the "binary bytes" was never used till HDD makers invented it and got the IEEE to try and back them.

why cant HDD makers follow JEDEC specs and even the orignal IEEE specs of 1024 being a unit rather then 1000?

only one reasion they would do that, because 500 looks better then 465(7-7.5% diff) 

These companies suck, to bad even hitchi started using decimal :/

so when is ram going to start being rated in MiB?  seems its rated in MB and 1024k=1MB and 1024MB=1GB in ram.......want a screenshot?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 26, 2009)

Find me a hard drive that actually uses 2^x for calculating the capacity.  I have not seen one yet.




Meecrob said:


> so when is ram going to start being rated in MiB? seems its rated in MB and 1024k=1MB and 1024MB=1GB in ram.......want a screenshot?


It already is.  They just label it improperly (MB and GB).

It's real simple.  If you are dividing by a base 2 for conversion, it is binary; if you are dividing by base 10 for conversion, it is decimal.  The problem lies in misleading units because there is a double standard (GB, MB, kB means two different things--which is implied is implicit, not explicit).


*1024 kB* = 1024 B* 1000 = 1,024,000 B = 0.09765625 MiB = *1.024000 MB* <-- base 10 (SI)
*1024 kB = 1 MB is an inequality*

1024 kiB = 1024 B * 1024 = 1,048,576 B = 1 MiB = 1.048576 MB <-- base 2 (binary)
1024 kiB = 1 MiB is an equality


*1024 MB* = 1024 B * 1,000,000 = 1,024,000,000 B = 0.95367431640625 GiB = *1.024 GB* <-- base 10 (SI)
*1024 MB = 1 GB is an inequality*

1024 MiB = 1024 B * 1,048,576 = 1,073,741,824 B = 1 GiB = 1.073741824 GB <-- base 2 (binary)
1024 MiB = 1 GiB is an equality


Units are very important.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 26, 2009)

Sugarush said:


> *Rebates are supposed to be based on the sales of your own product (buy more, get it cheaper per piece / pay within 30 days get it cheaper etc), not on the sales of your competitors.
> *
> Intel was/is the dominant player, so by excluding AMD from the market, they were establishing a quasi monopoly for themselves.
> 
> ...


No they aren't. I have seen countless rebate offers for things like anti virus or burning suites that offer you a discount for turning in a competitor's product. It doesn't matter why or how they offer the rebate. It's just a rebate no matter how you look at it. 

Their market position has nothing to do with it at all, nor should it ever. By your logic, it would be ok for AMD to offer rebates to OEMs for not using Intel products, but not for Intel to do the same. That my friend, is called a double standard.

And as far as marketing, if AMD actually had a decent marketing department, their cpus would've been in demand, and they would've been in such a position that Intel's rebates would've been turned down by the OEMs. The fault lays on AMD for their lack of market share, period.



Sugarush said:


> First of all there are a lot more car manufacturers than CPU manufacturers and none of them has a dominant market share.
> Secondly it is you, the consumer, who has made the decision to go for BMW and not for ALL those other manufacturers among them Merc.
> 
> *In case of Intel that choice was effectively taken from the consumers, if the average buyer went to the retailers he would get (almost) only a pre-built PC based on Intel CPU.*
> ...


That's a BS argument as well. There were plenty of AMD oem machines available. No consumer got screwed at all. Dell shouldn't have to offer AMD cpus if they don't want to.

And the coke and pepsi argument is exactly the same thing as this Intel argument. They had agreements in place.

And again, it's AMD's fault that they couldn't create enough demand for their products that brought this on. Not to mention the fact they couldn't fill enough orders to these OEMs. AMD wasn't worth their time.

And again, somebody please bring a different argument to the table. We know what they were convicted of. We read the case. We pretty much think what Intel did was fine. Until I see somewhere that Intel held guns to people's heads, or threatened to not sell any chips at all to people who used AMD in their lineups, I find nothing truly wrong with these rebates.


----------



## Meecrob (Jul 26, 2009)

guys, stop trying to convinced WileE, hes dead set that business should be able to do whatever it wants however it wants, be damned the laws and be damned the ethics.

Oh and I used the rebate deal that nero offered once, you could turn in any version of adaptec easy cd/dvd creator for a large discount on nero, best part, it was a version that came with my old burner that wouldn't run on newer windows versions 

but this isnt the same thing, because even if you turn in that copy  of the program, in reality you can still use it if you want.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 26, 2009)

Meecrob said:


> guys, stop trying to convinced WileE, hes dead set that business should be able to do whatever it wants however it wants, be damned the laws and be damned the ethics.
> 
> Oh and I used the rebate deal that nero offered once, you could turn in any version of adaptec easy cd/dvd creator for a large discount on nero, best part, it was a version that came with my old burner that wouldn't run on newer windows versions
> 
> but this isnt the same thing, because even if you turn in that copy  of the program, in reality you can still use it if you want.


No, I don't think businesses should be able to do what they want, when they want. I just don't happen to think what Intel did was wrong. Now, if they threatened to completely stop supplying chips to these OEMs, I'd agree with them being fined. But they didn't. They merely offered a discount. 

Had they used threats of stopping supply, no OEM would've offered AMD setups. But the fact that everyone on the Intel witchhunt seems to forget is, plenty of oems still offered AMD, turning down Intel's offer. Seems to me that means the discounts weren't as huge as people are led to believe, and that any OEM could've offered AMD without huge losses. This boils down to OEM greed more than Intel greed.

This particular case is nothing but a means for the EU to make money. The entire premise of this case, and the law they used against Intel, is complete bullshit.


----------



## Meecrob (Jul 27, 2009)

Wile E said:


> No, I don't think businesses should be able to do what they want, when they want. I just don't happen to think what Intel did was wrong. Now, if they threatened to completely stop supplying chips to these OEMs, I'd agree with them being fined. But they didn't. They merely offered a discount.
> 
> Had they used threats of stopping supply, no OEM would've offered AMD setups. But the fact that everyone on the Intel witchhunt seems to forget is, plenty of oems still offered AMD, turning down Intel's offer. Seems to me that means the discounts weren't as huge as people are led to believe, and that any OEM could've offered AMD without huge losses. This boils down to OEM greed more than Intel greed.
> 
> This particular case is nothing but a means for the EU to make money. The entire premise of this case, and the law they used against Intel, is complete bullshit.



not quite true, each OEM got their own "rebate" offers, in some cases intel implyed there could be supply problems if an OEM was to push sales of their non-intel systems to hard or not take the "generous offer" intel was pushing.

Intel isnt a warm fuzzy company that plays nice, they want to win no matter what, even ifit means doing unethical things.

AMD and the like arent all warm and fuzzy and 100% out for the consumer, BUT they arent known for trying to bully their way into deals either, or pulling underhanded tricks to keep the competitors from having a chance.

AMD marketing SUCKS and has since....well forever, but had they been given even footing with all the OEM's IMHO things would be better for EVERYBODY not, intel would have been FORCED to get off their asses and get a decent chip design out to replace the netburst cores, AMD would probbly have been forced to bring out the K9 they had in pipe rather then cancel it, meaning that the k10 wouldnt have just been a tweaked k8.

Intel plays dirty, and in this country they got the money and clout to avoid what the EU and Korea and Japan did, the guy with the gold makes the rules in this country, if anybody ever tells you otherwise, they are lieing or very very out of touch with the reality we live in.

hell, how do you think MS has gotten away with stealing so many other companies works and only been successfully sued a couple times?  they got the money to make it go away and to push the competitors out of the market.

want another example of what i find UN-Ethical in the computer industry, there was this kickass little OS called BEOS, it was WONDERFUL and a JOY TO WORK WITH AND USE, so much so that a few OEM's where looking at using it on some systems, MS caught wind, and came in and flat out told them if they used beos on any retail products ms would either jack the price up so high that they couldnt afford to use windows on their systems or cut them off completely.

guess what happened, BEOS never got its OEM/Retail start, dispite the fact that in MANY MANY ways it was FAR better then windows.

64bit File system
32bit OS that still ran on even slower systems
rock solid stable
alot of apps(at the time) 
great for media/internet work

it was just a kickass little OS, hell some people STILL USE IT, and there are a few projects trying to bring out a new "from the ground up" BEOS for modern hardware(no they arent linux based!!!) 

but ms was allowed to use threats and bully tactics to keep people from having an option.......yeah for business's being able to do whatever the hell they want, however the hell they want, whenever the hell they want!!!


----------



## Wile E (Jul 27, 2009)

Meecrob said:


> not quite true, each OEM got their own "rebate" offers, in some cases intel implyed there could be supply problems if an OEM was to push sales of their non-intel systems to hard or not take the "generous offer" intel was pushing.
> 
> Intel isnt a warm fuzzy company that plays nice, they want to win no matter what, even ifit means doing unethical things.
> 
> ...


BEOS and MS have nothing to do with this. What MS did was threaten the supply chain. Completely different than offering a rebate. We need you to focus here, and quit getting side tracked. lol.

I see no evidence that Intel threatened supply chains. They only offered a better deal if you gave them exclusivity rights. I still see nothing wrong with that.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 27, 2009)

Wile E said:


> No, I don't think businesses should be able to do what they want, when they want. I just don't happen to think what Intel did was wrong. Now, if they threatened to completely stop supplying chips to these OEMs, I'd agree with them being fined. But they didn't. They merely offered a discount.



A bribe is always optional for the taker.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 27, 2009)

btarunr said:


> A bribe is always optional for the taker.



This is not a bribe in my eyes. It is a rebate attached to an exclusivity deal. Again, I see absolutely nothing wrong with it.

And if it were actually a bribe, the OEMs should be in just as much trouble. Both parties involved in a bribe are equally guilty.


----------



## Meecrob (Jul 27, 2009)

Wile E said:


> BEOS and MS have nothing to do with this. What MS did was threaten the supply chain. Completely different than offering a rebate. We need you to focus here, and quit getting side tracked. lol.
> 
> I see no evidence that Intel threatened supply chains. They only offered a better deal if you gave them exclusivity rights. I still see nothing wrong with that.



got any evidence they didnt imply the supply chain would be an issue if the OEM didnt take the "offer" intel was pushing on them?


----------



## btarunr (Jul 27, 2009)

Wile E said:


> This is not a bribe in my eyes. It is a rebate attached to an exclusivity deal. Again, I see absolutely nothing wrong with it.



There are many kinds of bribes involved in this case. First is discounts in return for exclusivity (which diminishes the lone competitor, and makes sure there's little competition, and little progress of the industry as a result of that competition)....anti-competition.

Second type of bribe is money/free stock in return for actively perpetrating anti-competition. "I'll give you a few free trays of [insert Intel CPU] if you delay the launch of your AMD-based product", so that when it comes out, it's not a competitive product anymore....again anti-competition. The fine is well deserved, will always be for me.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 27, 2009)

Meecrob said:


> got any evidence they didnt imply the supply chain would be an issue if the OEM didnt take the "offer" intel was pushing on them?



Do you have any evidence that they did?

And yeah, I have evidence. Dell was about the only major OEM that only offered Intel, the rest still offered AMD.



btarunr said:


> There are many kinds of bribes involved in this case. First is discounts in return for exclusivity (which diminishes the lone competitor, and makes sure there's little competition, and little progress of the industry as a result of that competition)....anti-competition.


That's not a bribe. That's a discount.



btarunr said:


> Second type of bribe is money/free stock in return for actively perpetrating anti-competition. "I'll give you a few free trays of [insert Intel CPU] if you delay the launch of your AMD-based product", so that when it comes out, it's not a competitive product anymore....again anti-competition. The fine is well deserved, will always be for me.


Now, the delaying of a launch, I can kind of understand. But who the hell wouldn't take free stuff to delay a launch? That seems to me the OEM is just as guilty, yet they aren't fined. Again, a double standard. If the oems aren't fined in this as well, then Intel does not deserved to be fined either.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 27, 2009)

Wile E said:


> That's not a bribe. That's a discount.



That's a bribe, since it's misusing its market-leader position to strike such deals with every OEM there is, something AMD can't afford, yet has competitive parts to sell. These discounts are anti-AMD since it involves making a manufacturer set caps on what proportion of its products can use AMD CPUs. The ones that end up suffering as a result of this is not AMD, it's the European consumer, since he doesn't get the best for his money as a result of something actively blocking healthy competition. EU is fighting the case for its people, not AMD. So "it's people" includes its companies that fell to Intel's schemes. 

When a crack dealer is pushing tons of crack into your country, and your people are offering patronage (because they were lured into consuming crack), you don't press criminal charges against the patrons of crack, you do so with the crack dealer. The patrons (your people) get rehab.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 27, 2009)

I'm interested in what the FTC has to say about this (if anything).  The EU has demonstrated time and time again that it is a circus court.  There's no way Intel will win the appeal.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 27, 2009)

btarunr said:


> That's a bribe, since it's misusing its market-leader position to strike such deals with every OEM there is, something AMD can't afford, yet has competitive parts to sell. These discounts are anti-AMD since it involves making a manufacturer set caps on what proportion of its products can use AMD CPUs. The ones that end up suffering as a result of this is not AMD, it's the European consumer, since he doesn't get the best for his money as a result of something actively blocking healthy competition. EU is fighting the case for its people, not AMD. So "it's people" includes its companies that fell to Intel's schemes.
> 
> When a crack dealer is pushing tons of crack into your country, and your people are offering patronage (because they were lured into consuming crack), you don't press criminal charges against the patrons of crack, you do so with the crack dealer. The patrons (your people) get rehab.


Bullshit. A rebate is a rebate. Market position has nothing to do with it at all. So, would AMD be allowed to offer these same rebates without consequence? Is so, that's not fair for Intel. It would hurt their profits, no matter how large they are. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

And yes, crack heads also get brought up on criminal charges if they are anywhere out in public. But that is a broken analogy anyway, and not really worth getting into.

If you feel the Intel deal is a bribe, a politician taking a bribe is a better example. Both the party offering the bribe gets in trouble, as well as the politician.

Again, I COMPLETELY disagree that this is a bribe. And if EU law says that it's a bribe, it's a bullshit law that needs overturned. The only way Intel should be fined is if they threatened the supply chain.


----------



## Meecrob (Jul 27, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Do you have any evidence that they did?
> 
> And yeah, I have evidence. Dell was about the only major OEM that only offered Intel, the rest still offered AMD.
> 
> ...



never said they threatened all the OEM's into not selling any amd systems, they did with dell, but they also gave dell chips very close to cost at times to keep dell happy.

as to other OEM's,well many just didnt promote or ship AMD systems to bigbox stores and only sold them on HSN or threw catalogs OR even only sold them to direct buy business clients.

you dont have to keep a company from selling ANY systems/items from a compeditor in order to be breaking the law or doing something un-ethical, you just have to be doing things that are anti competition/competitive and that go against the meaning/word of law.

taking your logic a step farther, would it be ok for company X to hire a hit-man to kill or disable salesmen of company B as they are on their way to a meeting to sell their products?

with the logic i see coming from alot of you, it would be wonderfully ok for them to do stuff like that.


----------



## Meecrob (Jul 27, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Bullshit. A rebate is a rebate. Market position has nothing to do with it at all. So, would AMD be allowed to offer these same rebates without consequence? Is so, that's not fair for Intel. It would hurt their profits, no matter how large they are. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
> 
> And yes, crack heads also get brought up on criminal charges if they are anywhere out in public. But that is a broken analogy anyway, and not really worth getting into.
> 
> ...



so now you want to dictate law to other countries?

what about when another country dosnt like our laws due to them being against the popular opinion/culture, should US law be changed to placate the ethical and moral values of people who dont live here?

should US law change to reflect the feelings of Japanese business making anime fansubs illegal and a jail-able offense?


----------



## Wile E (Jul 27, 2009)

Meecrob said:


> taking your logic a step farther, would it be ok for company X to hire a hit-man to kill or disable salesmen of company B as they are on their way to a meeting to sell their products?
> 
> with the logic i see coming from alot of you, it would be wonderfully ok for them to do stuff like that.


That's also bullshit. You are implying I allow extremes to try to serve your own purpose. First off, I already said threatening supply chains is wrong, so how the hell does that translate into "hiring hitmen is OK", secondly, murder is already against the law, and it is actually a just law.

With the logic I see coming from you a lot, we should be a socialist nation where the hard work of others rewards those that do nothing to better their position.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 27, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Bullshit. A rebate is a rebate. Market position has nothing to do with it at all. So, would AMD be allowed to offer these same rebates without consequence? Is so, that's not fair for Intel. It would hurt their profits, no matter how large they are. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
> 
> And yes, crack heads also get brought up on criminal charges if they are anywhere out in public. But that is a broken analogy anyway, and not really worth getting into.
> 
> ...



Intel's practices are not healthy for a competitive environment. Its market position allows it to give the kind of rebates that its competitors can't, and the rebates actively act against competition (because there's no other company that can give away tons of free processors, with pretty-much every OEM), and as such these rebates ensure AMD will never come up, even if it has a superior product lineup (as was the case during Athlon64's hay days, when a solid 15 quarters of technology leadership couldn't raise AMD's market share beyond 20%, far less in the OEM industry), so call it whatever you want to. rebate, bribe, gifts, they all serve only one purpose, to make sure the competitors never come up, and to run the market with an iron-fist even if you have inferior products to sell. So the only way to set the market right is ending the practice. Whether AMD is allowed to do that or not, is immaterial, it can't afford to give away such rebates to begin with, and when EU declares such a rebate illegal for Intel, it will be so for every other company, AMD included. 

At the end of the day, those in the investigating agencies and courtrooms know better than us. There is a problem, a big one. The people (consumers) are the ones who stand to lose, not companies. A healthy competition between AMD and NVIDIA is what is making sure you get once ridiculously expensive graphics accelerators for dirt cheap. With the kind of engineering potential both Intel and AMD hold, they can give you another ATI-NVIDIA competition when the environment is conducive. Right now it isn't. This fine is a big step forward. 

===
Respect others' opinions (no "bullshit").


----------



## Wile E (Jul 27, 2009)

btarunr said:


> You didn't get my point, and are not even making an attempt.
> 
> Intel's practices are not healthy for a competitive environment. Its market position allows it to give the kind of rebates that its competitors can't, and the rebates actively act against competition (because there's no other company that can give away tons of free processors, with pretty-much every OEM), and as such these rebates ensure AMD will never come up, even if it has a superior product lineup (as was the case during Athlon64's hay days, when a solid 15 quarters of technology leadership couldn't raise AMD's market share beyond 20%, far less in the OEM industry), so call it whatever you want to. rebate, bribe, gifts, they all serve only one purpose, to make sure the competitors never come up, and to run the market with an iron-fist even if you have inferior products to sell. So the only way to set the market right is ending the practice. Whether AMD is allowed to do that or not, is immaterial, it can't afford to give away such rebates to begin with, and when EU declares such a rebate illegal for Intel, it will be so for every other company, AMD included.
> 
> *At the end of the day, those in the investigating agencies and courtrooms know better than us.* There is a problem, a big one. The people (consumers) are the ones who stand to lose, not companies. A healthy competition between AMD and NVIDIA is what is making sure you get once ridiculously expensive graphics accelerators for dirt cheap. With the kind of engineering potential both Intel and AMD hold, they can give you another ATI-NVIDIA competition when the environment is conducive. Right now it isn't. This fine is a big step forward.


I absolutely don't believe in that, unless you only meant that they know the case better than us.

And I still don't see a problem with what happened. I still believe AMD's lack of growth was mostly their fault, not Intel's. I still see no facts that change my opinion on the matter. I see the same interpretations of the facts by many people, and I still see the same flaws in those interpretations.

And I didn't call your opinion BS. I called the law itself bs.


----------



## Meecrob (Jul 27, 2009)

Wile E said:


> That's also bullshit. You are implying I allow extremes to try to serve your own purpose. First off, I already said threatening supply chains is wrong, so how the hell does that translate into "hiring hitmen is OK", secondly, murder is already against the law, and it is actually a just law.
> 
> With the logic I see coming from you a lot, we should be a socialist nation where the hard work of others rewards those that do nothing to better their position.



but in the EU its already been established the intel broke the law, so the word of law dosnt matter, a portion of the EU population must think the law is just or it wouldnt be a law.

murder is against the law, but so is what intel did IN AND ACCORDING TO THE EU.

either we should enforce laws or not and enforce them equitably on all classes.

In the US this dosnt happen, Drug laws are applied against minorities and the poor far more then middle class and rich people, despite the fact that more white well to do people/kids smoke pot(numbers wise not ratio wise) then other races.

to me this is relevant in that it shows how screwed up our leigal system is and how its no better then the EU's, yet americans taut it as being the best in the world.......

yeah the us govt never gos after anybody just for the hell of it or because the case is an easy slamdunk be it true or not.

blah, down with fair competition, let the all-mighty intel do as they please and rule the market till all others fall.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 27, 2009)

Meecrob said:


> so now you want to dictate law to other countries?
> 
> what about when another country dosnt like our laws due to them being against the popular opinion/culture, should US law be changed to placate the ethical and moral values of people who dont live here?
> 
> should US law change to reflect the feelings of Japanese business making anime fansubs illegal and a jail-able offense?



Again, changing the subject I see.

At any rate, I believe that offering discounts should not be illegal, regardless of where you are. It's not my choice, obviously, thus Intel likely won't win the case, but it's my opinion that these types of controls on business are bad in the long run.

And quit insinuating that those of us that don't agree with this decision are against AMD. I makes you look like an ass. AMD is the only one at fault for AMD's position. It has nothing to do with any feelings on the company.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 27, 2009)

Wile E said:


> I absolutely don't believe in that, *unless you only meant that they know the case better than us.*



Yes, that's what I meant.



Wile E said:


> And I still don't see a problem with what happened. I still believe AMD's lack of growth was mostly their fault, not Intel's. I still see no facts that change my opinion on the matter. I see the same interpretations of the facts by many people, and I still see the same flaws in those interpretations.



No, it's because AMD was the "palm in a flowerpot". Once again, the belligerents are not Intel and AMD, it's Intel and EU.


----------



## Meecrob (Jul 27, 2009)

your the one who said the EU laws unjust and needs changed, when you dont live there, so you really have no right to say if its just FOR THEIR CULTURE, why not worry about whats wrong with THIS COUNTRY rather then rip on and bitch about other countries/groups of countries?

but your right f the law Hail The All mighty Intel, Long Live the King!!!


----------



## Wile E (Jul 27, 2009)

Meecrob said:


> your the one who said the EU laws unjust and needs changed, when you dont live there, so you really have no right to say if its just FOR THEIR CULTURE, why not worry about whats wrong with THIS COUNTRY rather then rip on and bitch about other countries/groups of countries?
> 
> but your right f the law Hail The All mighty Intel, Long Live the King!!!



Oh shut up Ash. Claiming we are anti-AMD for disagreeing with the law and or verdict is childish, and makes you look like an ass. It has nothing to do with being for or against a company.

It's like me saying you only agree with the verdict because it was Intel that was guilty, and had nothing to do with any alleged charges.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 27, 2009)

Meecrob said:


> your the one who said the EU laws unjust and needs changed, when you dont live there, so you really have no right to say if its just FOR THEIR CULTURE, why not worry about whats wrong with THIS COUNTRY rather then rip on and bitch about other countries/groups of countries?
> 
> but your right f the law Hail The All mighty Intel, Long Live the King!!!



He can have an opinion on anything.


----------



## Meecrob (Jul 27, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Oh shut up Ash. Claiming we are anti-AMD for disagreeing with the law and or verdict is childish, and makes you look like an ass. It has nothing to do with being for or against a company.



all i see you saying is that intel shouldn't be fined or even yelled at even if they broke the law because you dont agree with the law, and that because you dont agree with the law it should be changed.

yet when I turn that around and ask if our countries laws should be changed to fit non-Americans opinions/ethics you get mad and avoid the issue.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 27, 2009)

Look at post 196, I believe it addressed what you asked already.


----------



## Meecrob (Jul 27, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Again, changing the subject I see.
> 
> At any rate, I believe that offering discounts should not be illegal, regardless of where you are. It's not my choice, obviously, thus Intel likely won't win the case, but it's my opinion that these types of controls on business are bad in the long run.
> 
> And quit insinuating that those of us that don't agree with this decision are against AMD. I makes you look like an ass. AMD is the only one at fault for AMD's position. It has nothing to do with any feelings on the company.



hows this address the fact that what your saying is people outside a country/region should be able to decide if the laws in that region are valid/fair?

Hail the all mighty Intel the doers of no wrong!!!!


----------



## Wile E (Jul 27, 2009)

Meecrob said:


> hows this address the fact that what your saying is people outside a country/region should be able to decide if the laws in that region are valid/fair?
> 
> Hail the all mighty Intel the doers of no wrong!!!!


Stop. You are just making yourself look even worse. It's getting embarrassing now.

Again, what does my opinion of this verdict actually have anything to do with the name of the company. You could substitute any company names you see fit, in any industry you see fit, and my opinion would be no different.

And I feel that uniform laws should be agreed upon by all nations/regions, not different in every region. As such I, of course, am inclined to agree more with the US's way of doing things. Even more so considering that the US is the largest driver of the world economy, for better or for worse. That clear it up for you?


----------



## Meecrob (Jul 27, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Stop. You are just making yourself look even worse. It's getting embarrassing now.
> 
> Again, what does my opinion of this verdict actually have anything to do with the name of the company. You could substitute any company names you see fit, in any industry you see fit, and my opinion would be no different.
> 
> And I feel that uniform laws should be agreed upon by all nations/regions, not different in every region. As such I, of course, am inclined to agree more with the US's way of doing things. Even more so considering that the US is the largest driver of the world economy, for better or for worse. That clear it up for you?



yeah, you like the US status quoe.

we wont ever agree on that, I feel this countries laws are as screwed up as the rest of the worlds on avg, mostly due to the fact that so many laws get approved due to lobbyists and bad/false info(see lies).

I could give examples,but there is no point, you wont agree with me that for example tossing some kid who has a scrape bag with weed crumbs in it in jail for 6 months and giving him a life long felony drug conviction on his records is BS, specly when a drunk drive who hits a copcar can get tossed in the can and be out the next day with a fine and maby probation, if hes done it a few times, AA and maby treatment.....(yes, this happens here all the time) 

What this country/world needs is a format and reinstall in the govt/laws dept, remove the stupid useless dead weight laws that make no sense and fix the systems that allowed the laws to be made.

oh, and do you agree with laws like the DMCA? just wondering, because most of the world and even US citizens who know what it is dont agree with it.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 27, 2009)

Now this discussion is going south of the topic. I suggest you end it, as I won't close the thread.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 27, 2009)

Meecrob said:


> yeah, you like the US status quoe.
> 
> we wont ever agree on that, I feel this countries laws are as screwed up as the rest of the worlds on avg, mostly due to the fact that so many laws get approved due to lobbyists and bad/false info(see lies).
> 
> ...


No, I don't agree with the DMCA. I said I'm inclined to agree more, not blindly agree with the US. 

Either way, I'm done here. We've both said our peace, and still don't agree. Pointless to take it further.


----------



## Meecrob (Jul 27, 2009)

/me throws wet ball of TP at back of WileE's head and runs away


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jul 27, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Automotive makers should be fined too. I mean I've gotten several "loyalty" rebates over the years. Why doesn't the EU go after BMW? I got 5,000 dollar rebate for buying a second BMW and not another brand. I only got that rebate because I bought another BMW. If I would have bought a Benz and skipped a purchase from BMW that rebate would have been lost the next time I bought a one (BMW). So yeah rebates do work based off of a competitors sale.
> 
> Also what about El Fiendo point about restaurants selling only Coke and not Pepsi. Or vise versa. SO many other industries do what Intel did its pathetic. I'm not going to argue whether Intel broke the law or not. All I'm saying is whats good for the goose is good for the gander. This is why I feel its a payday and not "justice".



I totally agree. Anybody who thinks that Intel was being immoral with rebates seriously needs to learn more about how business operates across the world. There is nothing immoral with it. I think people just want a reason to be mad at Intel. I use and build with both at work and home. People treat Intel as if there are evil people running it. They are just a bunch of boring business men making legal contracts with other businesses.


----------



## sideeffect (Jul 27, 2009)

People need to chill out this is only the first of many appeals.

Just to clear some things up though.

Intel do need to obey European Law when they sell products in Europe.
People in Europe do know how businesses work. 
The economy of Europe is very close to that of the USA but with far less foreign debt.
Intel can't afford to not sell in Europe.


----------



## Sugarush (Jul 27, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> They were competitive prices becuase Intel and AMD are both still around.  If Intel undercut AMD, Intel's bottome line would take a hit because they wouldn't be making money on processors sold and AMD would be out of business because they would run out of revenue.  Cost over value prevents what you are suggesting from ever happening (at least for long).



I didn't say that Intel undercut AMD. Intel didn't allow a fair competition based on products/prices but rather tried to cap AMD's market share using their weight with the OEMs/retailers.



FordGT90Concept said:


> Toyota is dominating now.  Ford/GM were dominating a few years ago (before the economic collapse).



By saying Toyota is dominating you probably mean they are the biggest car manufacturer, which isn't the same.



FordGT90Concept said:


> As I said, that claim is false.  Only Dell didn't offer AMD and they said it was because consumers didn't demand AMD products.



The thing is, we don't know if there would've been a higher demand for AMD chips, because Intel effectively capped their market share. You cannot argue via demand, when the supply is effectively capped.


----------



## Sugarush (Jul 27, 2009)

Wile E said:


> No they aren't. I have seen countless rebate offers for things like anti virus or burning suites that offer you a discount for turning in a competitor's product. It doesn't matter why or how they offer the rebate. It's just a rebate no matter how you look at it.
> 
> Their market position has nothing to do with it at all, nor should it ever. By your logic, it would be ok for AMD to offer rebates to OEMs for not using Intel products, but not for Intel to do the same. That my friend, is called a double standard.
> 
> And as far as marketing, if AMD actually had a decent marketing department, their cpus would've been in demand, and they would've been in such a position that Intel's rebates would've been turned down by the OEMs. The fault lays on AMD for their lack of market share, period.



It would've been perfectly fine, if Intel had offered the consumers to turn in an AMD chip and get theirs cheaper. But Intel decided that it's not the consumers' decision to choose what CPU thy want in their PC.

Their market position is essential in this case, because they could use their weight with the OEMs to cap AMD's market share. You could look at these rebates from another perspective: Either you sell only our chips and get them for decent prices or you decide to sell AMD's chips as well (i.e. let them get a bigger share of your whole sales than we want) and get our rip-off prices. And since you depend on us for the most of your sales it would be very stupid to do that...

As I said in onther post: demand for your chips doesn't matter if the bigger player effectively caps your suplly via OEMs/retailers.

Intel has always been bigger and that's OK. But they shouldn't have abused their power with the OEMs/retailers to exclude AMD from the market, they should have left the decision to the consumers.

Ask Spider-man he'll tell you about power and responsibility


----------



## Wile E (Jul 27, 2009)

Sugarush said:


> It would've been perfectly fine, if Intel had offered the consumers to turn in an AMD chip and get theirs cheaper. But Intel decided that it's not the consumers' decision to choose what CPU thy want in their PC.
> 
> *Their market position is essential in this case, because they could use their weight with the OEMs to cap AMD's market share. You could look at these rebates from another perspective: Either you sell only our chips and get them for decent prices or you decide to sell AMD's chips as well (i.e. let them get a bigger share of your whole sales than we want) and get our rip-off prices. And since you depend on us for the most of your sales it would be very stupid to do that...*
> 
> ...


Yet numerous OEMs decide to decline the offer, and still offered AMD machines. Meaning that their "rip off" prices apparently weren't as terrible as people make them out to be.

And as far as I'm concerned, the decision to sell only Intel cpus lies more on the hands of the OEMs, not Intel. And I also believe it should be perfectly within the rights of a company to not offer a product they don't want to offer.

Bottom line, nobody has said anything that convinces me something wrong has been done here.

And, considering this is all just continually going in circles, with everyone restating the same points over and over, this will be my last post on the topic until someone provides new facts.


----------



## Sugarush (Jul 27, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Yet numerous OEMs decide to decline the offer, and still offered AMD machines. Meaning that their "rip off" prices apparently weren't as terrible as people make them out to be.
> 
> And as far as I'm concerned, the decision to sell only Intel cpus lies more on the hands of the OEMs, not Intel. And I also believe it should be perfectly within the rights of a company to not offer a product they don't want to offer.
> 
> ...



Nobody said there were no AMD machines sold:

"* 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"

So you see AMD machines could be sold but only if the sales didn't contribute more than 20% (or even less in other cases) of the OEM's sales.

The final decision was obviously that of the OEM's, but considering the consequences of the "wrong" decision, it is a pretty straightforward thing in terms of business prospects to accept Intel's rebates. But that doesn't make it a fair practice, and that's why there are laws to prevent that kind of behavior.

Lots of people argue that as long as Intel didn't put the gun the their heads or threatened to stop supplying their chips altogether, it was OK to offer those rebates, cause that's just a rebate and nobody was (literally) forcing the OEM's to go along with it.

But not everything is always black&white in your face obvious. There are a lot of ways to do things more subtle. Just look at the tax evading practices.

And those rebates is just a subtle way to put a gun to your head and make you do it the Intel's way.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 27, 2009)

Sugarush said:


> Nobody said there were no AMD machines sold:
> 
> "* 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"
> 
> ...


No new facts. Still don't agree.


----------



## Sugarush (Jul 27, 2009)

Wile E said:


> No new facts. Still don't agree.



Dont' worry, it's not my mission to convince you


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 27, 2009)

Meecrob said:


> all i see you saying is that intel shouldn't be fined or even yelled at even if they broke the law because you dont agree with the law, and that because you dont agree with the law it should be changed.
> 
> yet when I turn that around and ask if our countries laws should be changed to fit non-Americans opinions/ethics you get mad and avoid the issue.



Honestly I'm still not convinced this law applied to Intel at the time of their "wrong doing". Hell I don't even think it applies to them now. Also why isn't the EU going after any of the OEM's? When you get busted for soliciting prostitution you AND the hooker go to jail. There is just something very fishy about all this. In the US you can fight something all the way to the Supreme court. In the E.U. it seems like you have the fox watching the chickens. Now I could be wrong so don't jump down my neck but who decides if the E.U. decision is correct?


----------



## HalfAHertz (Jul 27, 2009)

Intel is not a US only company. Yes, the main offices are in the US but most of the R&D  and production facilities are outside of the US. On top of that, it doesn't matter where your company is based at, as long as you sell your product on a foregin market, you are obliged to follow their laws. The EU law system clearly states that what intel did was illegal. End of point. They have broken the EU law, hence they are penalized by the EU. As a previous example, if you break the speed limit in the US, you get a ticket and are pennalized by the US goverment. I don't se why this argument has to continue...



TheMailMan78 said:


> Honestly I'm still not convinced this law applied to Intel at the time of their "wrong doing". Hell I don't even think it applies to them now. Also why isn't the EU going after any of the OEM's? When you get busted for soliciting prostitution you AND the hooker go to jail. There is just something very fishy about all this. In the US you can fight something all the way to the Supreme court. In the E.U. it seems like you have the fox watching the chickens. Now I could be wrong so don't jump down my neck but who decides if the E.U. decision is correct?



This is the final decision. There is no higher institution than the EU court, but for a case to reach the EU court, it first has to pass through nummerous smaller institutions where it is evaluated, approved/dissaproved and investigated...The EU court is huge, slow  and very expensive, so believe me when I say that the institutions do everything in their power to eliminate a problem before it reaches the EU court to reduce costs, solve the issue sooner, etc.


----------



## jamesrt2004 (Jul 27, 2009)

HalfAHertz said:


> Intel is not a US only company. Yes, the main offices are in the US but most of the R&D  and production facilities are outside of the US. On top of that, it doesn't matter where your company is based at, as long as you sell your product on a foregin market, you are obliged to follow their laws. The EU law system clearly states that what intel did was illegal. End of point. They have broken the EU law, hence they are penalized by the EU. As a previous example, if you break the speed limit in the US, you get a ticket and are pennalized by the US goverment. I don't se why this argument has to continue...
> 
> 
> 
> This is the final decision. There is no higher institution than the EU court, but for a case to reach the EU court, it first has to pass through nummerous smaller institutions where it is evaluated, approved/dissaproved and investigated...



+1.....

if i stole something on holiday I am faced with their laws not ours... end of. Its nothign to do with EU being greedy or anything.. its just they broke the law.... so what if it's not in the American laws.. its in the EU, you can't go to eu (if your from america) do something wrong and be like,, well its legal in my country.. your just trying to get money out of me...

its just stupid.


----------



## HalfAHertz (Jul 27, 2009)

Just for WileE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law

You can scroll down and see the EU and US laws, they are quite similar actually.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 27, 2009)

Sugarush said:


> "* 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"


That doesn't sound like a rebate, it sounds like a contract.  As a contract, that is completely legit.  Intel is going to make a lot of processors available to them so they need forewarning of large orders.  By providing some security to Intel, "manufacturer C" gets reduced prices.


"Manufacturer C" should get strung up for agreeing to the contract, not Intel.  "Manufacturer C" willingly agreed to Intel's terms.  Had they not, this should have been in the courts back in 2002--the contract should have never been agreed to.


Assuming Intel is guilty, how does that warrant a 1+ billion euro fine?  Did this "manufacturer C" even net that much revenue in the same time period?

Why is this coming up 3-4 years after the fact?

Why does the money go to reducing EU member fees rather than the parties hurt by anti-competitive behavior that they alledge?


Everything about it smells fishy.  Again, Intel will lose the appeal because it is a circus court.  There's no doubt in my mind on that.


----------



## HalfAHertz (Jul 27, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> That doesn't sound like a rebate, it sounds like a contract.  As a contract, that is completely legit



I guess there weren't any legal documents signed to proove it  meaning that everything was under the table. 




FordGT90Concept said:


> "Manufacturer C" should get strung up for agreeing to the contract, not Intel.  "Manufacturer C" willingly agreed to Intel's terms.  Had they not, this should have been in the courts back in 2002--the contract should have never been agreed to.



Let us take AMD out of the equasion for a sec. So Manufacturer C was forced to buy at least 80% of its stock by intel, otherwise the prices would have been jacked up and the said supplier would not have been able to compete fairly on the market with its compettitors who have already agreed to intel's terms. Thus leading to them having to sell the products with a smaller proffit margin/at a loss.



FordGT90Concept said:


> How does that warrant a 1+ billion euro fine?  Did this "manufacturer C" even net that much revenue in the same time period?



If you add all the manufacturers together and bear in mind the >3 year period, I'm pretty sure it all adds up and is in fact even inferrior. The EU is no small market and for a company such as intel that makes 6-8 bilion yearly, this is negligible




FordGT90Concept said:


> Why is this coming up 3-4 years after the fact?



Because as mentioned earlier there are in fact many institutions prior to the EU court that need to investigate the case.



FordGT90Concept said:


> Why does the money go to reducing EU member fees rather than the parties hurt by anti-competitive behavior that they alledge?



It goes to the EU body, where if at a later date any of the hurt parties wants to sign up for a subsidy, can do so and state by what means and how much it was affected.


----------



## Sugarush (Jul 27, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> That doesn't sound like a rebate, it sounds like a contract.  As a contract, that is completely legit.  Intel is going to make a lot of processors available to them so they need forewarning of large orders.  By providing some security to Intel, "manufacturer C" gets reduced prices.
> 
> 
> "Manufacturer C" should get strung up for agreeing to the contract, not Intel.  "Manufacturer C" willingly agreed to Intel's terms.  Had they not, this should have been in the courts back in 2002--the contract should have never been agreed to.
> ...



You can sign a contract on whatever you want, you can sign a contract on fixing prices with your competitors, but that doesn't mean it's going to be legal.

There are practically only two competitors on the CPU market for PCs, Intel and AMD. So by asking the OEM to get at least 80% of his CPU needs from Intel, you're asking to not get more than 20% from AMD. Nobofy even mentioned the need for forewarning in case of large orders.

Are we arguing about the fine amount or Intel's guilt, cause we have to get that first before we can discuss the fine itself.

The case has been in courts for years already, you don't expect a verdict over night, do you?

Why does the confiscated mafia cash go to the government and not the victims of their crimes?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 27, 2009)

Sugarush said:


> You can sign a contract on whatever you want, you can sign a contract on fixing prices with your competitors, but that doesn't mean it's going to be legal.


The fine must be addressed to both parties, not just one.  Both parties are equally guilty of the "crime."





Sugarush said:


> Are we arguing about the fine amount or Intel's guilt, cause we have to get that first before we can discuss the fine itself.


If Intel is guilty, it takes two to tango.  Only one fine was issued so the partner in crime is missing.  Also, if Intel is guilty, the fine needs to be based on the crime, not the situation of the subjects involved (e.g. if a movie star crashes into your ride, they need only pay the amount in damages based on the value of your car, not their net worth).

Whomever is pushing these charges need to show that AMD lost x amount of money because of this contract.  That not only helps in determining the fines for Intel and "manufacturer C," it also dictates how much compenstation AMD deserves.  AMD was the victim, after all.

So, even assuming Intel's guilt, everything else doesn't fall in place as it should.




Sugarush said:


> Why does the confiscated mafia cash go to the government and not the victims of their crimes?


In many ways, the government was the victim of the mafia.  The mafia took over the role of the government and beating back the mafia meant the government was taking back control.  It cost the government (city and federal) a lot money to right the wrong.


----------



## dr emulator (madmax) (Jul 27, 2009)

what makes me laugh at all this is ,it's us that will foot the bill by higher prices not intel:shadedshu


----------



## HalfAHertz (Jul 27, 2009)

dr emulator (madmax) said:


> what makes me laugh at all this is ,it's us that will foot the bill by higher prices not intel:shadedshu



We'll have to wait and see. I don't think the prices of any of intel's current products will go up. They will just remain at their current price points for a bit longer.


----------



## Sugarush (Jul 27, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The fine must be addressed to both parties, not just one.  Both parties are equally guilty of the "crime."
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Intel was the one who profited from those rebates, so the EU went after them first. As for the OEMs, I agree the should be responsible as well, though maybe the cases will be brought up after the case against Intel will end.

I believe Intel has made about 5 billion U.S. dollars in 2008, so no the EU is not demanding Intel's net worth as a penalty.

*Altogether this is not an AMD vs. Intel case, it's an EU vs. Intel case, that's why the EU gets the money. 

The fine is a penalty for breaking the law, not a compensation for AMD's lost profits.*


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 27, 2009)

You don't think "manufacturer C" didn't as well?  They wouldn't have agreed if it wasn't mutually beneficial.

The case was 2002-2005.  Current revenue should not weigh on the court's decision.  The EU didn't get shafted, no one did.  This is an Intel vs [null] case--unwinable.  Whenever you got a [null] case (like death cases with no will), profits go to the state.

Rebates don't violate a law.  This contract doesn't violate a law either.  EU has a budget problem and found an easy victim.  Most likely like seeing the big "bad" corporations getting fined for the sake of the "little guy."


And yes, when the appeal fails to go through, I doubt the EU will see an Intel price cut for a long time.  They have to get that money back to make investors happy.


----------



## $ReaPeR$ (Jul 27, 2009)

Wile E said:


> This is not a bribe in my eyes. It is a rebate attached to an exclusivity deal. Again, I see absolutely nothing wrong with it.
> 
> And if it were actually a bribe, the OEMs should be in just as much trouble. Both parties involved in a bribe are equally guilty.



just by offering exclusivity they take out the choice factor and that on its own is unethical, but almost all companies work in that way so by a company's standard its OK to do that :shadedshu


----------



## Sugarush (Jul 27, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> You don't think "manufacturer C" didn't as well?  They wouldn't have agreed if it wasn't mutually beneficial.
> 
> The case was 2002-2005.  Current revenue should not weigh on the court's decision.  The EU didn't get shafted, no one did.  This is an Intel vs [null] case--unwinable.  Whenever you got a [null] case (like death cases with no will), profits go to the state.
> 
> ...



"Manufacturer C" didn't experience huge losses, due to a price increase from Intel, that was his benefit.

I just wanted to show you how much Intel earns in a year. EU's fine is not even close to that amount, and as you said the case was 2002-2005, 3 years.

If you have any proof that EU is just doing it to get some cash, then I'd like to hear it.


----------



## Meecrob (Jul 27, 2009)

dr emulator (madmax) said:


> what makes me laugh at all this is ,it's us that will foot the bill by higher prices not intel:shadedshu



well, maby you will, and WileE and others who only buy "the best" personal I will stick with AMD if only to keep the competition alive.



HalfAHertz said:


> Just for WileE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law
> 
> You can scroll down and see the EU and US laws, they are quite similar actually.



wont do any good, Intel can do no wrong, they make the best hardware in the computer world.]



TheMailMan78 said:


> Honestly I'm still not convinced this law applied to Intel at the time of their "wrong doing". Hell I don't even think it applies to them now. Also why isn't the EU going after any of the OEM's? *When you get busted for soliciting prostitution you AND the hooker go to jail.* There is just something very fishy about all this. In the US you can fight something all the way to the Supreme court. In the E.U. it seems like you have the fox watching the chickens. Now I could be wrong so don't jump down my neck but who decides if the E.U. decision is correct?



this depends on where you are, some places I have seen them take both to jail, then let the hooker go, take a guess why?

because they can just use her to catch another john and they make more money that way.



FordGT90Concept said:


> You don't think "manufacturer C" didn't as well?  They wouldn't have agreed if it wasn't mutually beneficial.
> 
> The case was 2002-2005.  Current revenue should not weigh on the court's decision.  The EU didn't get shafted, no one did.  This is an Intel vs [null] case--unwinable.  Whenever you got a [null] case (like death cases with no will), profits go to the state.
> 
> ...



if said "rebates" are contingent on anti competitive practices that are covered by the law yes, they do break the law.

Even if intel didnt know about the law(HAHAHA!!!) they are still held accountable to the word of law, ignorance of the law is no defense in any legal system i know of.


----------



## Meecrob (Jul 27, 2009)

FordGT90Concept
http://macenstein.com/default/archives/750


> Posted by Dr. Macenstein
> 
> Let me ask you something.
> 
> ...



do i need to get you more?   

and its not just MS that labels drives based on BINARY CAPACITY its every sain os out there including mac's. (linux, well different distros show capacity in different ways, but you shouldnt care since you feel linux and any non-windows os is trash.)


----------



## 3870x2 (Jul 27, 2009)

I see all of the in-depth arguments about this, have been reading everyones very valid points over and over, even with meecrob getting sidetracked , here are my only points:

1. Intel isnt getting "fined" a small deal here, like a slap on the wrist, they are getting it hard and splintered without lubricant.  The fine alone erases years of business done in the EU.  Europe is hurting, needs the money, * and TheMailMan78, FordGT90Concept, Meecrob, W1zzard, Sugarush, Erocker, $ReaPer$, Wilee, HalfAHertz and ME are all going to be splitting that bill.*

2. Agreeing with Wilee, I dont believe they did enough to get a fine, Just like a runner, who gets sponsored, gets paid more for his exclusivity.  Are you going to fine UnderArmor for that? how about Le Tour De France, are you going to sue LaPierre for doing Lance Armstrong a solid exclusivity deal?  Hell, they gave him a bike to wear their stuff.

3.  How in the hell did hard drive numbers and calculations get into EU suing Intel?


----------



## Meecrob (Jul 27, 2009)

You may pay for it, I wont be, Intel dosnt have anything I want to buy.

Oh and note how much intel makes per year, this fine is really a drop in the bucket, far less then they made in even one year of doing the crap they are being slapped around for.

and the size track in this case(the hdd thing) is to prove a point and help stop mis-information from being spred around by those who do not have a historical context to put it into.


----------



## 3870x2 (Jul 27, 2009)

Meecrob said:


> You may pay for it, I wont be, Intel dosnt have anything I want to buy.
> 
> Oh and note how much intel makes per year, this fine is really a drop in the bucket, far less then they made in even one year of doing the crap they are being slapped around for.
> 
> and the size track in this case(the hdd thing) is to prove a point and help stop mis-information from being spred around by those who do not have a historical context to put it into.



The money they make per year mostly goes toward expenses, not in their pocket.  The end product says that intel doesnt have that kind of money just lying around the office.  Not to mention, you are biased against intel? and you are posting here? taboo....


----------



## Meecrob (Jul 27, 2009)

im bias against how intel and most companies do business.

MS for example also use bully tactics, and they got/get slapped for it, I guess some intel execs will have to forgo their bonouses or buying new cars for a while if they endup having to pay the fine, poor guys..

If it was AMD in place of intel(places reversed) I would be saying they deserve it, any company that uses unethical tactics to stay on top/keep competitors down deserves it, I just haven't seen AMD do any of that, even against VIA who they could bully if they wanted to.(they are bigger then via after all) 

If you break the law, you takes your chances, when you get caught, you shouldnt try to get out of it, and you shouldnt get out of it no matter how much money you have.(not just talking about intel here, but anybody or company) 


I sure as hell wouldnt get away with breaking the law, the cops would be on my ass like white on rice, then i would endup in jail and with fines and everything else if i broke the law......


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 27, 2009)

Meecrob said:


> You may pay for it, I wont be, Intel dosnt have anything I want to buy.
> 
> Oh and note how much intel makes per year, this fine is really a drop in the bucket, far less then they made in even one year of doing the crap they are being slapped around for.
> 
> and the size track in this case(the hdd thing) is to prove a point and help stop mis-information from being spred around by those who do not have a historical context to put it into.



Oh you'll be paying for it too. Of course you wont blame it on this but the fact will remain you WILL pay for this somehow. 

We all will.


----------



## Meecrob (Jul 27, 2009)

how, I dont tend to upgrade my cpu/mobo that offten, I get something i can push to a nice level and stick with it(god how i hate replacing motherboards) 

Oh and yes we all pay for everything in one way or another, I will pay at least enlarge by listening to intel user/lover friends of mine complain about high prices when they want to upgrade


----------



## 3870x2 (Jul 27, 2009)

It would be quicker if EU just sent us all a bill for $5-10 each, and bypass the middle-man


----------



## Meecrob (Jul 27, 2009)

lol, i would send them back a bill for wasting my time 

blah, If only a 3rd company would get out a chip/platform worth supporting, we could support that and let both companies know that they need to get on the ball and stop being stupid/assholes


----------



## 3870x2 (Jul 27, 2009)

Meecrob said:


> lol, i would send them back a bill for wasting my time
> 
> blah, If only a 3rd company would get out a chip/platform worth supporting, we could support that and let both companies know that they need to get on the ball and stop being stupid/assholes



I could say the same about the graphics card market.  GO GO S3 Chrome!


----------



## Meecrob (Jul 27, 2009)

lol, sad part, if the chrome had come out a couple/few years earlier it would have been a decent product, and multichrome wasnt bad(buddy of mine still plays wow on his HTPC using multichrome) 

I wanted PowerVR to become our 3rd option, the kyro was a hell of a chip!!!


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jul 27, 2009)

HalfAHertz said:


> Just for WileE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law
> 
> You can scroll down and see the EU and US laws, they are quite similar actually.



As your link is written a dominant grocery store chain could not hold a sale that sells things lower than an another grocery store chain. Its very vague, just the way abusive governments like it. Any exclusive pricing is not allowed according to the link. Are there no sales in the EU? I think they are using it as a harassment law to hussle money out of companies.

Then if every place charged the same on something they could say it is "price fixing". So anything sold on the mass market could then be subject to fines. That is unless you have EU officials in your pocket at least.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 28, 2009)

Sugarush said:


> If you have any proof that EU is just doing it to get some cash, then I'd like to hear it.


All the holes in logic of the case are the proof.  If you're actually doing this to stop criminal activity, you pursue all the criminals, not just the one with the biggest wallet.  It is telling about the motives behind the case.




Meecrob said:


> and its not just MS that labels drives based on BINARY CAPACITY its every sain os out there including mac's. (linux, well different distros show capacity in different ways, but you shouldnt care since you feel linux and any non-windows os is trash.)


If I told you to travel 10km towards me but only meant 10m, you'd be 9990m away from me.  Improper labeling of anything causes chaos and that's exactly what this is.

A lot of Linux distros do show the proper label to match the calculation.  Linux devs are doing it right, Microsoft is still doing it wrong.  Just because Microsoft is the largest corporation to not fix their labels doesn't make it right.

You still haven't found a hard drive with a binary MB or GB, have you?  I'm patient, I'll wait.   "GiB" and "MiB" didn't exist prior to 1998 so they will for sure be labeled incorrectly.  I'm just curious if such hard drives ever even existed.




3870x2 said:


> How in the hell did hard drive numbers and calculations get into EU suing Intel?


A similar case in the USA where Seagate got sued for Microsoft's bug.  The guilty parties aren't always the one to get strung up.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 28, 2009)

$ReaPeR$ said:


> *just by offering exclusivity they take out the choice factor and that on its own is unethical*, but almost all companies work in that way so by a company's standard its OK to do that :shadedshu



I disagree



DaedalusHelios said:


> As your link is written a dominant grocery store chain could not hold a sale that sells things lower than an another grocery store chain. Its very vague, just the way abusive governments like it. Any exclusive pricing is not allowed according to the link. Are there no sales in the EU? I think they are using it as a harassment law to hussle money out of companies.
> 
> Then if every place charged the same on something they could say it is "price fixing". So anything sold on the mass market could then be subject to fines. That is unless you have EU officials in your pocket at least.



I agree.

And here again, we are still going in circles.


----------



## Sugarush (Jul 28, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> All the holes in logic of the case are the proof.  If you're actually doing this to stop criminal activity, you pursue all the criminals, not just the one with the biggest wallet.  It is telling about the motives behind the case.



I meant real proof, not a conspiracy theory.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 28, 2009)

Sugarush said:


> I meant real proof, not a conspiracy theory.



Where's your real proof?

This whole issue is "he said, she said". Very little proof from either side.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jul 28, 2009)

AltecV1 said:


> russia is not in eu to your homework before you are trying to look smart



*I said Russia is in Europe*, _I did not say Russia is in the EU._ The two are different.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 28, 2009)

The majority of Russia is in Asia. 



Sugarush said:


> I meant real proof, not a conspiracy theory.


The case isn't clear enough to provide "real proof."  We would first have to establish who set up this agreement--was it "manufacturer C" or Intel?  We would then have to look at the sales figures to see if AMD really lost out because of this agreement.  At least in the USA, anti-competitive behavior in "refusal to deal" cases is determined by the damage done to the competition.  Here's an example...


> http://www.ftc.gov/bc/antitrust/refusal_to_deal.shtm
> Sometimes the refusal to deal is with customers or suppliers, with the effect of preventing them from dealing with a rival: "I refuse to deal with you if you deal with my competitor." For example, in a case from the 1950's, the only newspaper in a town refused to carry advertisements from companies that were also running ads on a local radio station. The newspaper monitored the radio ads and terminated its ad contracts with any business that ran ads on the radio. The Supreme Court found that the newspaper's refusal to deal with businesses using the radio station strengthened its dominant position in the local advertising market and *threatened to eliminate the radio station as a competitor*.



It could be determined that "manufacture C" arranged the agreement, or Intel, or both.  All of which is irrelevant unless AMD was threatened by the deal.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jul 28, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The majority of Russia is in Asia.



Well damn, you would think I would have realised that with a big ass world map mural beside my computer desk on the wall.. 

It will no longer be for decoration now... I will use it for reference.


----------



## Sugarush (Jul 28, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The majority of Russia is in Asia.
> 
> 
> The case isn't clear enough to provide "real proof."  We would first have to establish who set up this agreement--was it "manufacturer C" or Intel?  We would then have to look at the sales figures to see if AMD really lost out because of this agreement.  At least in the USA, anti-competitive behavior in "refusal to deal" cases is determined by the damage done to the competition.  Here's an example...
> ...



Intel set the agreements up: they profited from these agreements, the could sell more chips, but most importantly cap AMD's market share establishing a quasi monopoly.

The thing is, it's a case of EU vs. Intel. Hence the fine isn't a compensation of AMD's lost profits but a penalty for breaking the law and hurting consumers. So AMD's lost profit are irrelevant in this case, and so is the US competition law.



Wile E said:


> Where's your real proof?
> 
> This whole issue is "he said, she said". Very little proof from either side.



So you're saying the whole case is based on hearsay? Don't you think that would be Intel's first line of defense then? 

Btw, I thought you didn't wanna post until some new facts come up? 


Intel offered those rebates which were illegal under competition law of the EU. They were charged and found guilty.
*Just because some people don't agree with the law itself they start to come up with conspiracy theories.*


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 28, 2009)

Sugarush said:


> Intel set the agreements up: they profited from these agreements, the could sell more chips, but most importantly cap AMD's market share establishing a quasi monopoly.
> 
> The thing is, it's a case of EU vs. Intel. Hence the fine isn't a compensation of AMD's lost profits but a penalty for breaking the law and hurting consumers. So AMD's lost profit are irrelevant in this case, and so is the US competition law.


They have to prove that AMD was threatened by this agreement.  Considering AMD's marketshare steadily climbed during that period (peaking in mid-2005), I'd say it didn't.  Case closed--just a normal agreement between Intel and "manufacturer C"--not antitrust.

At least that's how it works in the USA.  I'm not going to argue EU law because EU law is anti-business; therefore, I argue the EU laws are unfair/anti-competitive.  Knowing the USA antitrust law, I'll say that the FTC is going to be hard pressed rule against Intel on this one.  If they do, Intel has a good chance at appealing it.


----------



## Sugarush (Jul 28, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> They have to prove that AMD was threatened by this agreement.  Considering AMD's marketshare steadily climbed during that period (peaking in mid-2005), I'd say it didn't.  Case closed--just a normal agreement between Intel and "manufacturer C"--not antitrust.



No they don't. The case is first of all about the consumer's choice. So they just had to prove that Intel prevented AMD's (their only competitor) market exposure sufficiently, and hence reduced the average consumer's choice.

And obviously you can grow all the way you want, up to 20% or less, i.e. up to where Intel lets you.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 28, 2009)

Antitrust has nothing to do with consumer choice and everything to do with one business leveraging their position against another.

I'm not going to comment anymore until I see the 500 page report filed by the EU.  Right now, we can only argue hypotheticals.


----------



## Sugarush (Jul 28, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Antitrust has nothing to do with consumer choice and everything to do with one business leveraging their position against another.
> 
> I'm not going to comment anymore until I see the 500 page report filed by the EU.  Right now, we can only argue hypotheticals.



You're a bit off there:

"Competition law, known in the United States as antitrust law, has three main elements:

    * *prohibiting agreements or practices that restrict free trading and competition between business entities*. This includes in particular the repression of cartels.
    * *banning abusive behavior by a firm dominating a market, or anti-competitive practices that tend to lead to such a dominant position.* Practices controlled in this way may include predatory pricing, tying, price gouging, refusal to deal, and many others.
    * supervising the mergers and acquisitions of large corporations, including some joint ventures. Transactions that are considered to threaten the competitive process can be prohibited altogether, or approved subject to "remedies" such as an obligation to divest part of the merged business or to offer licenses or access to facilities to enable other businesses to continue competing.

The substance and practice of competition law varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. *Protecting the interests of consumers (consumer welfare)* and ensuring that entrepreneurs have an opportunity to compete in the market economy are often treated as important objectives."


----------



## HalfAHertz (Jul 28, 2009)

I'm just amazed how long this argumanet (or discussion if you may) has continued for.


----------



## mdm-adph (Jul 28, 2009)

HalfAHertz said:


> I'm just amazed how long this argumanet (or discussion if you may) has continued for.



They always do.  As long as they stay somewhat civil, they're usually pretty good.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 28, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> They always do.  As long as they stay somewhat civil, they're usually pretty good.



Then you have me who ties it to Socialism somehow. Its like my job now.


----------



## mdm-adph (Jul 28, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Then you have me who ties it to Socialism somehow. Its like my job now.



Well, Hegel _did_ theorize that Socialism was the final product of civilization, after feudalism and capitalism, respectively.   

I'm not surprised that as the world gets more advanced, you're starting to make more and more connections to it.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 28, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> Well, Hegel _did_ theorize that Socialism was the final product of civilization, after feudalism and capitalism, respectively.
> 
> I'm not surprised that as the world gets more advanced, you're starting to make more and more connections to it.



No I think they stop teaching history in public schools. Thats why we are seeing more of it


----------



## HalfAHertz (Jul 28, 2009)

Aww come on now, have you visited any socialst oriented contries lately? I'm pretty sure you'll love it  You should try any of the skandinavian countries, it's almost time for the August festivals.


----------



## mdm-adph (Jul 28, 2009)

HalfAHertz said:


> Aww come on now, have you visited any socialst oriented contries lately? I'm pretty sure you'll love it  You should try any of the skandinavian countries, it's almost time for the August festivals.



In America you're apparently taught that Scandinavian countries (and other Socialist European countries) are depressed, poverty-stricken places, full of hungry people that die by the millions.

The reality is so far from what Americans are taught that it's hilarious.



TheMailMan78 said:


> No I think they stop teaching history in public schools. Thats why we are seeing more of it



American-style history?  I prove my point.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 28, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> In America you're apparently taught that Scandinavian countries (and other Socialist European countries) are depressed, poverty-stricken places, full of hungry people that die by the millions.
> 
> The reality is so far from what Americans are taught that it's hilarious.
> 
> ...



You are not taught that at all. Don't be dramatic. Would you like to see some of my photos of Venezuela? I would post some from my last trip down there if their "customs" wouldn't have confiscated them from me. And no. That isnt a joke. There was even talk I was an "American propaganda agent". I was not looking forward to a Venezuelan jail.

Also tell me what was so "hilarious" that you learned in school that was far from the truth? Damn I hate you mdm-adph. You always get me started.


----------



## erocker (Jul 28, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> In America you're apparently taught that Scandinavian countries (and other Socialist European countries) are depressed, poverty-stricken places, full of hungry people that die by the millions.
> 
> The reality is so far from what Americans are taught that it's hilarious.
> 
> ...



I went to school in America, the United States to be more exact and this is not the case. Stop making baseless assumptions especially when they are completely off topic.

STAY ON TOPIC all of you.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 28, 2009)

erocker said:


> I went to school in America, the United States to be more exact and this is not the case. Stop making baseless assumptions especially when they are completely off topic.
> 
> STAY ON TOPIC all of you.



<<Snaps his heel's

SIR, YES SIR!


----------



## mdm-adph (Jul 28, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> You are not taught that at all. Don't be dramatic. Would you like to see some of my photos of Venezuela? I would post some from my last trip down there if their "customs" wouldn't have confiscated them from me. And no. That isnt a joke. There was even talk I was an "American propaganda agent". I was not looking forward to a Venezuelan jail.
> 
> Also tell me what was so "hilarious" that you learned in school that was far from the truth? Damn I hate you mdm-adph. You always get me started.





erocker said:


> I went to school in America, the United States to be more exact and this is not the case. Stop making baseless assumptions especially when they are completely off topic.
> 
> STAY ON TOPIC all of you.



Both of you -- I watch a lot of FoxNews (to quote the movie Red October, "it's wise to know the ways of one's enemies."), and I don't think my accusations fall very far from the truth as to what that channel tells me is apparently believed in America.   It's a very popular channel in the US (though oddly enough run by an Australian, for what it's worth ), so I think I speak for plenty of people.  

Apparently, EU-style government regulation (the topic of this article) is terrible and horrible, and countries run in that style are doomed to be full of failed business and poverty.  

Then, I look at what life is actually like in the EU, and I realize that it's all crap.


----------



## erocker (Jul 28, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> Both of you -- I watch a lot of FoxNews (to quote the movie Red October, "it's wise to know the ways of one's enemies."), and I don't think my accusations fall very far from the truth as to what that channel tells me is apparently believed in America.   It's a very popular channel in the US (though oddly enough run by an Australian, for what it's worth ), so I think I speak for plenty of people.
> 
> Apparently, EU-style government regulation (the topic of this article) is terrible and horrible, and countries run in that style are doomed to be full of failed business and poverty.
> 
> Then, I look at what life is actually like in the EU, and I realize that it's all crap.



Just keep telling yourself that and know in your head that all of the information you have is correct. Just be happy. I'm happy. I love where I live and I hope you love where you reside as well. In all honestly it's not my place to tell someone else in some other country how to live, nor will I listen to someone from another country or area telling me how to live. We should (for the lack of a better term) celebrate our differences instead of condemning them. When it comes to a global corporation, let them worry about differences between cultures, if they choose to sell in a country that isn't the ideal market, that is their prerogative. Seriously, tune out cable news networks, they are an utter joke and the worst form of "journalism" ever created.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jul 28, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> Both of you -- I watch a lot of FoxNews (to quote the movie Red October, "it's wise to know the ways of one's enemies."), and I don't think my accusations fall very far from the truth as to what that channel tells me is apparently believed in America.   It's a very popular channel in the US (though oddly enough run by an Australian, for what it's worth ), so I think I speak for plenty of people.
> 
> Apparently, EU-style government regulation (the topic of this article) is terrible and horrible, and countries run in that style are doomed to be full of failed business and poverty.
> 
> Then, I look at what life is actually like in the EU, and I realize that it's all crap.



You are way off assuming all of the USA enjoys Fox News. *Its a republican political party News Source.* 

Most anyone who is an independent, intellectual, democrat, or Green Party will not watch it.

Fox News has an agenda. Some people agree with the agenda, and others do not. I personally do not like Fox News but some people really enjoy it because it breaks things down really basic and does the thinking for you.

I prefer AP, reuters, and NPR personally.


----------



## Ben_UK (Jul 28, 2009)

Isn't it the case that if you appeal a verdict and you fail at the appeal, you can then be slapped with an even bigger punishment if you had just not bothered appealing in the first place?


----------



## Meecrob (Jul 28, 2009)

DaedalusHelios said:


> You are way off assuming all of the USA enjoys Fox News. *Its a republican political party News Source.*
> 
> Most anyone who is an independent, intellectual, democrat, or Green Party will not watch it.
> 
> ...



it has to, most people who watch it can barly tie their shoes, let alone think for themselves.


----------



## Meecrob (Jul 28, 2009)

erocker said:


> I went to school in America, the United States to be more exact and this is not the case. Stop making baseless assumptions especially when they are completely off topic.
> 
> STAY ON TOPIC all of you.



well, its not so much taught in schools and shown on the news(mostly by fox and other republican/concentrative sources) that socialism is evil and will destroy the world.


----------



## mdm-adph (Jul 28, 2009)

DaedalusHelios said:


> You are way off assuming all of the USA enjoys Fox News. *Its a republican political party News Source.*
> 
> Most anyone who is an independent, intellectual, democrat, or Green Party will not watch it.
> 
> ...



But Fox News says that the AP, Reuters, and NPR are all bastions of Socialist-Liberal thought!    Who do we believe?



Ben_UK said:


> Isn't it the case that if you appeal a verdict and you fail at the appeal, you can then be slapped with an even bigger punishment if you had just not bothered appealing in the first place?



Not if you appeal the appeal.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 28, 2009)

Meecrob said:


> well, its not so much taught in schools and shown on the news(mostly by fox and other republican/concentrative sources) that socialism is evil and will destroy the world.


How assuming and insulting you are. You have a major inferiority complex my friend. What are you physically disabled or something? I mean even since you have joined you have spewed nothing but venom at people opinions and statements with nothing but you're all mighty opinion as "proof". If someone enjoys watching a news network its their choice but by no means does it make you a superior person because you don't.

My Father was working with electronics before you could wipe your ass I bet and he enjoys watching the news. All of them. You know why? Because he thinks they are funny. He also believes in God so I guess that makes him inferior to you also. However you would be swinging from his balls in 1969 as he flew GIs out of harms way. 

I know I bit the troll bait by responding to your dumb ass and Ill get an infraction for it too. But you know what Meecrob? You are an arrogant smart mouth that needs to get laid.

FYI I like the BBC.


----------



## El Fiendo (Jul 28, 2009)

I know its off topic, but you make me smile.

Thanks.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jul 28, 2009)

Meecrob said:


> well, its not so much taught in schools and shown on the news(mostly by fox and other republican/concentrative sources) that socialism is evil and will destroy the world.



Its definately not taught in schools. Only on really rare occasions you will find a teacher to agree with the "Socialism is evil" propaganda.

Yes, Fox News and republican news sources spread that fear around but its part of that republican political platform. I personally do not agree with it but it is a part of their culture now. Reagan long before he ran for any political office, was part of a propaganda machine against socialism where they sent records(audio records accompanied by  papers) to millions of households that talked about the "evils of socialism". Much like Joseph McCarthy's politics.

I am not sure what you are getting at though. 

You really have to look at the history of healthcare in the USA to understand the original reasons for why we did not create a NHS too.


----------



## Meecrob (Jul 28, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> How assuming and insulting you are. You have a major inferiority complex my friend. What are you physically disabled or something? I mean even since you have joined you have spewed nothing but venom at people opinions and statements with nothing but you're all mighty opinion as "proof". If someone enjoys watching a news network its their choice but by no means does it make you a superior person because you don't.



I dont watch any of them if i can help it, and when i do I endup shaking my head, either in dismay at the crap flowing from their mouths or at how funny it is if you can ignore the fact that alot of people are buying both sides crap.




> My Father was working with electronics before you could wipe your ass I bet and he enjoys watching the news. All of them. You know why? Because he thinks they are funny. He also believes in God so I guess that makes him inferior to you also.


never said i dont believe in a god/higher power, now your just trying to troll me, nice try but Unlike you, and others in this thread i dont get pissed off over posts on the internet.



> I know I bit the troll bait by responding to your dumb ass and Ill get an infraction for it too. But you know what Meecrob? You are an arrogant smart mouth that needs to get laid.



if I really wanted to troll you/them I could do a far better job at pissing you off, but honestly, i just think your funny, the quote in my sig shows that, people like you who want to run the world and dictate whats right for everybody else.

here i found a site for you
http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/07/23/seig-heil-seigesaule-obama/



> FYI I like the BBC.



dont lie 



and honestly, I feel this country will NEVER have a pubic health-care system, the lobbyists and their cronies/political puppets are far to entrenched in our govt to allow the private insurance industry to loose money due to the poor/horrid service they offer these days.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 28, 2009)

Meecrob said:


> I dont watch any of them if i can help it, and when i do I endup shaking my head, either in dismay at the crap flowing from their mouths or at how funny it is if you can ignore the fact that alot of people are buying both sides crap.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"People like me". You pompous prick. The fact you replied proves I got to ya. Good.


----------



## Meecrob (Jul 28, 2009)

yes people who watch and believe fox news.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 28, 2009)

Meecrob said:


> yes people who watch and believe fox news.



I win.


----------



## erocker (Jul 28, 2009)

You (Meecrob & TheMailMan) will cease and *desist in any and all threads you are fighting/arguing/etc. in. Final warning. Take it to PM, phone, IM, whatever. None of us want to see it anymore.


----------



## Meecrob (Jul 28, 2009)

i think you mean cease and desist not assist, and got ya on that erocker.

mailman and the rest, sorry if we detracted from your  enjoyment of the thread, I was having fun laughing as other people got pissed off at what a friend of mine refers to "ghosts in the machine" (aka people online)  and wasnt thinking about how it could be pissing some people off watching us spar. 

again sorry for the inconvenience


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jul 28, 2009)

Not going to read the last 11 pages, but just wanted to ask...

Has/will Intel appeal against the decision in Japan (or what ever the country was) that found them guilty of the same thing, or are they only choosing EU because of the HUMONGOUS fine?


----------



## Meecrob (Jul 28, 2009)

WhiteLotus said:


> Not going to read the last 11 pages, but just wanted to ask...
> 
> Has/will Intel appeal against the decision in Japan (or what ever the country was) that found them guilty of the same thing, or are they only choosing EU because of the HUMONGOUS fine?



try http://google.com or http://bing.com they can help you look up that info.

sorry if i sound like im being a smartass but its just as easy for one person to google/bing as another


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jul 28, 2009)

Meecrob said:


> try http://google.com or http://bing.com they can help you look up that info.
> 
> sorry if i sound like im being a smartass but its just as easy for one person to google/bing as another



I could do that, but i was going more on the lines of getting the topic back on track. To discuss if they did wrong is pointless... it's not going to go anywhere because NONE of us here know ANYTHING about the case in terms of actual proof or how the ins and outs of how the EU works.

Now if they are appealing to the EU to get the fine reduced, for example, then i one hundred percent agree with them. The sum was just stupid, and looked on all sides as if it was just randomly picked out of a hat.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 29, 2009)

WhiteLotus said:


> Has/will Intel appeal against the decision in Japan (or what ever the country was) that found them guilty of the same thing, or are they only choosing EU because of the HUMONGOUS fine?


Intel is appealing the EU case as a "human rights issue" because the fine is so big.  They are claiming that it is unethical to issue any business a fine that large especially when the charges don't warrant it.

Others have tried the same thing in their appeal with the EU and failed.  Intel most likely will fail too.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-antitrust-fine-violated-its-human-rights.ars


As far as I know, Intel isn't going to appeal the South Korean fine which is only $25.4 million.  I mean, they haven't really said anything about it since 2008.  An appeal could still be coming but I doubt it.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 29, 2009)

MEh, whatever. No new info, still the same crap over and over.

*unsubscribe


----------



## mdm-adph (Jul 29, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> As far as I know, Intel isn't going to appeal the South Korean fine which is only $25.4 million.  I mean, they haven't really said anything about it since 2008.  An appeal could still be coming but I doubt it.



...and that's all the acceptance of guilt that anyone should need.  

If they truly thought they were innocent, they should spend the money to right the wrongs of the Korean court.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 29, 2009)

They probably feel it would cost less to pay the fine than to fight it.  Armies of lawyers are expensive and Intel has surplus cash right now.  If they decide to fight it, it could increase the amount of money owed and that fine might come due when they don't have surplus cash.  It isn't necessarily an admission of guilt...


On the other hand, appealing on "human rights" in the EU might be.  At the same time, the EU pretty much put Intel in legal peril.  Intel can't present any evidence that would refute the claims (what could they present?) and anything they do present could also be used against them.  It is a lose-lose situation for them to fight it in terms of innocence/guilt.  They are only seeking to decrease the fine which is very likely to fail.  Their legal options are virtually non-existent--they are screwed, guilty or not.

This is one of the problems with antitrust, there is no proving innocence.  Being a market leader basically means you have no defense.  This is why courts must exercise caution and restraint with antitrust laws.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 29, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> ...and that's all the acceptance of guilt that anyone should need.
> 
> If they truly thought they were innocent, they should spend the money to right the wrongs of the Korean court.



Not if it cost them 30 million to fight. Cheaper to pay them off. Man you would make a horrible business man.


----------



## mdm-adph (Jul 29, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Not if it cost them 30 million to fight. Cheaper to pay them off. Man you would make a horrible business man.



I would think that the negative publicity from admitting that you run your business like the mob would hurt them far worse. 

But then, I forget -- some people actually _admire_ companies that lie, cheat, and steal their way to the top, stepping over the little guy in the process.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 29, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> I would think that the negative publicity from admitting that you run your business like the mob would hurt them far worse.
> 
> But then, I forget -- some people actually _admire_ companies that lie, cheat, and steal their way to the top, stepping over the little guy in the process.



Do you think the average Joe even knows about a law suit that Korea had against a computer component maker. More so who gives a shit. People are far more conserned with thier own crap then to give a rats ass what a forgien goverment thinks about Intel. Hell most people don't even care if the world likes them personally never mind a company they have no stake in.


----------



## mdm-adph (Jul 29, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Do you think the average Joe even knows about a law suit that Korea had against a computer component maker. More so who gives a shit. People are far more conserned with thier own crap then to give a rats ass what a forgien goverment thinks about Intel. Hell most people don't even care if the world likes them personally never mind a company they have no stake in.



Do you think the average Joe buys chips from Intel in 1000-chip lots to make PC's?    Those are the people I'm talking about -- I'm sure that, unless their heads are firmly planted up their asses, they know about the Korean, Japanese, and now EU lawsuits.

Those are the people who were strong-armed by Intel into buying only Intel-made chips.

But, like I said, there are some people in the world who not only forgive this behavior but _admire_ it.  It's a primitive behavior, and one that unfortunately won't be stamped out in the next few *centuries* or so.  :shadedshu


----------



## rpsgc (Jul 29, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> No its a troll.



It takes one to know one.



*P.S.:* Have fun with your mindless "everything-European" bashing. And then I'm the troll, but then again from your speech one can only conclude one of two things: you're either clueless or a Intel fanboy/Euro hater.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 29, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> Do you think the average Joe buys chips from Intel in 1000-chip lots to make PC's?    Those are the people I'm talking about -- I'm sure that, unless their heads are firmly planted up their asses, they know about the Korean, Japanese, and now EU lawsuits.
> 
> Those are the people who were strong-armed by Intel into buying only Intel-made chips.
> 
> But, like I said, there are some people in the world who not only forgive this behavior but _admire_ it.  It's a primitive behavior, and one that unfortunately won't be stamped out in the next few *centuries* or so.  :shadedshu



You know what I'm sure about? They don't give a rats ass as long as they can get the product the consumer wants for a good price. All the OEMs proved that by breaking the EU "law" to begin with. Your honor I rest my case.


----------



## Ammugonevil (Jul 29, 2009)

Whats the big deal... strong arm tactics... dirty dealings.... name one company not guilty of it.. maybe intel made too many 'donations' but not to the right people??


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jul 29, 2009)

Ammugonevil said:


> Whats the big deal... strong arm tactics... dirty dealings.... name one company not guilty of it.. maybe intel made too many 'donations' but not to the right people??



Exactly. The EU is not some "fight for the consumer" entity. Its BS "world government" under the guise of unification. Think Hitler but in an economic sense, and you can see why they do the things they do. Its not violence, its not evil, but it could end in war.


----------



## Ammugonevil (Jul 29, 2009)

Thats kindda funny point of view but it is that.. a point of view.. I personally think that its just stupid.. the same stupidity which arrives where money is involved... and we are one of the main reasons cous we spend so much on 'chips',...


----------



## btarunr (Jul 29, 2009)

It's in everyone's interests to not get personal and resort to name calling. Continue with the discussion if you can keep your cool.


----------



## Ammugonevil (Jul 29, 2009)

Wasn't calling anyone stupid.. i was calling the situation stupid... as in the law suit... kind of thing..


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 29, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> I would think that the negative publicity from admitting that you run your business like the mob would hurt them far worse.


The public generally doesn't care about antitrust cases.  Unless they can sign up and get some money from the lawsuit.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 29, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The public generally doesn't care about antitrust cases.  Unless they can sign up and get some money from the lawsuit.



This is my point. Saying someone settled out of court admits guilt is naive.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 29, 2009)

I think the only way, legally, you can consider it an admission of guilt is Intel puts in a guilty plea.


----------



## Meecrob (Jul 29, 2009)

but you fail to see that anytime you settle out of court or take a plee that a large % of the population will assume your guilty, even if you did it just to get the damn case overwith and get on with your life/business.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 29, 2009)

The lions share of the market has never even heard of the United States v. Microsoft case.  Again, no one cares about antitrust cases unless it directly effects them.

A settlement is a means to an end.  The longer a case continues, the more costly it becomes.  A settlement puts the case to bed with neither side declared innocent or guilty--only agreeing to terms which end it.


----------



## mdm-adph (Jul 30, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The public generally doesn't care about antitrust cases.  Unless they can sign up and get some money from the lawsuit.



As I explained, I thought it was obvious that I wasn't talking about the public -- the public doesn't even know what a processor is.  They usually think the "CPU" is "that big box that sits underneath my desk."


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 30, 2009)

The public I know is at least a little more intelligent than that (they call that the "tower," after all).


----------



## Meecrob (Jul 30, 2009)

Ford, I have delt with so many people who call it the Tower and then say its the CPU as well that its not even funny, they wont admit it, but most people see a computer as a magic box that "just works" and lets them look at porn or ebay or twitter or or or........

thats sad is when they brake their magic box, and want you to fix it, then get mad that your gonna charge them so much for fixing their magic box


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 30, 2009)

I've dealt with lots of people.  None have come across that computer illiterate.  A lot of them probably don't know what exactly a CPU looks like but they are knowledgeable enough to know it is somewhere inside the tower.


----------

