Thursday, June 5th 2008

Intel Fined USD $25.4 Million in South Korea

Chip maker Intel was fined USD $25.4 million (£13m) by the Korea Fair Trade Commission on Tuesday for taking advantage from its dominant position in the microprocessor market against rival Advanced Micro Devices (AMD). The Commission fined Intel because it was offering discounts to Samsung Electronics Co. and Trigem Computer Inc. that were against the Korean antitrust rules. Intel had offered about $37 million in rebates to Samsung and Trigem for over two and a half years on the condition that they wouldn't buy from Advanced Micro, according to commission's statement. Intel said it was very unhappy with the ruling and will further review the South Korean commission's decision. "We are disappointed with the decision. We feel the commission has overlooked or ignored key evidence that demonstrates Intel's business practices have been fair and lawful," Intel's Asia Pacific regional spokesman Nick Jacobs said in a statement. "Once we've had a chance to review the findings in detail it is possible that Intel will request a further review and, if necessary, an appeal which will permit a court to review the case independently." Since 2005, Intel has also been hit by anti-trust cases in the US, Japan and Europe.
Sources: Bloomberg, AFP
Add your own comment

62 Comments on Intel Fined USD $25.4 Million in South Korea

#51
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
Ouch, thats gotta hurt, but then again Intel tried bribing many companies before Korea Raised the Flag on their Misuse of Marketing/Capital.
Posted on Reply
#52
Kreij
Senior Monkey Moderator
niko084It is but at the same point they need to be in place to protect companies from going out of business. Its illegal in most countries to have a monopoly, and really for good reason also obviously. Well there are 2 ways to have a monopoly, wipe out your competition or buy them out.
No it's not. What is illegal is using unfair or illegal business practices to defeat your competition (if you have any).

If you invent something completely new and start selling it, you have a monopoly on that market segment.
If someone comes up with a competing product and you try to eliminate them, that's when you get into trouble.
If no one else enters the market, you remain a monopoly and are not breaking any laws.

Monopolies are not inherantly bad. Using anti-competitive business tactics is bad.
Posted on Reply
#54
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
KreijNo it's not. What is illegal is using unfair or illegal business practices to defeat your competition (if you have any).

If you invent something completely new and start selling it, you have a monopoly on that market segment.
If someone comes up with a competing product and you try to eliminate them, that's when you get into trouble.
If no one else enters the market, you remain a monopoly and are not breaking any laws.

Monopolies are not inherantly bad. Using anti-competitive business tactics is bad.
Only Problem is Intel and MS cant stand having Competition. You can have a AMD CPU that is around the Price of the C2 Celeron Performs Better than a C2 Celeron even. Its due to fact that the C2 starts Choking when there isnt enough Cache.
Posted on Reply
#55
niko084
KreijNo it's not. What is illegal is using unfair or illegal business practices to defeat your competition (if you have any).

If you invent something completely new and start selling it, you have a monopoly on that market segment.
If someone comes up with a competing product and you try to eliminate them, that's when you get into trouble.
If no one else enters the market, you remain a monopoly and are not breaking any laws.

Monopolies are not inherantly bad. Using anti-competitive business tactics is bad.
Well there is a difference there... A monopoly due to cut throat business practice is illegal.
Monopolies are inherntly bad because "stock prices must raise" and the super rich want nothing but more money.... And those are the people that run and own those companies, so you do the math.

The only way to take control of the world is to buy it, CEO's and billionaire stock investors are power/money hungry, all they care about is comma's in their bank account and power.
Posted on Reply
#56
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
ya and another point, they will get too rich that war will break out over it, that and the Value of Currency becomes Obsolete.
Posted on Reply
#57
jbunch07
niko084Well there is a difference there... A monopoly due to cut throat business practice is illegal.
Monopolies are inherntly bad because "stock prices must raise" and the super rich want nothing but more money.... And those are the people that run and own those companies, so you do the math.

The only way to take control of the world is to buy it, CEO's and billionaire stock investors are power/money hungry, all they care about is comma's in their bank account and power.
never heard a more truer statement.
Posted on Reply
#58
Kreij
Senior Monkey Moderator
eidairaman1Only Problem is Intel and MS cant stand having Competition.
That is not true either. What you perceive as "intolerant to competition" is actually the companies trying to not run afoul of US laws.

In the US, when a company is traded publicly (you can buy their stock on the open market) the company "by law" must do everything they can to increase the value of the stock for the shareholders.

If AMD eats away at a portion of the market and Intel stocks drop, they MUST take measures to try to remedy the situation. If a company appears to be doing nothing to increase the worth of their shares, or worse trying to deflate them, they will soon be investigated on a Federal level.

Many of you act as if Intel is some dude banging his fist against a table shouting, "I want more money!" It's not, its management is beholding to the Board of Directors who are elected by thousands of shareholders who are doing the fist banging. As purchasers of Intel stock they have the right to demand increased value or dividends.

That, of course, does not justify breaking laws to make that happen.
Posted on Reply
#59
Easy Rhino
Linux Advocate
turtileNvidia doesn't have a x86 license. It can't enter the CPU market.

IBM chose Intel to produce the processors for their PCs. However, IBM's policy required that there needs to be two sources (basic economics - helps IBM). AMD made clones of Intel's chips until Intel refused to allow AMD to use their design. AMD was then forced to produce Intel's design without any knowledge of the design.

After Intel released many designs, AMD decided to make their own designs which wasn't too long ago. AMD has been much smaller than Intel and still managed to produce a chip that was better than Intel.

If one company becomes a monopoly, it hurts inovation and jacks the price up. Thats why their should be at least two companies. It is best in theory to have two companies compete with 50/50 market share. (pretty much impossible)
first, nvidia has already made plans of entering the cpu market so im sure they are working on the proper licenses.

second, i dont know which economics books you have read, but absolutely nowhere has it ever been said that 50/50 market share is the best in theory. not even marxism says that. this does not take away from the fact that stopping intel from crushing amd is actually hurting innovation by keeping amd alive when it probably should be dead and another company/campanies can take that share and innovate and take on intel.
Posted on Reply
#60
turtile
Easy Rhinofirst, nvidia has already made plans of entering the cpu market so im sure they are working on the proper licenses.

second, i dont know which economics books you have read, but absolutely nowhere has it ever been said that 50/50 market share is the best in theory. not even marxism says that. this does not take away from the fact that stopping intel from crushing amd is actually hurting innovation by keeping amd alive when it probably should be dead and another company/campanies can take that share and innovate and take on intel.
Nvidia can only make embedded designs.

Considering that Marxism is a political theory that doesn't support capitalism, it wouldn't make any sense to say that.

This will explain it:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations
Posted on Reply
#61
Easy Rhino
Linux Advocate
turtileNvidia can only make embedded designs.
they can make CPUs once they get the licenses for it...
Considering that Marxism is a political theory that doesn't support capitalism, it wouldn't make any sense to say that.

This will explain it:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations
ive read wealth of nations, you clearly have not. adam smith was never against free market capitalism which is at the root of our debate. he would agree with me in that govts imposing fines on intel, which is in direct competition with amd, only hurts the consumer in the end. and i mentioned marxism to illustrate my point that not even the most extemist of socialist views would say that two companies sharing 50/50 market is the best for the consumer.
Posted on Reply
#62
laszlo
this is why they get fined:

"Taking into account Intel's rebates, AMD could not possibly fight Intel even if its chips were offered for free." (June 5, 2008)

"Intel's rebates were paid in return for not using its rivals' products and (this) has hurt market competition by limiting the choice of local PC makers in selecting business partners." (June 5, 2008)

"South Korean consumers had to buy PCs at higher prices as domestic PC makers were forced to buy Intel's pricier CPU." (June 5, 2008)
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Dec 27th, 2024 01:53 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts