# Now US Inclines to Fine Intel for Antitrust Malpractice



## btarunr (Oct 26, 2009)

Trailing the European Union's record 1.45 Billion Dollar penalty against silicon giant Intel for antitrust malpractice in Europe, American antitrust regulators are on the verge of filing their own set of charges against the company, emanating out of similar findings of investigations carried out by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Sources tell BusinessDay that three out of four commissioners on the FTC were in favor of filing a complaint against Intel. FTC's own inquiry opened in June, last year. It could be a matter of weeks, or even months before a vote formalizing FTC's stand on the issue happens.

"Our business practices are lawful and [work] to the benefit of consumers," said Intel spokesperson Chuck Mulloy, in response to the BusinessDay report. "We certainly have been working closely with the FTC as they conduct their investigation. We would hope that the speculation is incorrect ," he added. The US antitrust investigation follows similar investigations that have concluded against the favor of Intel, by the European Union, South Korea, and Japan. Japan's trade commission concluded in 2005 that Intel violated the country's anti-monopoly act. In June last year, South Korea fined Intel about $26m, finding it offered rebates to PC makers in return for not buying AMD microprocessors. EU's investigations yielded similar findings, where the company was fined 1.06 Billion EUR for paying computer makers to postpone or cancel products that use microprocessors made by smaller competitor AMD.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## btarunr (Oct 26, 2009)

Many Thanks to Benetanegia for sending this in.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 26, 2009)

It ain't official until it is filed.


----------



## Phxprovost (Oct 26, 2009)

if the world feels the need to punish intel for throwing its weight around then go for it, but the one thing that annoys the hell out of me is the fact that this benifits neither the "competition" nor the consumer in any way, in fact it might hurt the consumer if intel decideds to raise their prices...and they can because the still control pretty much the entire market no matter how much you fine them........so why bother really? What are these fines? like 10% of a quaters profit? that'll show um


----------



## laszlo (Oct 26, 2009)

and the saga continue...


----------



## Imsochobo (Oct 26, 2009)

Money should go to amd.


----------



## allen337 (Oct 26, 2009)

Imsochobo said:


> Money should go to amd.




They need it


----------



## Reefer86 (Oct 26, 2009)

I agree that it will not benefit the consumer, but they need to be punished in some way for underhand practices so they dont happen again. If this was allowed to happen without punishment, then in the long run this would hurt the consumer as the competition would go under and intel would create (as stated above) a monopoly. 

Its unfair and un lawful for companys to do this.

True, this needs to be proven, but this has already been proven in europe and other contries, so i think this will be the case in the US also.


----------



## Imsochobo (Oct 26, 2009)

> My upload speed sucks if someone could point me in the direction for a new ISP with better upload speeds and good prices, let me know



What about my upload speed?

*Jk its just maxed out.


----------



## mdm-adph (Oct 26, 2009)

Now, where's Intel going to go if it wants to "leave this market" in response?  Mars?



Phxprovost said:


> if the world feels the need to punish intel for throwing its weight around then go for it, but the one thing that annoys the hell out of me is the fact that this benifits neither the "competition" nor the consumer in any way, in fact it might hurt the consumer if intel decideds to raise their prices...and they can because the still control pretty much the entire market no matter how much you fine them........so why bother really? What are these fines? like 10% of a quaters profit? that'll show um



If Intel raises their prices, companies might go to AMD.  Therefore:  Intel won't raise its prices.

Additionally, the consumer will be given extra choice now that hopefully Intel's "exclusive deals" will stop.

Also, 10% of a quarter's profit is a LOT of money.


----------



## Fx (Oct 26, 2009)

Reefer86 said:


> I agree that it will not benefit the consumer, but they need to be punished in some way for underhand practices so they dont happen again. If this was allowed to happen without punishment, then in the long run this would hurt the consumer as the competition would go under and intel would create (as stated above) a monopoly.
> 
> Its unfair and un lawful for companys to do this.
> 
> True, this needs to be proven, but this has already been proven in europe and other contries, so i think this will be the case in the US also.



aye


----------



## WarEagleAU (Oct 26, 2009)

Not sure if its needed but I am about tired of hearing about it. If the money went to AMD, good, but really leave them alone.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Oct 26, 2009)

If AMD isnt getting the money this is an exercise in futility


----------



## Easo (Oct 26, 2009)

Time to pay...


----------



## mdm-adph (Oct 26, 2009)

WarEagleAU said:


> Not sure if its needed but I am about tired of hearing about it. If the money went to AMD, good, but really leave them alone.



There has never been a chance of the money "going to AMD" -- frankly, I wouldn't care even if there _was_ a fine, as long as a little more regulation took place afterwards in the market.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Oct 26, 2009)

Being the US i wouldn't be surprised if they imposed an even bigger fine.


----------



## Benetanegia (Oct 26, 2009)

Not even victims that have been robbed get the money/stolen items back 99% of the times, unless the thief is caught with the loot, so what makes you think AMD would see any compensatory money?

Anyway fining them is good for the consumer always, because it prevents them and others from doing the same again and again, and promotes free market, where overall prices are always better than when a single company dictates the prices. Not only they have to pay anyway, their bussiness is going to be monitored for some time so that it doesn't happen again.



FordGT90Concept said:


> It ain't official until it is filed.



Of course Paul*, of course, but the fact that they are thinking about fining them already shows Intel has been found guilty by them. It just means they are still deliverating if it makes sense for them to spend money and time in the courts.

*Can I call you Paul or should I stick to Mr. Otellini?


----------



## Wile E (Oct 26, 2009)

Here we go again.

Yay! Another payday for the govt!!!!


----------



## Fx (Oct 26, 2009)

Benetanegia said:


> Of course Paul*, of course, but the fact that they are thinking about fining them already shows Intel has been found guilty by them. It just means they are still deliverating if it makes sense for them to spend money and time in the courts.
> 
> *Can I call you Paul or should I stick to Mr. Otellini?



LOL


----------



## zithe (Oct 26, 2009)

WhiteLotus said:


> Being the US i wouldn't be surprised if they imposed an even bigger fine.



How else are we going to pave, rip up to replace water main pipes, then pave again within a 2 month time span?


----------



## Flyordie (Oct 26, 2009)

WhiteLotus said:


> Being the US i wouldn't be surprised if they imposed an even bigger fine.



FTC has routinely stated a fine of $2,000,000,000+ USD is applicable due to the size of the US Market and the size of the violation. Which is rather large... in excess of 9* Billion total...


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Oct 26, 2009)

How do politicians floss in the US?


----------



## Fx (Oct 26, 2009)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> How do politicians floss in the US?



they dont have to. they use taxpayer's money to get their teeth cleaned once a week by a dentist


----------



## aj28 (Oct 27, 2009)

Wasn't most of this being done during the P4 era? In which case the damage is already done, and no amount of fining is going to fix anything. Would it be good to discourage them? Yes. Might get the OEMs that accepted the deals (who are just as guilty if you ask me) shaking in their boots too. Seriously though, as far as I've heard most of the dealing only went on when AMD had the upper hand, so fining them now that AMD are severely weakened (from failing to execute on K10, purchasing ATi, etc.) would seem a little silly, despite the fact that it would be justified by the same actions which would have justified it back then.

I think it's a little pointless. The PR would do more damage than the fine...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 27, 2009)

Benetanegia said:


> Of course Paul, of course, but the fact that they are thinking about fining them already shows Intel has been found guilty by them. It just means they are still deliverating if it makes sense for them to spend money and time in the courts.


According to only one "unnamed" source that has been repeated a dozen times.  The law doesn't work on rumors and speculation.  I quote myself: It ain't official until it is filed.

Need I also mention that "source" is in the UK.  Last time I checked, the FTC doesn't operate outside of the USA.




Flyordie said:


> FTC has routinely stated a fine of $2,000,000,000+ USD is applicable due to the size of the US Market and the size of the violation. Which is rather large... in excess of 9* Billion total...


The most the FTC ever fined was $15 million involving identity theft of 800 people.  I would be surprised if the fine exceeded $100 million.


----------



## Benetanegia (Oct 27, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> According to only one "unnamed" source that has been repeated a dozen times.  The law doesn't work on rumors and speculation.  I quote myself: It ain't official until it is filed.
> 
> Need I also mention that "source" is in the UK.  Last time I checked, the FTC doesn't operate outside of the USA.



Source *is not* in the UK. Thomson-Reuters the firm behind this "speculation" is a multinational news company with HQ in New York. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomson_Reuters *

Anyway let's forget about that for a moment: did you ever heard of what a press correspondent is? I sincerely can't understand what matters from which country comes the info as long as it comes from a reputable and big news company like this... You have paranoia about the EU my friend.

* It's funny they are under anti-trust investigation too BTW, but that means that Reuters journalists may have a closer relation wth the FTC than many other media.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 27, 2009)

Benetanegia said:


> Source *is not* in the UK. Thomson-Reuters the firm behind this "speculation" is a multinational news company with HQ in New York. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomson_Reuters


My mistake, it did originate at Reuters.  FYI: Routers is UK-based and was recently bought out by Thomas Corporation (Canadian).


----------



## Benetanegia (Oct 27, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> My mistake, it did originate at Reuters.  FYI: Routers is UK-based and was recently bought out by Thomas Corporation (Canadian).



Yeah I know R*e*uters (Routers lol ) is from the UK, but now forms part of Thomson and both are based on NY. My point still persists that the origin of the info doesn't matter as long as we are talking about an information giant. I would trust the New York Times over more than half the publications from Spain even for Spain related things, but that's something I can say about US publications, UK publications, Ugandan publications, you get the idea, all countries.



> By Diane Bartz
> 
> *WASHINGTON (Reuters) -* U.S. antitrust regulators are moving toward filing a complaint against Intel Corp after the Europ


----------



## urban_black_redneck (Oct 27, 2009)

Reefer86 said:


> I agree that it will not benefit the consumer, but they need to be punished in some way for underhand practices so they dont happen again. If this was allowed to happen without punishment, then in the long run this would hurt the consumer as the competition would go under and intel would create (as stated above) a monopoly.
> 
> Its unfair and un lawful for companys to do this.
> 
> True, this needs to be proven, but this has already been proven in europe and other contries, so i think this will be the case in the US also.


How would this have prevented you from getting an AMD processor if you wanted one?

What is unfair about companies deciding to do what they want with THEIR products and services?


----------



## Benetanegia (Oct 27, 2009)

urban_black_redneck said:


> How would this have prevented you from getting an AMD processor if you wanted one?
> 
> What is unfair about companies deciding to do what they want with THEIR products and services?



Because if you* wanted an HP or Dell PC you could not take AMD. And comanies didn't decide, that's the problem. Intel forced them to use only Intel, because if they didn't go Intel exclusive they would not be competitive on Intel platform, which was 80-90% of the market. No small comany with less than 20% of market share can make a big jump to 50% or even 30% in just few months, because it's limited by their fabs. On a free market AMD wouldn't be able to exceed that 30%, so PC vendors would be forced to use a 70% Intel no matter what. Intel took advantage of this by offering exclusive rebates to those who didn't use AMD, because a small rebate in 95-100% of a vendor's products is much better than than no rebates on %70-80 and bargain prices on 20-30%. That goes against anti-trust laws in all the countries around the globe.


* Average joe and also average enthusiast. Why? All companies make most of their money from OEM market, so by excluding AMD from those markets, AMD profits go down, R&D goes down, innovation goes down, no competition, prices go up up up up...


----------



## urban_black_redneck (Oct 27, 2009)

Benetanegia said:


> Because if you wanted an HP or Dell PC you could not take AMD. And comanies didn't decide, that's the problem. Intel forced them to use only Intel, because if they didn't go Intel exclusive they would not be competitive on Intel platform, which was 80-90% of the market. No small comany with less than 20% of market share can make a big jump to 50% or even 30% in just few months, because it's limited by their fabs. On a free market AMD wouldn't be able to exceed that 30%, so PC vendors would be forced to use a 70% Intel no matter what. Intel took advantage of this by offering exclusive rebates to those who didn't use AMD, because a small rebate in 95-100% of a vendor's products is much better than than no rebates on %70-80 and bargain prices on 20-30%. That goes against anti-trust laws in all the countries around the globe.


Guess you won't be buying from HP or Dell then...if you want an AMD processor...

How did Intel "force" them?

Intel is paying people money not to go with AMD...


----------



## urban_black_redneck (Oct 27, 2009)

Benetanegia said:


> * Average joe and also average enthusiast. Why? All companies make most of their money from OEM market, so by excluding AMD from those markets, AMD profits go down, R&D goes down, innovation goes down, no competition, prices go up up up up...


AMD needs to manage its spending...

*If you are really interested in AMD products, and none of the PRE-BUILT companies are offering computers with AMD products, then you have to buy AMD parts and build your own computer.*


----------



## Benetanegia (Oct 27, 2009)

urban_black_redneck said:


> Guess you won't be buying from HP or Dell then...if you want an AMD processor...
> 
> How did Intel "force" them?
> 
> Intel is paying people money not to go with AMD...



Acer, Lenovo, MediaMarkt (big Euro retailer)... And who knows how many others. From who would you buy then? Asus didn't make PCs back then, Samsung I don't remember, Sony way overpriced like always, Toshiba was very small and elitist/proffesional.



urban_black_redneck said:


> AMD needs to manage its spending...



LOL And they do! So much better than Intel! Think that they have to spend the same in R&D but their revenues are 1/10th of Intels.



> If you are really interested in AMD products, and none of the PRE-BUILT companies are offering computers with AMD products, then you have to buy AMD parts and build your own computer.


Now that is a stupid thing to say. 95% of people don't even dare to change their graphics cards and they are going to build their own PC? Using third party builders isn't an option either because it costs way more on the low end.


----------



## urban_black_redneck (Oct 27, 2009)

Benetanegia said:


> Now that is a stupid thing to say. 95% of people don't even dare to change their graphics cards and they are going to buyld their own PC? Using third party builders isn't an option either because it costs way more on the low end.


I guess those people have to settle with what the pre-built companies have to offer.

It is their choice. Nobody is forcing them to not build their own PCs.


----------



## Benetanegia (Oct 27, 2009)

urban_black_redneck said:


> I guess those people have to settle with what the pre-built companies have to offer.
> 
> It is their choice. Nobody is forcing them to not build their own PCs.



Man it's just about getting the best bang for your buck. At the time that was AMD but Intel didn't let PC vendors sell AMD PCs. That way consumers didn't get the best they could. Building is much more expensive than buying OEM in the low-end market, especially if you don't pretend to upgrade, which is 95% of the people.

Imagine that Acer decided to use AMD. Like I said AMD couldn't provide more than 30% of the chips that PC vendors needed, so they would have to offer Intel PCs too, without the advantage in price that rebates offered to the competitors. In a store we would see the next stock of comparable PCs:

30 Acer AMD PCs $500.
70 Acer Intel PCs $600.
100 HP Intel PCs $550.

There are 150 consumers. Which one is the PC vendor that didn't sell 50 PCs and went bankrupt?
Now we introduce some factual info, like that those 30 AMD PCs used Athlon 64s and the other 170 PCs were using the vastly inferior P4s and now: which is the company that was offering by far the best product to customers, but on the other hand went bankrupt?

So that's how Intel forced PC vendor to use only Intel. And again, that goes again anti-trust laws of any country.


----------



## urban_black_redneck (Oct 27, 2009)

Benetanegia said:


> Man it's just about getting the best bang for your buck. At the time that was AMD but Intel didn't let PC vendors sell AMD PCs. That way consumers didn't get the best they could. Building is much more expensive than buying OEM in the low-end market, especially if you don't pretend to upgrade, which is 95% of the people.


I don't care about PC vendors. 

Intel is paying the vendors to reject AMD. The vendors are getting something out of this.

Consumers are getting what they want.

Those who want AMD are getting their AMD PCs...


----------



## Benetanegia (Oct 27, 2009)

urban_black_redneck said:


> I don't care about PC vendors.



PC vendors = 95% of what people get/can afford.



> Intel is paying the vendors to reject AMD. The vendors are getting something out of this.



They are not getting anything. If AMD had been able to compete and gain a 50% market share over the years, AMD could have sold the example PCs from above for $400, but PC vendors would sell them for $450 instead and make $50 more than with Intel.



> Consumers are getting what they want.



They are not. Following the example above, consumers wanted (even if they didn't know) a $400-450 AMD Athlon 64 PC. They got $550 and $600 slower Intel PCs instead.



> Those who want AMD are getting their AMD PCs...



No.


----------



## Lazzer408 (Oct 27, 2009)

allen337 said:


> They need it



HA!


----------



## urban_black_redneck (Oct 27, 2009)

Benetanegia said:


> PC vendors = 95% of what people get/can afford.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You can buy parts from Frys to make a $500-600 AMD tower that can play 95% of the games on the market.

The $450 PC from vendors that you are referring to, I suspect, don't even have integrated graphics! The rest of the specs might be bottom of the barrel.


----------



## Benetanegia (Oct 27, 2009)

urban_black_redneck said:


> You can buy parts from Frys to make a $500-600 AMD tower that can play 90% of the games on the market.
> 
> The $450 PC from vendors that you are referring to, I suspect, don't even have integrated graphics! The rest of the specs might be bottom of the barrel.



OMG forget about building your own PC!!! 95% of people don't know how to do it and paying for it is expensive. Not to mention how much a Windows license costs. You don't take Windows into account because you are an enthusiast and spend much more on hardware upgrades and install it several times. If you build your own PC it doesn't cost $500-600 it costs $500-600 + $100 for windows, whereas you get everything for $500 from a PC vendor. Building is only better for the price in mid to high end PCs.

And the $450 PCs that I'm talking about is the exact same $500-600 one you are talking about, except for the fact that competition has taken down the price to those levels in the hypothetical free market scenario.


----------



## urban_black_redneck (Oct 27, 2009)

Benetanegia said:


> OMG forget about building your own PC!!! 95% of people don't know how to do it and paying for it is expensive. Not to mention how much a Windows license costs. You don't take Windows into account because you are an enthusiast and spend much more on hardware upgrades and install it several times. If you build your own PC it doesn't cost $500-600 it costs $500-600 + $100 for windows, whereas you get everything for $500 from a PC vendor. Building is only better for the price in mid to high end PCs.
> 
> And the $450 PCs that I'm talking about is the exact same $500-600 one you are talking about, except for the fact that competition has taken down the price to those levels in the hypothetical free market scenario.


There was a time in everyone's life when they didn't know how to wipe their ass. What is your point?

I suspect that the $450 PC you are talking about is NOT the same.

Does it have an ATI 4850?


----------



## WhiteLotus (Oct 27, 2009)

urban_black_redneck said:


> There was a time in everyone's life when they didn't know how to wipe their ass. What is your point?
> 
> I suspect that the $450 PC you are talking about is NOT the same.
> 
> Does it have an ATI 4850?



So you expect EVERYONE in the world that wants a computer to know how to build one from scratch, know where to get the best prices, what components are the best for your money etc.??

I've built a fair few computers and before i do i ALWAYS have to do some research on just what hardware is the "best for buck". You expecting everyone to a) want to go through this hassle, and b) actually have the know how to do it is very narrow minded and quite simply, stupid.


----------



## urban_black_redneck (Oct 28, 2009)

WhiteLotus said:


> So you expect EVERYONE in the world that wants a computer to know how to build one from scratch, know where to get the best prices, what components are the best for your money etc.??
> 
> I've built a fair few computers and before i do i ALWAYS have to do some research on just what hardware is the "best for buck". You expecting everyone to a) want to go through this hassle, and b) actually have the know how to do it is very narrow minded and quite simply, stupid.


Welcome to reality.

Sitting on your ass waiting for someone to build your computer for you. When they don't put what you want in there, then start complaining. You have to be kidding me.

It is YOUR responsibility to get what you want. 

You have to be an overgrown child to think these PC vendors have an obligation to put AMD parts in their computers.


----------



## johnspack (Oct 28, 2009)

I've been building my own since my amd286.  (Intel 8088 actually but switched to nec v20 cpu then the amd shhhh) Can't say I'll build another amd,  as pii's are expensive,  and the core i5's look same price or cheaper,  with better performance.  I struggled with my windsor x2 for a long time,  my e8400 smokes it.  I really hope amd pulls something out of their butts,  because competition is needed bad!  The anti-competition stance that intel and some companies has taken does concern me however,  that will drive prices up if it's successful.  I'm on a fixed income,  I can't afford $300 for a low end dual core!  Let's not allow that sort of thing.....


----------



## Flyordie (Oct 28, 2009)

johnspack said:


> I've been building my own since my amd286.  (Intel 8088 actually but switched to nec v20 cpu then the amd shhhh) Can't say I'll build another amd,  as pii's are expensive,  and the core i5's look same price or cheaper,  with better performance.  *I struggled with my windsor x2 for a long time,  my e8400 smokes it.  I really hope amd pulls something out of their butts,  because competition is needed bad!*  The anti-competition stance that intel and some companies has taken does concern me however,  that will drive prices up if it's successful.  I'm on a fixed income,  I can't afford $300 for a low end dual core!  Let's not allow that sort of thing.....



Just so you know, the $100 Phenom II X2 550 and Phenom II X2 555 smokes the E8400 your running now Clock for Clock... ;-)  So does the $120 Phenom II X3 720.


----------



## driver66 (Oct 28, 2009)

I am so sick of this lame shit......... :shadedshu

Be a distributor of any sort, be it beer, chips .....Coke/pepsi.....Car paint.. etc.......... ALL OF THEM USE THE SAME PRACTICES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 
It is business plain and simple. 
Take the N.F.L. for example.... Try to wear nikes in a game ROFL..

I deal in the automotive finish industry and will give HUGE discounts to any bodyshop that will "EXCLUSIVELY" use my product. Same thing happens everywhere. If they choose to stock other brands ................. well we dont sell to them anymore F@#K em


----------



## Benetanegia (Oct 28, 2009)

driver66 said:


> I am so sick of this lame shit......... :shadedshu
> 
> Be a distributor of any sort, be it beer, chips .....Coke/pepsi.....Car paint.. etc.......... ALL OF THEM USE THE SAME PRACTICES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> It is business plain and simple.
> ...



But you have >80% of worldwide market share? No. You have more than one competitor? Absolutely. It costs $5 billion to start a company like yours? Definately not. Then anti-trust laws don't apply because you can't abuse the market even if you tried it hard. Anti-trust laws are there for the comanies that abuse their dominant posisition to hamper the competitors advancement by eliminating the free election of their customers.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Oct 28, 2009)

urban_black_redneck said:


> Welcome to reality.
> 
> Sitting on your ass waiting for someone to build your computer for you. When they don't put what you want in there, then start complaining. You have to be kidding me.
> 
> ...



No reality is a vast number, hell wild stab in the dark and say that 90% of all PC users, have NO clue about what is inside the PC that is happily chugging along allowing the user to go on the internet, do some online banking, play a few games and write some word documents every now and then. You saying that ALL the people that only use their PC for this purpose should know how to build one from scratch is completely stupid.

This isn't even on whether or not you should build your own PC, it's about competition in a market. Intel (if found guilty) purposefully providing vendors with discounts IF they DON'T sell a competitors products goes against market regulations. Hell you can give discounts all you want, but only doing so IF they don't have the competitors is wrong.


----------



## mdm-adph (Oct 28, 2009)

WhiteLotus said:


> Being the US i wouldn't be surprised if they imposed an even bigger fine.



I seriously doubt that.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Oct 28, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> I seriously doubt that.



Really? I always got the impression that USA only does things in large sizes or not at all. Hang on i'll try and find something to show you what i mean.

yea see here:
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/09/25/man-sues-bank-of-america-for-1-784-billion-trillion/

Rather funny if you ask me.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 28, 2009)

WhiteLotus said:


> Really? I always got the impression that USA only does things in large sizes or not at all. Hang on i'll try and find something to show you what i mean.
> 
> yea see here:
> http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/09/25/man-sues-bank-of-america-for-1-784-billion-trillion/
> ...



Lotus you're 100% right. We go big or go home. Everything is knee jerk and over the top. Its the American way! mdm-adph is not REALLY American. Think east of you. A little past Germany and a little west of Japan.


----------



## Fx (Oct 28, 2009)

thats right- we go balls deep baby


----------



## rpsgc (Oct 28, 2009)

So where are all the comments about thieving, socialism and commies? Oh right, if the US does it then it's OK.


----------



## Fx (Oct 28, 2009)

rpsgc said:


> So where are all the comments about thieving, socialism and commies? Oh right, if the US does it then it's OK.



I hate ppl that love to hate


----------



## rpsgc (Oct 28, 2009)

Fx said:


> I hate ppl that love to hate



I happen to dislike hypocrites, so?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 28, 2009)

rpsgc said:


> I happen to dislike hypocrites, so?



No I still think the fine is wrong. The U.S. is just jumping on the ban wagon now.....IF this is confirmed. So kindly get off of your high horse. The U.S. government is on a fast track to all those crappy things you just mentioned. Except the thief part. They have that down pat.

As a matter of fact I even predicted the U.S. would follow suit.


----------



## mdm-adph (Oct 28, 2009)

WhiteLotus said:


> Really? I always got the impression that USA only does things in large sizes or not at all. Hang on i'll try and find something to show you what i mean.
> 
> yea see here:
> http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/09/25/man-sues-bank-of-america-for-1-784-billion-trillion/
> ...



One man's ridiculous lawsuit does not represent the US as a whole, thank goodness.

When I say "I doubt that," I mean that I doubt that the radically pro-business US government (regardless of what party is currently in power) will take meaningful sanctions against one of its biggest companies.  Is that so hard to believe?

If it's bad for business, it ain't gonna happen.



TheMailMan78 said:


> Lotus you're 100% right. We go big or go home. Everything is knee jerk and over the top. Its the American way! mdm-adph is not REALLY American. Think east of you. A little past Germany and a little west of Japan.



I assure you that I'm not Polish-Chinese.  Not that there's anything wrong with either of those two countries. Though I do happen to love both pierogi and dumplings.


----------



## Wile E (Oct 29, 2009)

rpsgc said:


> So where are all the comments about thieving, socialism and commies? Oh right, if the US does it then it's OK.



I don't think it's ok at all. I think it's bs. The OEMs are just as much to blame. If you are going to fine Intel, the OEMs responsible should be fined as well.

And to be honest, I don't see a problem with offering discounts for exclusivity rights anyway, so I don't think this should have ever been a case in the first place. Offer discounts is not illegal, regardless of market position. 

Now, if intel said x cpu's normal price is $200, but if you also use AMD, we'll make it $400, then yeah, that's illegal. 

Now, if Intel said the normal price is $200, but if you give us exclusivity, we'll give them to you for $150, that's perfectly OK.


----------



## troyrae360 (Oct 29, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Now, if intel said x cpu's normal price is $200, but if you also use AMD, we'll make it $400, then yeah, that's illegal.



In short i think thats exactley what they done


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 29, 2009)

troyrae360 said:


> In short i think thats exactley what they done



No its not. Not even close.


----------



## Benetanegia (Oct 29, 2009)

troyrae360 said:


> In short i think thats exactley what they done



Exactly. It's not as if Intels sells their chips at bargain prces. It doesn't matter if they say it in one way or another. The "rebate" was offered for everyone so in effect is as if they said they would charge more if you went with AMD, basically because all the PC vendors had to go with Intel anyway. That is, ALL PC vendors depended on Intel chips. All of them need to buy from Intel, if by going with AMD they don't get te rebate that EVERYONE ELSE is getting, then they are getting punished and that's illegal by all means.


----------



## Wile E (Oct 29, 2009)

Benetanegia said:


> Exactly. It's not as if Intels sells their chips at bargain prces. It doesn't matter if they say it in one way or another. The "rebate" was offered for everyone so in effect is as if they said they would charge more if you went with AMD, basically because all the PC vendors had to go with Intel anyway. That is, ALL PC vendors depended on Intel chips. All of them need to buy from Intel, if by going with AMD they don't get te rebate that EVERYONE ELSE is getting, then they are getting punished and that's illegal by all means.



I still don't see it that way. It's not Intel's fault AMD couldn't provide enough cpus to meet demand, forcing companies to need to buy Intel cpus. There were plenty of OEMs that still offered AMD cpus back then, so it's not as if the discounts would make or break the OEMs. The OEMs just wanted higher profit margins, so they took the rebates. 

Still don't see how offering rebates should be illegal, nor will I ever agree with that sentiment.


----------



## Benetanegia (Oct 29, 2009)

Wile E said:


> I still don't see it that way. It's not Intel's fault AMD couldn't provide enough cpus to meet demand, forcing companies to need to buy Intel cpus. There were plenty of OEMs that still offered AMD cpus back then, so it's not as if the discounts would make or break the OEMs. The OEMs just wanted higher profit margins, so they took the rebates.
> 
> Still don't see how offering rebates should be illegal, nor will I ever agree with that sentiment.



I think there's something you guys need to understand: *doing that is illegal.* Whether you agree with that or not it doesn't matter. I myself think that downloading songs in mp3 shouldn't be illegal, but I know it is, I accept it, I don't do it and more importantly I don't post in long threads about how I don't agree with something that is illegal. On top of that it is illegal for a good reason, that I don't really understand why, apparently you all can't understand.


----------



## Wile E (Oct 30, 2009)

Benetanegia said:


> I think there's something you guys need to understand: *doing that is illegal.* Whether you agree with that or not it doesn't matter. I myself think that downloading songs in mp3 shouldn't be illegal, but I know it is, I accept it, I don't do it and more importantly I don't post in long threads about how I don't agree with something that is illegal. On top of that it is illegal for a good reason, that I don't really understand why, apparently you all can't understand.



No, offering rebates is not illegal.


----------



## Benetanegia (Oct 30, 2009)

Wile E said:


> No, offering rebates is not illegal.



Offering rebates by itself is not. Doing it under the conditions that Intel did is illegal. Again, you'll have to get over it, it's illegal, they have been found guilty in EU, Corea and Japan and now they are under the microscope in the US too. Enough is enough.

Killing is a crime? Wasting a life is a moral crime no matter what, but when it comes to legality, it depends on how and why. Self-defense? At war? Policemen on duty... All different conditions that lead to a different status of legality for the act of killing. Bussiness is the same and what Intel did is absolutely, irremediably 100% illegal, according to anti-trust laws worldwide (it just happens to be immoral too BTW). FTC is not deliberating about if they think what Intel did is illegal, they know it is. They are just deliberating if it's worth taking them to court.


----------



## Wile E (Oct 30, 2009)

Benetanegia said:


> Offering rebates by itself is not. Doing it under the conditions that Intel did is illegal. Again, you'll have to get over it, it's illegal, they have been found guilty in EU, Corea and Japan and now they are under the microscope in the US too. Enough is enough.
> 
> Killing is a crime? Wasting a life is a moral crime no matter what, but when it comes to legality, it depends on how and why. Self-defense? At war? Policemen on duty... All different conditions that lead to a different status of legality for the act of killing. Bussiness is the same and what Intel did is absolutely, irremediably 100% illegal, according to anti-trust laws worldwide. FTC is not deliberating about if they think what Intel did is illegal, they know it is. They are just deliberating if it's worth taking them to court.



What does the EU, Japan and Korea have anything to do with the US?

It isn't illegal to offer rebates. I maintain that what they did is not illegal, and if the US decides it is, it's only because they decided to stretch the meaning of the current law to fit the situation so they could find them guilty.

Now, if they threatened some other action, like reducing output to short the demand, or they flat out said we will raise prices if you allow AMD, then yeah, that's illegal. If they offered a starting price, then said will will reduce the price by x% if you give us exclusivity, then no, their action wasn't illegal.

So no, enough of bringing up the other govt entities that attacked Intel with their ridiculously anti-business laws, when they have absolutely NOTHING to do with the US case.

And besides all of that, even if it is illegal, it doesn't make the law just and right, and doesn't make it any less bs. An unjust law is just as bs as being charged guilty for a crime that you didn't commit.


----------



## Benetanegia (Oct 30, 2009)

Wile E said:


> What does the EU, Japan and Korea have anything to do with the US?
> 
> It isn't illegal to offer rebates. I maintain that what they did is not illegal, and if the US decides it is, it's only because they decided to stretch the meaning of the current law to fit the situation so they could find them guilty.
> 
> ...



Oh, it had to happen. Everytime something like this is discussed the ugly head of US xenophobia has to appear. And of course if they are being investigated in the US now it's because of the influence from other countries and not because it's illegal and always has been. Sorry but you all are VERY wrong and base all your "I think it's pro-bussiness, but don't have a clue" thoughts on laws that were stablished and writen in a constitution 300 years ago. See, anti-trust laws are much more modern, and bettter thought and thanks god, the people in charge of adopting them in the US were smart enough, so you have them there too.


----------



## Wile E (Oct 30, 2009)

Benetanegia said:


> Oh, it had to happen. Everytime something like this is discussed the ugly head of US xenophobia has to appear. And of course if they are being investigated in the US now it's because of the influence from other countries and not because it's illegal and always has been. Sorry but you all are VERY wrong and base all your "I think it's pro-bussiness, but don't have a clue" thoughts on laws that were stablished and writen in a constitution 300 years ago. See, anti-trust laws are much more modern, and bettter thought and thanks god, the people in charge of adopting them in the US were smart enough, so you have them there too.



But they aren't the same. And even if they were, they shouldn't be. I'm rather disappointed the US has gone to the trend of adopting these types of laws. The country has been in a relatively steady decline since they have.

So, you can spin it any way you want, the US market is not the same as the EU, Japan or Korea. The number of markets having these laws still doesn't make them just.


----------



## Benetanegia (Oct 30, 2009)

Wile E said:


> But they aren't the same. And even if they were, they shouldn't be. I'm rather disappointed the US has gone to the trend of adopting these types of laws. The country has been in a relatively steady decline since they have.
> 
> So, you can spin it any way you want, the US market is not the same as the EU, Japan or Korea. The number of markets having these laws still doesn't make them just.



You can spin it too as much as you can, that doesn't change the fact that the law is right and you are blatantly wrong. Laws are made and adopted by people that know much more about the subject than you and me, and they do it for a very good reason. You fighting against this law is no different at all from the south fighting against slavery eradication back in the day.

Besides, your country has been in a decline not precisely because of the laws adopted, but because of the lack of proper management from your past government and the permissiveness towards these overpowered companies. It's been in a decline because the companies there actually have more power than the government and companies don't give a rat's ass about your country (however it's said).

* If you really really want to know why your country is in a decline I'll gladly tell you. It's because what you (americans) use to call pro-bussiness model there is based and has always been based in overriding competition fromm the outside. That proved to be very successful in the past, when the US was the only economic/industrial powerhouse and thus it exported much more than it imported, while at the same time it mantained a healthy and expensive internal econmy based on consumtion and tradition. For example in the car industry that goes for General Motors, etc. But when competition came from the outside and happened to be stronger, the US companies unable to change the strategy ad unable to fight the external threat with the weapons at their disposal they had no option but to fight the local "small" competition. That is hurt one US company to make their other US company survive, but destroying the economy in the process.


----------



## Wile E (Oct 30, 2009)

Benetanegia said:


> You can spin it too as much as you can, that doesn't change the fact that the law is right and you are blatantly wrong. Laws are made and adopted by people that know much more about the subject than you and me, and they do it for a very good reason. You fighting against this law is no different at all from the south fighting against slavery eradication back in the day.
> 
> Besides, your country has been in a decline not precisely because of the laws adopted, but because of the lack of proper management from your past government and the permissiveness towards these overpowered companies. It's been in a decline because the companies there actually have more power than the government.



No, I'm not blatantly wrong. If you honestly believe that laws are always made with our best intentions involved, or that all laws are just because the law makers passed them, you are seriously naive. 

Here is a newsflash, the majority of the law makers don't actually know a damn thing about business or even moral subjects for that matter. All they know about is what fattens their wallet.

And to compare this to slavery is just shameful on your part. This is no where near as black and white as slavery. That's about as much spin as you can get right there. It almost borders on a child's argument.

And look into history a bit more. The decline of the US didn't start to happen until these laws started coming into existence.


----------



## Benetanegia (Oct 30, 2009)

Wile E said:


> No, I'm not blatantly wrong. If you honestly believe that laws are always made with our best intentions involved, or that all laws are just because the law makers passed them, you are seriously naive.
> 
> Here is a newsflash, the majority of the law makers don't actually know a damn thing about business or even moral subjects for that matter. All they know about is what fattens their wallet.
> 
> And to compare this to slavery is just shameful on your part. This is no where near as black and white as slavery. That's about as much spin as you can get right there. It almost borders on a child's argument.



This law is for the better of us. Competition is always for the better of us, consumers and any law that punishes the companies that try to take their comtetition down with dirty tactics is pro consumers. I can and do compare this to slavery, because we are slaved by these companies, although you are unable to see it.



> And look into history a bit more. The decline of the US didn't start to happen until these laws started coming into existence.



Pure coincidence. Although I'm willing to accept that this laws had something to do too. After all, these laws prevent malpractices in the bussinesses and I can decidedly see that as an obstacle to many US companies. 

It's a shame that fair competition hampers the US economy. Sorry guys, the teacher came in, put bullying to an end and you no longer are the king of the playard.


----------



## Wile E (Oct 30, 2009)

Benetanegia said:


> This law is for the better of us. Competition is always for the better of us, consumers and any law that punishes the companies that try to take their comtetition down with dirty tactics is pro consumers. I can and do compare this to slavery, because we are slaved by these companies, although you are unable to see it.
> 
> 
> 
> Pure coincidence.


Rebates aren't dirty tactics, so no, your comparison does not hold water. And you are slaved by your govt, tho you are unable to see it.

And "pure coincidence" is nothing more than a copout on your part.

I still see nothing that suggests rebates are illegal or even morally wrong.


----------



## Benetanegia (Oct 30, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Rebates aren't dirty tactics, so no, your comparison does not hold water. And you are slaved by your govt, tho you are unable to see it.
> 
> And "pure coincidence" is nothing more than a copout on your part.
> 
> I still see nothing that suggests rebates are illegal or even morally wrong.



Again? You are going in circles? Maybe it's because you have problems with reading. Let's see:

*REBATES ARE NOT ILLEGAL. Offering rebates to ONE company is not illegal. USING THEM TO PREVENT THE COMPETITION FROM COMPETING AT ALL, BY OFFERING EXCLUSIVITY REBATES TO ALL CUSTOMERS IS ILLEGAL. Basically if you are going to offer rebates to all your customers, you might as well sell your product cheaper.*

I'm just trying to help, since apparently you got stuck in the beginning of conversation.


----------



## Wile E (Oct 30, 2009)

Benetanegia said:


> Again? You are going in circles? Maybe it's because you have problems with reading. Let's see:
> 
> *REBATES ARE NOT ILLEGAL. Offering rebates to ONE company is not illegal. USING THEM TO PREVENT THE COMPETITION FROM COMPETING AT ALL, BY OFFERING EXCLUSIVITY REBATES TO ALL CUSTOMERS IS ILLEGAL. Basically if you are going to offer rebates to all your customers, you might as well sell your product cheaper.*
> 
> I'm just trying to help, since apparently you got stuck in the beginning of conversation.


I got what you said. I still disagree completely. Rebates are not illegal, regardless of how many you offer them to. The number of people you offer a rebate to should be completely inconsequential. There were plenty of OEMs that didn't take the offer and still sold AMD, so the rebates obviously weren't all that great. They certainly weren't going to make or break the OEM's, so how does all fault fall on Intel? The OEM's still had to agree to the deals.

I think you need to relax. I think you are wrong, plain and simple, and until you can provide me with different facts, you are going in circles just as much as I am.


----------



## Benetanegia (Oct 30, 2009)

Wile E said:


> I got what you said. I still disagree completely. Rebates are not illegal, regardless of how many you offer them to. There were plenty of OEMs that didn't take the offer, so the rebates obviously weren't all that great. They certainly weren't going to make or break the OEM's, so how does all fault fall on Intel? The OEM's still had to agree to the deals.
> 
> I think you need to relax. I think you are wrong, plain and simple, and until you can provide me with different facts, you are going in circles just as much as I am.



There's a difference between you and me. Your own legal system and government backs me up on this. And the rest in the world, of course.


----------



## Wile E (Oct 30, 2009)

Benetanegia said:


> There's a difference between you and me. Your own legal system and government backs me up on this. And the rest in the world, of course.



My legal system does not call rebates illegal. And the rest of the world's legal system is inconsequential in this case, and still doesn't make it right anyway.

Just drop it. We disagree completely, and it's going to stay that way until new facts are introduced.

My opinion is that they did nothing wrong, and even if they did break the law, the law is flawed and needs changed. Plain and simple.

You opinion is that they are guilty of wrong doing, and that the law is just. Plain and simple.

Does that about sum it up?


----------



## a_ump (Oct 30, 2009)

lol wow how many posts can be made stating the same thing repetitively what almost 22 times?  just let it go guys you've both made ur points. My personal opinion, have any of those cases ever released specific information to the public as to why they(korea, japan, eu) convicted intel? afaik they haven't so therefore none of us can say yay or nay on if these cases are rightous or not as we don't have near the understanding or facts that the courts do.


----------



## Solaris17 (Oct 30, 2009)

It doesnt matter anyway in the long run intel and or AMD intel in this case will find another way to cleverly disguise how to choke hold the other. thats buisiness and exactly what intel did. granted rebates arent illegal but you dont know if they were good or not. and "well OEM's didnt take them" holds absoloutely no water. what if intel offered 100% or even 80? thats a huge chunk of change. and honestly the simple fact is if that was the case some OEM's either already had a contract. or feared AMD finding out and suing them. lets face it the US is sue happy we can sue DD over hot coffee and get away with it. and while rebates might not be illegal giving a rebate to choke another company is and should be. its bad buisiness. granted it might be "good" for the company in question international law states that this is bad. and so the FTC tags them simple. though as i said in the long run it wont matter. we wont see the money AMD wont see the money..our economy wont see the money and though 10% is alot of money to Intel it is not for a company that makes an unreal amount of profit 10% of that isnt going to hurt a bit. and going to court in loosing wont help either they will find a way if they want to do it again. its a never ending cat and mouse game much like the arguments weve seen in this thread. circular logic isnt going to win and the companys are playing as much as we are.


----------



## Benetanegia (Oct 30, 2009)

Wile E said:


> *the law is flawed and needs changed*. Plain and simple.



Ah, I didn't understand that part of your "reasoning". It's not that you think that Intel did not break the law, it's that you don't even trust the law. I was tinking you were debating about how that law was being executed, not the law itself. Don't take offense, but you are a hopeless case, you seem like a dinosaur out of place in the legal reality of your own country.

Damn, it could have saved me a lot of time catching that from the beginning.

@Solaris

Dots and commas please! 
I agree on many parts though.


----------



## Wile E (Oct 30, 2009)

Benetanegia said:


> Ah, I didn't understand that part of your "reasoning". It's not that you think that Intel did not break the law, it's that you don't even trust the law. Don't take offense, but you are a hopeless case, you seem like a dinosaur out of place in the legal reality of your own country.
> 
> Damn, it could have saved me a lot of time catching that from the beginning.



And the legal reality of my country is that it is going down hill since adopting a more world-like view of business regulation. It has not benefited us, it has hindered us.


----------



## Solaris17 (Oct 30, 2009)

Benetanegia said:


> Ah, I didn't understand that part of your "reasoning". It's not that you think that Intel did not break the law, it's that you don't even trust the law. I was tinking you were debating about how that law was being executed, not the law itself. Don't take offense, but you are a hopeless case, you seem like a dinosaur out of place in the legal reality of your own country.
> 
> Damn, it could have saved me a lot of time catching that from the beginning.
> 
> ...



sorry and thanks..as many of the old TPU members will tell you i doint use alot of punctuation..apparently im kind of legend for it. the problem stems from the fact that i taught myself to type. and as such i dont use home keys or any of that BS. I type fast i just dont do it properly. and in my own teachings i neglected the punctuation keys. and as of now i havent found a way to properly impliment them into my hands controlled cascade across my KB


----------



## Benetanegia (Oct 30, 2009)

Wile E said:


> And the legal reality of my country is that it is going down hill since adopting a more world-like view of business regulation. It has not benefited us, it has hindered us.



You should all invest in NASA then, make some huge rockets and put your country out in the space or take it to Mars or something (moon belongs to us all). Pretending that only your country* is right and the world is wrong is sooooo pretentious and disgusting actually. TBH after the latest interventions of the US in the global economy and the war of Irak, I wouldn't miss your country at all, I think very few people would, actually. I'm sure the people that is worth from the US (which is most of them) would stay, so I'd be happy with that.

* Your old country ideas I mean, because it's no longer that way. It's not been in a long time anyway, your ideas are more like from the 70's 80's.


----------



## Solaris17 (Oct 30, 2009)

Benetanegia said:


> You should all invest in NASA then, make some huge rockets and put your country out in the space or take it to Mars or something (moon belongs to us all). Pretending that only your country* is right and the world is wrong is sooooo pretentious and disgusting actually. TBH after the latest interventions of the US in the global economy and the war of Irak, I wouldn't miss your country at all, I think very few people would, actually. I'm sure the people that is worth from the US (which is most of them) would stay, so I'd be happy with that.
> 
> * Your old country ideas I mean.



woah bud i live in the us too and no offense but our presidents actions in foreign relations arent a direct representation of what the people want. and i kinda dont want to be bombed off the face of the planet i quite like living sometimes. so please let us not play generalities.


----------



## Benetanegia (Oct 30, 2009)

Solaris17 said:


> woah bud i live in the us too and no offense but our presidents actions in foreign relations arent a direct representation of what the people want. and i kinda dont want to be bombed off the face of the planet i quite like living sometimes. so please let us not play generalities.



Like I said, you can stay. And like I also said I think it's only a small portion of the people who would go. Maybe one of the big states would do the trick, Texas maybe? Hypotheically speaking of course.  

I know I went a little bit over the top, but it's just that I can't understand such pretentious actitudes.


----------



## Solaris17 (Oct 30, 2009)

Benetanegia said:


> Like I said, you can stay. And like I also said I think it's only a small portion of the people who would go. Maybe one of the big states would do the trick, Texas maybe? Hypotheically speaking of course.
> 
> I know I went a little bit over the top, but it's just that I can't understand such pretentious actitudes.



i understand though honestly their is alot of pretentious in the US i think were a victem of our own freedom in that right. we can say or do w/e we please to one another and its a protected right. unfortunetely most of the world thinks we are just a bunch of people with attitude problems and sadly compared to the rest of the world..we do.


----------



## troyrae360 (Oct 30, 2009)

Wile E said:


> My legal system does not call rebates illegal. And the rest of the world's legal system is inconsequential in this case, and still doesn't make it right anyway.




Rebates are definitley not illegal, BUT when you are offreing rebates on an agrement that you will not buy something off of another company then it becomes Illegal, Its basicley blackmail (Also illegal).


----------



## hat (Oct 30, 2009)

Benetanegia said:


> You should all invest in NASA then, make some huge rockets and put your country out in the space or take it to Mars or something (moon belongs to us all). Pretending that only your country* is right and the world is wrong is sooooo pretentious and disgusting actually. TBH after the latest interventions of the US in the global economy and the war of Irak, I wouldn't miss your country at all, I think very few people would, actually. I'm sure the people that is worth from the US (which is most of them) would stay, so I'd be happy with that.
> 
> * Your old country ideas I mean, because it's no longer that way. It's not been in a long time anyway, your ideas are more like from the 70's 80's.



And you're not [pretentious] huh? :shadedshu


----------



## Benetanegia (Oct 30, 2009)

hat said:


> And you're not [pretentious] huh? :shadedshu



I'm not being pretentious at all. Not on this subject at least (I'm half spanish so pretention is as installed on me as solaris said about the US citizens). 

How is it any pretentious to agree to and support what almost all law system models in the world have dictated? Pretending that your ideas are over the laws of your country is pretentious, pretending you are over the world ones is just... well I dont know a word for that.


----------



## sneekypeet (Oct 30, 2009)

This ends here... all this sidetrack BS is not needed in the news section. If you would like to discuss law and politics, please do so via our handy PM system.

Consider this fair warning to you all.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 30, 2009)

lol, Intel is getting bitten hard now.


----------



## Wile E (Oct 30, 2009)

sneekypeet said:


> This ends here... all this sidetrack BS is not needed in the news section. If you would like to discuss law and politics, please do so via our handy PM system.
> 
> Consider this fair warning to you all.



No offense peety, but this is a political and/or law oriented topic. I don't see how our discussion is OT, tbh. If you guys didn't want this to turn political, this topic probably shouldn't have even been posted in the first place.

Again, no offense, I just don't see how we are OT.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Oct 30, 2009)

Wile E said:


> No offense peety, but this is a political and/or law oriented topic. I don't see how our discussion is OT, tbh. If you guys didn't want this to turn political, this topic probably shouldn't have even been posted in the first place.
> 
> Again, no offense, I just don't see how we are OT.



it is not the political discussion it is the name calling.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 30, 2009)

yup Slinging Mud and other unmentionables at one another.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Oct 30, 2009)

Wile E:

I agree with you in some parts but not in others. Whilst i am not up to 100% knowledge on the market laws in the US i shall try to explain what i mean:


You are a company, a very large company... internationally big. You want to make some more money but see a competitor is doing very well. You sit back and ponder on what to do. You come up with rebates, so then you go of to the market and tell everyone that if you buy _x_ amount of product you will get _x_ amount back in the form of a rebate. Job done, market buys lots of your product and sales increase slightly.

Now as i understand it, this is NOT illegal and as it should be of course. Nothing here was wrong, you merely offered a rebate, it was up to the market to decide whether to take it and the competitor was still allowed to compete.


Now the same company in the same market, decides no no no, this is not enough. And goes back to the market and tells them that if they do not buy the product at _x_ and NOT buy the competitors then the price of the product will increase vastly. The market still wants the product and decides to purchase it on the cheap, under the condition that it does not buy from any other competitor for a while.

This as it stands IS illegal. It is blocking the competitor and restricting a "free" market. Why now, has there been NO blame placed on the market and all of i only placed on the big company is beyond me, but is stupid in itself. Whether the law is proper or not can't be helped but the companies actions go against that law and therefore are open to punishment.

Other things i would look at is WHEN the company did this, and WHEN the law came into effect. They may get lucky and find the law was put into place after this happened and therefore they did not do anything wrong as it was not illegal at the time. Also again i would look into the market and ask why no-one in it spoke up and questioned the companies actions.

EDIT: With TMM post below, this is only a statement that an investigation has/will be started. Intel has not been found guilty of anything yet, and as the US law system works differently a different result may be found.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 30, 2009)

I hate threads like this. It brings out the worst in people. Bta deleted my first post but it predicted the future of this thread back on page one. The only thing it has done is establish that some people hate the US and blame them for everything. Relevant or not.

One thing you people have to realize is in the U.S. we are innocent unless proven guilty. An investigation is just that. An investigation. It means nothing by our laws.

One thing I will say is I feel there should be infractions handed out. If I were to go around and talk about hurting other countries on this forum just because "I don't like them" infractions would be abundant. I would expect them with such bold statements.

People should have respect for people no matter what country they are from. You should never judge a person based off of their government. If you do then YOU are a dinosaur of the past.


----------



## mdm-adph (Oct 30, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I hate threads like this. It brings out the worst in people. Bta deleted my first post but it predicted the future of this thread back on page one. The only thing it has done is establish that some people hate the US and blame them for everything. Relevant or not.



I'm at my best when you think I'm at my worst.  



TheMailMan78 said:


> One thing you people have to realize is in the U.S. we are innocent unless proven guilty. An investigation is just that. An investigation. It means nothing by our laws.


That's pre-9/11 thinking there, sonny.  The US has been performing "indefinite detention without trial" for a while now, and not just of foreign nationals, either.  That "innocent unless proven guilty" crap died a long time ago, even in the US.

Sucks when one's own medicine is used against them, eh?



TheMailMan78 said:


> People should have respect for people no matter what country they are from. You should never judge a person based off of their government. If you do then YOU are a dinosaur of the past.



I... seriously can't believe you, of all people, just said that.


----------



## Wile E (Oct 31, 2009)

WhiteLotus said:


> .......Now the same company in the same market, decides no no no, this is not enough. And goes back to the market and tells them that if they do not buy the product at _x_ and NOT buy the competitors then the price of the product will increase vastly. The market still wants the product and decides to purchase it on the cheap, under the condition that it does not buy from any other competitor for a while.
> 
> This as it stands IS illegal. It is blocking the competitor and restricting a "free" market............


No it isn't. It's an exclusivity agreement. Perfectly legal. Just to use an example from a different market, car manufacturers get rebates on electronic parts (circuit boards, ecu's, etc.) if they sign exclusivity agreements with certain manufacturers.


WhiteLotus said:


> Why now, has there been NO blame placed on the market and all of i only placed on the big company is beyond me, but is stupid in itself.


That's one of the key aspects of these Intel cases that confuses me, regardless of their country of origin.


WhiteLotus said:


> Whether the law is proper or not can't be helped but the companies actions go against that law and therefore are open to punishment.


I realize that, but just feel that it still doesn't make it right.


WhiteLotus said:


> Other things i would look at is WHEN the company did this, and WHEN the law came into effect. They may get lucky and find the law was put into place after this happened and therefore they did not do anything wrong as it was not illegal at the time. Also again i would look into the market and ask why no-one in it spoke up and questioned the companies actions.


I wasn't even going to bring that into the discussion, but I think this occurred after it became law anyway.

Thanks for not attacking me on my views, btw. It really is appreciated after the way this thread has gone for a couple of pages.


----------



## AsRock (Oct 31, 2009)

So who got the 1.06 Billion euro's did AMD actually get to see this money as seen as they were the ones damaged by it ?.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 31, 2009)

It went into the EU's coffers.


----------



## Kantastic (Oct 31, 2009)

AsRock said:


> So who got the 1.06 Billion euro's did AMD actually get to see this money as seen as they were the ones damaged by it ?.



They probably got to see it.


----------



## Wile E (Oct 31, 2009)

Kantastic said:


> They probably got to see it.



Nope, didn't even get to look at it. Went straight to the govts involved.


----------



## Benetanegia (Oct 31, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Nope, didn't even get to look at it. Went straight to the govts involved.



First of all, Intel has not paid, so no one has seen a penny and second AMD will probably see the money:



> AMD's private antitrust case also alleges Intel rebates conditioned on exclusivity or near exclusivity and Intel payments conditioned on delaying AMD-based products, Wolin said--and any settlement awards or damages that Intel might end up paying in that case would go to AMD, not wronged taxpayers. That case is scheduled to go to trial in March 2010.



http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10239904-92.html

Anyway AMD wouldn't have to see any money from the fine imposed, because the fine was for damaging the consumers, not AMD, for damaging the market in general which belongs to us, the consumers. Intel damaged AMD directly, but in the process the consumer was damaged, which is what the EU commision is after. As the article says, damages to AMD will be judged later.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 31, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> I'm at my best when you think I'm at my worst.


 Naaa I accepted you were a dick a long time ago. 




mdm-adph said:


> That's pre-9/11 thinking there, sonny.  The US has been performing "indefinite detention without trial" for a while now, and not just of foreign nationals, either.  That "innocent unless proven guilty" crap died a long time ago, even in the US.
> 
> Sucks when one's own medicine is used against them, eh?:


 I'm typing from Gitmo right now teaching the Taliban how to OC their IED's.





mdm-adph said:


> I... seriously can't believe you, of all people, just said that.


 Why? I've always given respect to everyone on the forum that has shown me respect. I joke with you all the time and your a commie bastard. The TPU community is an international home for PC dorks alike. We all have things in common and thats what we should focus on. However threads like this take away from the focus of what we REALLY care about and it forces all of us to rear our ugly ideology's.

You know what the sad part is? Not a damn one of us really knows WTF is going on. We talk crap and take shots in the dark because if we REALLY knew what was going on we wouldn't be arguing. 

BTA posted a picture on GN that hit home for me. Believe it or not it was a picture of a bus. On the back of the bus it said this..."No one remains a virgin. Life f$#ks everyone." Truer words have never been spoken. Them Indians know their s#$t.

Now lets get back on topic and try to be more constructive about this thread. 

Does anyone know WHO started the investigation here in the US?


----------



## Wile E (Nov 1, 2009)

Benetanegia said:


> First of all, Intel has not paid, so no one has seen a penny and second AMD will probably see the money:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Different cases. The EU case was not AMD's private case that you are listing now. In the EU case, the fines go straight to the EU. They are fines, not winnings such that occur in a civil case. The civil case has yet to be tried.

So no, AMD will not see a dime from the EU case.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Nov 1, 2009)

Wile E said:


> So no, AMD will not see a dime from the EU case.



and they shouldn't anyway.


----------



## Chad Boga (Nov 1, 2009)

Benetanegia said:


> First of all, Intel has not paid,


Intel has paid and the money is sitting in an account, pending the appeal process Intel will go through.


----------



## Benetanegia (Nov 1, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Different cases. The EU case was not AMD's private case that you are listing now. In the EU case, the fines go straight to the EU. They are fines, not winnings such that occur in a civil case. The civil case has yet to be tried.
> 
> So no, AMD will not see a dime from the EU case.



Like I said, they don't have to.


----------



## MilkyWay (Nov 1, 2009)

Wait if the fines go out to the EU who gets the money i mean the EU is made up of 27 nations!
USA learned from the best so its only appropriate that it tries to sue Intel just like us Europeans lol.


I dont care if you dont like it, its like MP expenses row in the UK. It was in the rules for the MP's to rip the taxpayer for expense claims but it wasn't morally correct or fair to abuse the system that was in place. Once we found out the rules where being abused we where like ah shit!

There are 2 kinds of people in that situation the ones who say you did act in the rules although unfairly and abusively but shouldnt pay it all back because you did act in the rules at the time, (like abusing your fair usage policy with your broadband supplier by dl'ing porn all the time) or you say oops you got caught and should pay it all back for being sneaky and being arseholes and abusing the system.

They did things like say their second house was their proper home and claim on their real house which was obviously a much bigger house so they paid less on mortgages.

A bit like what i figure Intel has done, totally abused the market but maybe not broken any rules (maybe has dunno yet). For the record MP's are being made to pay back all the expenses they swindled out of us because even tho they never broke the rules they still abused them and must be punished for that.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Nov 1, 2009)

MilkyWay said:


> Wait if the fines go out to the EU who gets the money i mean the EU is made up of 27 nations!



All those projects you see that have a nice plaque stating that it was partially funded by the EU. Bingo.

SO most likely the money will go to developing countries so the can get their infrastructure up and running as that will boost the EU as a whole.


----------



## Benetanegia (Nov 5, 2009)

http://www.eetimes.com/rss/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=221600280&cid=RSSfeed_eetimes_newsRSS

New York joins the party.


----------



## Wile E (Nov 6, 2009)

Yay!!! Let's all cash in on the major corporation!!!!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 9, 2009)

Benetanegia said:


> http://www.eetimes.com/rss/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=221600280&cid=RSSfeed_eetimes_newsRSS
> 
> New York joins the party.


The State of New York is $3.0 billion in debt--the most of any state.  Coincidence?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 9, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The State of New York is $3.0 billion in debt--the most of any state.  Coincidence?



How in the hell is NY in debt?! They have some of the highest state taxes in the U.S.?! It must be all those "Social Programs" they finance.


----------



## mdm-adph (Nov 9, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> How in the hell is NY in debt?! They have some of the highest state taxes in the U.S.?! It must be all those "Social Programs" they finance.



Please show me a list of states in the US that _aren't_ in debt.    Taxes have nothing to do with it.


----------



## Flyordie (Nov 9, 2009)

Benetanegia said:


> Again? You are going in circles? Maybe it's because you have problems with reading. Let's see:
> 
> *REBATES ARE NOT ILLEGAL. Offering rebates to ONE company is not illegal. USING THEM TO PREVENT THE COMPETITION FROM COMPETING AT ALL, BY OFFERING EXCLUSIVITY REBATES TO ALL CUSTOMERS IS ILLEGAL. Basically if you are going to offer rebates to all your customers, you might as well sell your product cheaper.*
> 
> I'm just trying to help, since apparently you got stuck in the beginning of conversation.





Wile E said:


> I got what you said. I still disagree completely. Rebates are not illegal, regardless of how many you offer them to. The number of people you offer a rebate to should be completely inconsequential. There were plenty of OEMs that didn't take the offer and still sold AMD, so the rebates obviously weren't all that great. They certainly weren't going to make or break the OEM's, so how does all fault fall on Intel? The OEM's still had to agree to the deals.
> 
> I think you need to relax. I think you are wrong, plain and simple, and until you can provide me with different facts, you are going in circles just as much as I am.



LOL AT WILE E.

WILE E seems to be a supporter of Reaganomics... which just made me check for coins cause that stuff is scary and causes collapses of global economies just as we have seen here recently... (the 2008-2009 recession..)
---
What WILE refuses to acknowledge is this- Intel provided stipulation of this- "You will only get rebates if you buy LESS than 20% of your stock from other companies."

WILE E refuses to see that one important ILLEGAL detail.. sad to say though, I have seen it multiple times, and each time it comes back to bite them in the ass... Sorry WILE E, but I have to disagree on you disagree'n with Benetanegia


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 9, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> Please show me a list of states in the US that _aren't_ in debt.    Taxes have nothing to do with it.


All the states not on the list are operating in the green (27 are listed).  Taxes, being a state's primary source of income, have a lot to do with it.  Deficits are created by the state spending too much for the taxes they collect to cover it.


----------



## Flyordie (Nov 9, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> All the states not on the list are operating in the green (27 are listed).  Taxes, being a state's primary source of income, have a lot to do with it.  Deficits are created by the state spending too much for the taxes they collect to cover it.



^^That^^


----------



## mdm-adph (Nov 9, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> All the states not on the list are operating in the green (27 are listed).  Taxes, being a state's primary source of income, have a lot to do with it.  Deficits are created by the state spending too much for the taxes they collect to cover it.



...or by taxing so little that they don't have enough money to cover essential services (I'd imagine this is the case in such "red" states as Idaho and Oklahoma).  Nor does a very "blue" state necessarily run up a deficit (like Delaware, a state that I'd imagine has tons of public services).

Perhaps I should've said "*excessive* taxes don't necessarily imply a budget deficit."



Flyordie said:


> ^^That^^



If you have nothing more to add than "^^That^^", you probably don't know what you're saying "^^That^^" to, anyway.  So hush.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 9, 2009)

States know approximately how much they are going to take in on a year to year basis (budgets).  Most states are running a deficit now because of the unemployed.  Unemployed citizens pay very little in taxes and at the same time, they are a burden on the state through unemployment claims/compensation.  There's more to it than that (e.g. buget surplus carry over, other unexpected expensese like natural disaster, and just plain bad fiscal management) but, because this is off topic, I won't respond to that subject further.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 9, 2009)

Please let this thread die guys?! This thread is like a wooly mammoth of bull sh!t stuck in a tar pit of ignorance.


----------



## Ahhzz (Nov 9, 2009)

Reefer86 said:


> I agree that it will not benefit the consumer, but they need to be punished in some way for underhand practices so they dont happen again. If this was allowed to happen without punishment, then in the long run this would hurt the consumer as the competition would go under and intel would create (as stated above) a monopoly.
> 
> Its unfair and un lawful for companys to do this.
> 
> True, this needs to be proven, but this has already been proven in europe and other contries, so i think this will be the case in the US also.



Exactly. It has nothing to do with paying back the consumer, and altho I wish it did, nor does it send money to AMD, as they're not filing the lawsuit. However, it does address the fact that they did something WRONG. And irregardless of whether the Commission is going after them because they see other gov'ts getting money this way and we need it, or they genuinely want to make sure that Big Business toes the line, I'm all for it. They screwed up. They need to be held accountable. We've had too many businesses over here lately that screwed over everyone from the common Mom and Pop shareholder to the family goat, and we're propping them up and telling them "It's ok, we'll cover it". I'm ready to say "You 4ucked up. Pay for it."


----------



## Wile E (Nov 10, 2009)

Flyordie said:


> LOL AT WILE E.
> 
> WILE E seems to be a supporter of Reaganomics... which just made me check for coins cause that stuff is scary and causes collapses of global economies just as we have seen here recently... (the 2008-2009 recession..)
> ---
> ...


Did they actually come out and say if you buy AMD, we will charge you more, or did they say if you buy exclusively from us, we'll make it cheaper? Big difference between the 2.

And yeah, I support many of the ideas behind Reaganomics, and no, this current recession isn't because of that type of policy, this current recession is from the opposite of reaganomics.


----------



## mdm-adph (Nov 10, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Did they actually come out and say if you buy AMD, we will charge you more, or did they say if you buy exclusively from us, we'll make it cheaper? Big difference between the 2.
> 
> And yeah, I support many of the ideas behind Reaganomics, and no, this current recession isn't because of that type of policy, this current recession is from the opposite of reaganomics.



Everything that I've ever seen says that they said "if you buy from AMD, we won't sell to you at all."  Which would've been bad.


----------



## Beertintedgoggles (Nov 10, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> Everything that I've ever seen says that they said "if you buy from AMD, we won't sell to you at all."  Which would've been bad.



This is how I've understood the situation from the beginning, that Intel was implying if a distributor bought x % of their CPUs from someone else they would loose their discount pricing.  I have no problem with companies doing volume discounts; however, to add a stipulation that regardless if you're buying the same volume but also buying a certain quantity from AMD (or whoever) you'd lose that discount should be illegal.  Lawful discounts should come from how many of our chips are you buying, what else you are buying should not be a factor at all.  If the laws aren't written this way they certainly should be in the land of Beertintedgoggles.


----------



## Flyordie (Nov 10, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Did they actually come out and say if you buy AMD, we will charge you more, or did they say if you buy exclusively from us, we'll make it cheaper? Big difference between the 2.
> 
> And yeah, I support many of the ideas behind Reaganomics, and no, this current recession isn't because of that type of policy, this current recession is from the opposite of reaganomics.




The information that was leaked may be _CORRECT_  in saying that Intel coerced OEMs to buy a certain amount from them or they would cut them off... 


Personally, the OEMs should have gotten together and collectively said... "Fuck you Intel" and went to AMD and IBM with a proposal to get the stuff they needed...


----------



## mdm-adph (Nov 12, 2009)

Flyordie said:


> Personally, the OEMs should have gotten together and collectively said... "Fuck you Intel" and went to AMD and IBM with a proposal to get the stuff they needed...



It just goes to show the power with which Intel was abusing their market position that OEM's didn't do that -- it was because they *couldn't*.  They would've gone out of business because AMD and IBM couldn't provide the _volume_ of chips they needed, and any competitor OEM's that stayed with Intel would've reaped the business.

When a company can control a market in that way... well, that's what antitrust laws were made for in the first place.


----------



## allen337 (Nov 12, 2009)

If any of us had the money Intel has we would laugh all the way to the bank,then, ask them if they want any cheese with that wine they have.


----------



## mdm-adph (Nov 12, 2009)

allen337 said:


> If any of us had the money Intel has we would laugh all the way to the bank,then, ask them if they want any cheese with that wine they have.



Intel is not a person.  It has no money, and other than in the US (and perhaps Japan), it has very little in the way of rights.      It can be killed off, stripped of its charter, all at the whim of various Ministries and Departments of Commerce.  It exists solely at the whim of the people.

It's about time someone reminded its executives of that.


----------



## allen337 (Nov 12, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> Intel is not a person.  It has no money, and other than in the US (and perhaps Japan), it has very little in the way of rights.      It can be killed off, stripped of its charter, all at the whim of various Ministries and Departments of Commerce.  It exists solely at the whim of the people.
> 
> It's about time someone reminded its executives of that.





Tell that to obama


----------



## mdm-adph (Nov 12, 2009)

allen337 said:


> Tell that to obama



Yo mama? 

^
|
|
Just as relevant to discussion.


----------

