European Commission Publishes Decision Concerning Intel's Abuse of Dominant Position

[1Kurgan1]

i mentioned that AMD had the better chip back then. yet they still could not deliver their product because they are an inferior company. that is what it comes down too. intel can dictate terms of the argreement just as the vendors can. the vendors do not have enough clought tho when they operate separately. had they organized together with AMD they could have beaten back intel. of course i guess in the eyes of some THAT would have also been illegal.

If you are stating Intel was superior just because they could go out and buy the market, then you must be a Yankee's fan. "What we can't beat them in speed?, well then just buy the players"

I'm sorry you look forward to buying from the company with the biggest bank roll I personally buy the best I can for the price I'm looking at.

 

[Benetanegia]

but the vendors still had a choice. THAT is business.

They had no choice at all. It wouldn't be profitable for them to sell those 80 OVERPRICED Intel PCs because the competition would be selling them 25% cheaper. They had to choose, sell 100 PCs or sell AMD. That is not free market, and forcing every PC vendor into that situation is ILLEGAL because it hinders competition, no matter how much you hate it. No law system in the world supports your view of what (fair) bussiness is anyway, so it's a moot point anyway. You are wrong about all this and there's very little more that we can do for you.

What you don't understand is that, while you can offer special rebates and even exclusivity deals in order to strenghten your bussiness relations with one company, you can't do it with every single customer out there, using your huge market dominance as your main (only one) selling point and with the clear intention of pushing your competition out of the market. Infact it doesn't have to be the 100% of the customers, there are different configurations comtemplated in anti-competitive laws regarding what a monopoly is, and HP+Dell+Lenovo probably exceeds the requirements.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Ohhh I so want to fight everyone on this. Alas Ill stay in the shadows. Mwahahahaha!

 

[Nick89]

first off, intel is not a monopoly. AMD is their competition. second off, amd is an inferior company in all respects, that is not intel's fault. thirdly, companies are not forced to buy intel products simply because intel offers a rebate or threatens to stop selling or any other number of savvy business tactics. the third party vendors could have still gone with AMD. in fact, had they organized themselves properly, AMD and their vendors could have beaten back intel. but as i said, AMD is an inferior company that must rely on the govt to protect its business.

I'm taking this as a joke.

 

[muon]

Wow at Easy Rhino's attempts to defend Intel. Basically giving free reign to market dominant players to crush the competition.

Think about what would have happened if Intel continued to do this upto the present day. There would be no AMD alive today. Intel would be free to charge whatever they wished.

 

[WarEagleAU]

You do realise that if AMD had had a bit more cash from those days they might have been able to come up with chips that could compete with Intel's Core2 architecture?

Alright, Im posting this and jumping ahead a page and a half but let me stop you right there bud. Not that I don't want to put my foot in Rhino's ass for his views (I do love ya bro don't get me wrong and it is only metaphorically speaking, you da man! ) but really I have to differ with you on that statement I quoted. No disrespect and apologies if I offend anyone here, but AMD rested on the K8 laurels while Intel for 2 years got their ass handed to them. AMD kept making newer chips with more speed (though never matched the p4 speed which doesn't really matter) and never really did any architectural changes or go to work on making a new architecture or core at all. If they did, it wasn't noted anywhere. What AMD did do was enjoy the 2 years of 999 procs (in quantities of 1000) like Intel did. Then when Intel got tired of licking its wounds (and yes it still had more chips out there, but that really is marketing, not better product) they went back to the drawing board. OF course, they did have folks in Israel working on a different route before all this happened, but that is shits and giggles. AMD was more than taken aback by Intels Core architecture, and I was one of the first naysayers on these boards saying AMD shouldn't worry and that Core wont be that great and wait for the Phenom. Boy were we all wrong. Was cash an issue for AMD then? I don't think it was and I would like to believe it wasn't, but I have been known to be wrong before and could be here. AMD should have continued the innovation while kicking Intels ass for those two years with the 64. They didn't do that and it bit them in the end.

Now as for the judgement, yes Intel was wrong, but if you aren't giving the money to the companies and AMD then really you aren't helping the problem that was there. Now Intel is making an awesome chip and charges a little more, but because of competition with AMD, they have, in all fairness, dramatically lowered their prices on their chips. Sorry for any feelings I may hurt or accidental insults I hurled, I didn't mean to offend anyone. Carry on

 

[Flyordie]

first off, intel is not a monopoly. AMD is their competition. second off, amd is an inferior company in all respects, that is not intel's fault. thirdly, companies are not forced to buy intel products simply because intel offers a rebate or threatens to stop selling or any other number of savvy business tactics. the third party vendors could have still gone with AMD. in fact, had they organized themselves properly, AMD and their vendors could have beaten back intel. but as i said, AMD is an inferior company that must rely on the govt to protect its business.

Anything over 70% market share is a monopoly... I think you need a lesson in economics.

no disrepect, but let me rebutt. any company can manipulate its price regardless of its market position. they simply charge more or charge less. intel cannot be a monopoly if they have direct competition regardless of how weak AMD is. vendors do have a choice other than intel which means intel is not a monopoly.

vendors at the time requires a mass amount of chips, something AMD could not provide so they went with intel because they had no other choice. WELCOME TO REAL LIFE! intel put the screws to them and the vendors caved. that is what we call business. people imagine the mafia going in there and breaking some legs and tearing up the joint. that did not happen. it was good old fashion business tactics.

AMD could provide them, looking at the FAB Output levels during that time, the only issues I seen were during the K6-Athlon (not A64) timeframe. AMD had plenty of capacity for the A64's demand.

intel should not be punished because of AMDs inabality to run a company. as i said before, vendors could have indeed gone with AMD regardless of what intel was doing. it would have meant some short term pain but possibly if organized correctly a long term gain for the vendors and AMD. why didnt vendors rally around AMD? because they probably saw how disorganized AMD is. i mean you have to run a pretty crappy business if you have a superior chip yet vendors still do not want to back your company because you cant provide them what they need.

INTEL FANBOY ALERT! INTEL FANBOY ALERT! hah... OEMs want one thing- Cheap. Intel provided them that "Cheap", IF they didn't buy any AMD products. Wee... bet that was fun. So they had some options- A. Choose AMD get the fastest CPU's on the market, lose Intel's Cheap now and in their later generations. B. Chose Intel and get cheap now, cheap later.

intel has shown over and over they provide a superior chip at a price vendors are willing to pay and at the end of the day consumers are willing to pay it as well. i dont see that as illegal. what i consider illegal is a bunch of thugs being hired to physically force the vendors to choose intel over amd. i guess that govt is illegal then because they created a massive fine againt intel forcing them to change their business practices to FAVOR AMD or they lose their freedom by going to jail.

*cough* SNDS *cough*

 

[muon]

The semantics surrounding what a monopoly is and isn't doesn't even matter.

ANYONE with large market power can abuse their position.

As for comments about the fine only hurting Intel currently and not reversing the past. It is a punitive punishment which is supposed to put people off doing it in the future. If there are no repercussions, what's to stop Intel doing it again? If you want to operate a 2nd chance rule, then everyone will know that they get one free attempt to do something wrong and therefore will do it.

 

[WarEagleAU]

My comment didn't say that, so I know it isn't me you are referring too but I agree with you on future instances being quarantined, hopefully. I would love for AMD to get a billion dollars to help them, but realistically, that won't happen. However, I hope future business don't follow Intel's poor example.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Concealment

The Commission found that Intel generally sought to conceal the conditions in its arrangements with PC manufacturers and MSH. For example:

• The rebate arrangement with Dell was not subject to a written agreement but was concluded orally at various meetings. In this regard for example, in a submission to the Commission, Dell stated that " there is no written agreement between Intel and Dell concerning the MCP [rebate] discount, rather, the discount is the subject of constant oral negotiations and agreement".
• There was a written agreement with HP but the relevant conditions remained unwritten. In this regard for example, in a submission to the Commission, HP stated that the " unwritten conditions (...) were stated to be part of the HPA1 agreement by [Intel executive] , [Intel executive] and [Intel senior executive] in meetings with HP during the negotiations;
• The written agreement with MSH contained a provision that the deal was non-exclusive. However, the evidence demonstrates that at Intel's request, the arrangement was in fact exclusive. In this regard for example, in a submission to the Commission, MSH stated that " It was clear to MSH that despite the non-exclusivity clause the exclusive nature of the relationship remained, for Intel, an essential element of the relationship between Intel and MSH. In fact, [MSH executive] recalls that Intel representatives made it clear to him that the changes in the wording of the agreement had been requested by Intel's legal department, but that in reality the relationship was to continue as before, including the requirement that MSH sell essentially only Intel-based computers."

As I figured, the allegations are based on hearsay. No contract = no evidence = no proof = not guilty.

 

[WarEagleAU]

But that hearsay came from the executives and former executives in the company. Personally, they shouldn't have admitted that part though Ford, I agree with you if that is your point.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

No business conducts business without terms (e.g. a contract). There is a logical hole here.

 

[WarEagleAU]

Funny thing is, why admit to an oral contract when you have nothing to gain or lose. They said that is what they did, I don't understand why.

Oh and yes, there are some business, more than we know, that do oral contracts at first or for shady reasons or other reasons, however, I digress.

 

[muon]

My comment didn't say that, so I know it isn't me you are referring too but I agree with you on future instances being quarantined, hopefully. I would love for AMD to get a billion dollars to help them, but realistically, that won't happen. However, I hope future business don't follow Intel's poor example.

The EC doesn't exist to protect firms but consumers. The fine helps European consumers. It is upto AMD now to launch a civil case in Europe. However I'm not sure exactly how it will work.

The EC is a fairly new institution and therefore things like this set new precedent.

As for unwritten stuff. Most illegal activities, like cartels, illegal collusion all happen without written record. As someone who is supposed to prevent this and just give up, and say "oh well nothing is written".

Would also be interesting to see how the Federal Trade Commission follow the European Commission.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

You can take any statement and make it look for or against your case. Such is the way of hearsay (rumors, speculation).

The EC was out for blood money so they used every statement Intel made against them, naturally. Their position, as I said some time ago, is indefensible (circus court).


Oral contracts only stand in court if there is evidence of the existences of a contract. It is very rare for oral contracts to come up in the case of corporations.

 

[Benetanegia]

Alright, Im posting this and jumping ahead a page and a half but let me stop you right there bud. Not that I don't want to put my foot in Rhino's ass for his views (I do love ya bro don't get me wrong and it is only metaphorically speaking, you da man! ) but really I have to differ with you on that statement I quoted. No disrespect and apologies if I offend anyone here, but AMD rested on the K8 laurels while Intel for 2 years got their ass handed to them. AMD kept making newer chips with more speed (though never matched the p4 speed which doesn't really matter) and never really did any architectural changes or go to work on making a new architecture or core at all. If they did, it wasn't noted anywhere. What AMD did do was enjoy the 2 years of 999 procs (in quantities of 1000) like Intel did. Then when Intel got tired of licking its wounds (and yes it still had more chips out there, but that really is marketing, not better product) they went back to the drawing board. OF course, they did have folks in Israel working on a different route before all this happened, but that is shits and giggles. AMD was more than taken aback by Intels Core architecture, and I was one of the first naysayers on these boards saying AMD shouldn't worry and that Core wont be that great and wait for the Phenom. Boy were we all wrong. Was cash an issue for AMD then? I don't think it was and I would like to believe it wasn't, but I have been known to be wrong before and could be here. AMD should have continued the innovation while kicking Intels ass for those two years with the 64. They didn't do that and it bit them in the end.

Now as for the judgement, yes Intel was wrong, but if you aren't giving the money to the companies and AMD then really you aren't helping the problem that was there. Now Intel is making an awesome chip and charges a little more, but because of competition with AMD, they have, in all fairness, dramatically lowered their prices on their chips. Sorry for any feelings I may hurt or accidental insults I hurled, I didn't mean to offend anyone. Carry on

Not trying to argue with your post. Just wanted to point out that AMD didn't rest in K8 laurels. You don't make a chip over a night, they were working on Phenom for long or in the tech behind Phenom. It just didn't work, end of story. And even if they were not as agressive on the R&D department, you can't blame them, in fact, it has a lot to do with what we are discussing about Intel. They spent a lot on K8, but thanks to Intel's cheating they couldn't harvest the rewards of that investment. They could do that much, investors are not known for being devoted. The small company can't spend as much as the big company in R&D for too long unless the investment gives it's fruits. That's how the market works, if you are not good enough you disapear. The problem at hand is that AMD had the fruits technologically speaking, but that was not translated into sales because Intel cheated.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Jumping in the fray.......

1. They were convicted on hearsay. Where is the proof?

2. Everyone names Intel as the aggressor. However OEMs benefited from these backdoor dealings also. Why didn't the EU go after them? Maybe because they needed some "hearsay" in court?
Think not? Then why didn't these OEMs go to the authorities back then?

3. Where is this fine going? Are members of the EUs population going to get a tax break? Is AMD going to get a little slice of the Intel pie for a few years to come? Hmmmm who gets this money? Not the people it allegedly effected thats for sure.

Really this is theft disguised as justice.

 

[WarEagleAU]

apparently they play by a different set of rules Ford. I don't think they should have been admitted for evidence.

 

[Flyordie]

but the vendors still had a choice. THAT is business.

Ok, so... you are very much an Intel fanboy...
They didn't have a choice...
A. Buy Intel now, have access to Intel later and get VERY cheap CPU's from them.
B. Buy AMD and lose Intel forever.
That OEM would then be forced to offer VIA parts to prevent from being a monopoly for AMD parts...
So which one would you choose?
-
I really don't get you rhino, your speech sounds like a fanboy but at the same time it sounds like a FAR RIGHT (the bad right) business man who supports razing cities to build factories (AKA- Murdering 20,000+ and burning down their houses and schools and parks to build your factory)
---

 

[FordGT90Concept]

apparently they play by a different set of rules Ford. I don't think they should have been admitted for evidence.

Exactly why the FTC will rule in favor of Intel. Besides, bringing this issue five years after it happened is quite suspicious. Every year you wait, the less solid evidence you will find.

 

[WarEagleAU]

Alright lets not throw the fanboy statement around, he is discussing his point. Besides, lets not upset the mods. I do believe AMD rested on the K8, regardless of money coming in. I know it doesn't happen overnight, but the changes to Phenom I were not that significant in comparison. The Phenom 2 is what the phenom 1 should have been and I cannot wait for their new procs to come out.

 

[Benetanegia]

Jumping in the fray.......

1. They were convicted on hearsay. Where is the proof?

2. Everyone names Intel as the aggressor. However OEMs benefited from these backdoor dealings also. Why didn't the EU go after them? Maybe because they needed some "hearsay" in court?
Think not? Then why didn't these OEMs go to the authorities back then?

3. Where is this fine going? Are members of the EUs population going to get a tax break? Is AMD going to get a little slice of the Intel pie for a few years to come? Hmmmm who gets this money? Not the people it allegedly effected thats for sure.

Really this is theft disguised as justice.

1. Testimonies are more than enough for convicting in almost every charge, providing they are coming from more than one place. You don't need to find any physical proof if 10 different people saw you killing someone. Why should this be different?

2. They didn't benefit. First of all, rebates based on volumes are common. The fact that Intel put their conditions to them doesn't mean the vendors wouldn't obtain them anyway in a fair market. In a competitive market, Intel would probably need to offer them even lower prices. And second, they could have sold the AMD systems with a greater margin probably, they were better after all.

3. The fight against monopoly provides us with a free competitive market, which lowers the prices and increases innovation and progress.

 

[WarEagleAU]

Agreed Ford but I wonder if it took 5 years to make a claim or it took 5 years of investigation. From the supposed "concrete" proof they have, they seem to have a decent bit of it. I was sure they were gonna have a hard time finding evidence. Im curious as to what the FTC is going to do.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Ok, so... you are very much an Intel fanboy...
They didn't have a choice...
A. Buy Intel now, have access to Intel later and get VERY cheap CPU's from them.
B. Buy AMD and lose Intel forever.
That OEM would then be forced to offer VIA parts to prevent from being a monopoly for AMD parts...
So which one would you choose?
-
I really don't get you rhino, your speech sounds like a fanboy but at the same time it sounds like a FAR RIGHT (the bad right) business man who supports razing cities to build factories (AKA- Murdering 20,000+ and burning down their houses and schools and parks to build your factory)
---

If Dell, HP, and/or Lenovo truly felt strong armed by Intel, they should have brought it to court at the time it happened. They shouldn't have waited until 2-7 years and have the EU do the talking for them. Either the arrangements were mutually beneficial and both parties are guilty or the arrangements were completely legitimate and both parties are innocent.

Remember, Dell and HP were segment leaders during this period so they are as guilty as Intel on accounts of anti-trust law (assuming they are guilty).

3. The fight against monopoly provides us with a free competitive market, which lowers the prices and increases innovation and progress.

The moment a governing body intervenes in a market, it is no longer "free." Free markets only exist in theory.

 

[WarEagleAU]

I Agree with HP and Dell should help shoulder some of this stuff too. It took Dell forever to come out with an AMD system, and HP presumably less time. I know Gateway used to offer AMD systems, then they quit doing it directly from their site for a few years. I know cause I Tried to get me another AMD "Thunderbird" system, aside from the 1200 mhz one I had. Maybe that has something to do with this. Either way, Im sure Dell and HP made more money from the bonuses and such.