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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wile ENo, I don't think businesses should be able to do what they want, when they want. I just don't happen to think what Intel did was wrong. Now, if they threatened to completely stop supplying chips to these OEMs, I'd agree with them being fined. But they didn't. They merely offered a discount.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wile ENo, I don't think businesses should be able to do what they want, when they want. I just don't happen to think what Intel did was wrong. Now, if they threatened to completely stop supplying chips to these OEMs, I'd agree with them being fined. But they didn't. They merely offered a discount.

A bribe is always optional for the taker.

btarunrA bribe is always optional for the taker.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you have any evidence that they did?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wile EDo you have any evidence that they did?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

so now you want to dictate law to other countries?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

btarunrYou didn't get my point, and are not even making an attempt.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meecrobso now you want to dictate law to other countries?

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

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

Again, changing the subject I see.

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

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

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

Yes, that's what I meant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He can have an opinion on anything.

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

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

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