Intel Fined USD $25.4 Million in South Korea

[turtile]

i understand, but you act as if intel just poofed into existance and was uber rich. they started small and have built up solid business because consumers buy their products. they make superior processors and are great at marketing them. they are also great at working with other companies which boosts their industry market share. all things investors love. intel is crushing amd because intel is a better company, not because amd is being abused in some way. i love amd to death, but let's face it, it is a crap company. which is why govts around the world want to protect it. this behavior is not in the consumers best interest nor is it the responsibility of a govt elected by a free people. if amd were not protected by govts around the world it would probably be dead right now and another company would have taken its place. nvidia wants to enter the cpu market and are working on innovative ways to change the industry. protecting amd stifles nvidia's push into the cpu market.

Nvidia 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)

 

[eidairaman1]

Ouch, thats gotta hurt, but then again Intel tried bribing many companies before Korea Raised the Flag on their Misuse of Marketing/Capital.

 

[Kreij]

It 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.

 

[quasar923]

intel is one dirty mother f*cker

 

[eidairaman1]

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.

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.

 

[niko084]

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.

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.

 

[eidairaman1]

ya and another point, they will get too rich that war will break out over it, that and the Value of Currency becomes Obsolete.

 

[jbunch07]

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.

never heard a more truer statement.

 

[Kreij]

Only 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.

 

[Easy Rhino]

Nvidia 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.

 

[turtile]

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.

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:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations

 

[Easy Rhino]

Nvidia 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:
http://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.

 

[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)