Thursday, July 23rd 2009
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ff802/ff802d860c655c4d01a0d6761872719d7e065d1e" alt="Intel"
Intel Appeals Against EU Antitrust Verdict
Earlier this year in May, the European Commission for anti-competitive practices found Intel guilty of various antitrust practices. The company was then slapped with a massive 1.06 billion Euro (US $1.45 billion) fine, the single largest antitrust fine it has ever meted out to a company. On Wednesday, Intel explored its legal option of appealing against the fine with Court of First Instance in Luxembourg, Europe's second highest judicial body. The company argues that the EC regulator failed to consider the evidence that supported Intel's contention during the trial.
In a telephone interview with ComputerWorld, Robert Manetta, an Intel spokesperson said "We believe the Commission misinterpreted some evidence and ignored other pieces of evidence." Meanwhile, apart from the fine Intel is expected to pay within three months of the verdict, the ruling also puts a stop to Intel's rebates to PC manufacturers and retailers on condition of near or total exclusivity, among several other deemed malpractices. Authorities in South Korea and Japan found similar irregularities in Intel's marketing methods, while the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and New York Attorney General's office are investigating the company for abuse of its monopoly position.
Source:
ComputerWorld
In a telephone interview with ComputerWorld, Robert Manetta, an Intel spokesperson said "We believe the Commission misinterpreted some evidence and ignored other pieces of evidence." Meanwhile, apart from the fine Intel is expected to pay within three months of the verdict, the ruling also puts a stop to Intel's rebates to PC manufacturers and retailers on condition of near or total exclusivity, among several other deemed malpractices. Authorities in South Korea and Japan found similar irregularities in Intel's marketing methods, while the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and New York Attorney General's office are investigating the company for abuse of its monopoly position.
307 Comments on Intel Appeals Against EU Antitrust Verdict
Its shocking how un-informed people are.
I once had a person bring in a system they got at frys(frys special) it had a c7 cpu and some HORRIBLE ddr ram, it was pretty pathetic, when I explained that the cpu wasnt capable of what they wanted to do(record video from a tv card that had NO encoding onboard at all) took me alot of explaining to make them understand the SLOW ASS via c7 in the system was NOT DESIGNED FOR THAT and that frys shouldn't have sold them the system for that use, It was a great little netbox tho, just couldnt really deal with what they wanted it for(htpc/mpc)
also getting the person to understand the diffrance between via, amd and intel was....HELL, the guy also argued with me that intel made them all it was just diffrent models ROFL.......
blah, I still stan by the fact that I dont think intel should get out of any of the fines the worlds levied against them, and they did do things that where unethical, You break the law/rules you take your chances, If you get caught, you should just say "aww shit" and pay your bills.
I know this is a bit off topic but I think its relevant to most people here.
Why is it in the US "justice system" that they say "innocent till proven guilty" then lock you up and do everything they can to prove you did it? Check the laws and job descriptions, In reality its the prosecutors job to insure that the innocent are protected, this should be especialy true when they are falsely accused of a crime.....but its not.
Why is it that somebody can get 6 months in county jail+probation for having a scape bag with some weed crumbs in it, and yet somebody who was DRUNKEN DRIVING can get out of jail the next day(when they sober up) and ends up with a traffic ticket and nothing else?
Why is the RIAA/MPAA/EXCT allowed to run their own little police forces and arrest/sue people?
blah, I could go on and on and on, the fact is our system is screwed up for the same reasons our govt as a whole has gone down the shitter.
I would continue this but I dont want to take the thread any farther OT, basically our system needs formated and reinstalled.
As for the forcing issue: we don't know if the retailers found those rebates OK or not, they might have gone along with it even though they realized it could be illegal.
I'd say the victims are AMD and the consumers. AMD' market share was artificially capped and the consumers didn't get the products they could have gotten (and I mean the average Joe who doesn't know much about computers).
Oh yes, I can generalize too, do you like? Or my post is going to be deleted because I'm not some idiot randomly bashing the EU just because?
i also would like to state that on points i agree with almost everyone. nice conversation:toast:
the way I see it, You break the laws you take your chances, when you get caught you shouldn't try and get out of it.
A quote from another member here fits this very well.
Anyway do you know when this EU law was written and established?
www.out-law.com/page-5811
By the way, I was wrong (in a good way). EC competition law existed since 1994 in Euro-zone countries. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Community_competition_law
welcome to a nation/world run by lobbists.
the banks lobbied to get the laws changed to allow them to give out sub-prime and high risk loans, then didnt make sure they could cover it when it all went to hell, they made a bunch of money, and spent it on cars, vacations, bonuses for the management, and on and on, BUT had we let them all fail, we would currently be in "the great depression MK2" with even more people out of work standing in souplines.
I dont agree with bailing them out like we have, BUT i dont agree with those who think we should have just let it fail and to hell with the consequences.
I also dont agree with the current public health bill that obama is trying to push into law, BUT I feel we need a national healthcare system, YES it would cost money to get started, but once up and running IF they follow a good example it would SAVE MONEY IN THE LONG RUN.
When an UN-ensured person gets sick or is feeling bad the dont go to doctor, they sit around till it gets so bad they endup in the emergency room, and since enlarge they cant afford to pay for medical care, they dont pay the bill, the govt ends up paying it, costing FAR more then if the person had basic health coverage and went to doctor and got looked at b4 things got really bad.
I saw a great example of this a few weeks back when i was waiting with a family friend in the emergency room, a lady came in, older woman, very friendly BUT she had a huge bulge on her leg, they got her back pretty quick, turned out she had known her leg wasnt right for over 2 weeks and because she didnt have any insurance she didnt see a doctor, it was a bloody SLIVER that got infected, they had to spend over 2hrs giving her iv antibiotics and draining/cleaning it(smelled horrible), im sure the bill is over $3000 (they had to keep her to make sure she didnt get blood poisoning)
had she been insured, she would have gone in, doc would have found the silver, removed it, maby given her a script and been done with it, costing maby 150bucks tops!!!
and she had no $ so she isnt gonna be able to pay her hosp bill, its gonna fall back on the taxpayers!!!
its a pain in the ass, but its how things are currently.
all this fear of having a govt health option and the tax payer having to foot the bill is BULLSHIT stirred up by the private insurers who want to get everybody paying them for "consumer based plans" these plans allow them to dump the people who are costing more then they are feeding into the system AND on top of it dump their medical bills on them as well!!!
BLAH this country needs a reformat and reinstall, its like its running on windows 95 :P