• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Statement by Intel President and CEO Paul Otellini on EC Ruling

Easy Rhino said:
a lot of people here misunderstand the basic premise of open competition. if you manufacture a product you have a right to sell that product for whatever price you want to whomever you want. the buyer has no right to demand you lower your selling price or sell a certain quantity of your product to them. the buyer has no right because it is not the buyers property, it is the manufacturers property. this is where bargaining comes in. if nobody buys intel products because of their high prices or because intel pulls their products from clients who also sell the competition, then intel goes under.
Click to expand...

Good points.

However, you left something out -- conversely, once your company has reached a certain percentage of market share, you no longer have a right to demand that your buyer buy from only you.

iStink said:
Well that is rotten. Please excuse my ignorance on the subject. I didn't realize they said all that. I thought the most controversial issue here was the fact that they were offering a discount for dominance in the assembly line, not an increase in price for the opposite.
Click to expand...

If all they were doing was offering discounts, even I'd have no problem with it. Selling things at a loss is a time-honored tradition of the free market. :laugh:
 
mdm-adph said:
Good points.

However, you left something out -- conversely, once your company has reached a certain percentage of market share, you no longer have a right to demand that your buyer buy from only you.
Click to expand...

and this is where the socialists always go wrong. who dictates what percentage of market share is enough? the government? so are you saying that once you become highly succesful you actually are punished and lose your right to your own property? since when is being good at what you do illegal? remember, a companies job is to make money, not create competition or increase societal progress.
 
mdm-adph said:
However, you left something out -- conversely, once your company has reached a certain percentage of market share, you no longer have a right to demand that your buyer buy from only you.
Click to expand...
Put simply, you're discriminating against Intel for being successful. There's a difference between being a criminal and being successful. Criminals are to be punished, successful aren't.
 
Easy Rhino said:
and this is where the socialists always go wrong. who dictates what percentage of market share is enough? the government? so are you saying that once you become highly succesful you actually are punished and lose your right to your own property? since when is being good at what you do illegal? remember, a companies job is to make money, not create competition or increase societal progress.
Click to expand...

Once again, you left something out. It's not the market share that's the problem, it's what the company does when it gets there.

And please don't start with the whole "socialists" shit again, okay?

Do you remember what American Political party were the first "trust-busters" and went up against big business? If I remember correctly, it was the Republican party, led by Teddy Roosevelt. :laugh:

FordGT90Concept said:
Put simply, you're discriminating against Intel for being successful. There's a difference between being a criminal and being successful. Criminals are to be punished, successful aren't.
Click to expand...

Like I've said before, the Mafia are very "successful" at what they do, too. They seem to get compliance from their vendors almost 100% of the time. Not to mention their customer loyalty is unparalleled.
 
mdm-adph said:
Once again, you left something out. It's not the market share
Like I've said before, the Mafia are very "successful" at what they do, too. They seem to get compliance from their vendors almost 100% of the time. Not to mention their customer loyalty is unparalleled.
Click to expand...

Hahaha :D made me laugh :D very impressive line.
 
The mafioso organisation isn't illegal (it's more or less a family unit but not necessarily by blood), it's the businesses they partake in (e.g. drug running, doing "favors," and things of the sort). Is Intel running drugs? No. Is Intel extorting businesses at gun point? No. Is Intel assassinating people that get in the way? No. There is no comparison.

The only reason why the mafioso had loyalty is because they got results. If the mafia said you weren't going to get cut from your job, you weren't going to get cut from your job. That doesn't necessarily mean someone wouldn't end up dead over it though. Because of that fact is why they were deemed a hazard to society; however, society lost control over both political and law enforcement processes making it very hard to reestablish government control in cities like Chicago. The mafioso are still around but they have taken up legal trades (like labor unions). Their presence isn't near as prominent as it used to be especially when compared to drug cartels. The main difference between a cartel and mafioso is cartels don't pretend to be innocent.
 
Last edited:
FordGT90Concept said:
The mafioso organisation isn't illegal (it's more or less a family unit but not necessarily by blood), it's the businesses they partake in (e.g. drug running, doing "favors," and things of the sort). Is Intel running drugs? No. Is Intel extorting businesses at gun point? No. Is Intel assassinating people that get in the way? No. There is no comparison.

The only reason why the mafioso had loyalty is because they got results. If the mafia said you weren't going to get cut from your job, you weren't going to get cut from your job. That doesn't necessarily mean someone wouldn't end up dead over it though.
Click to expand...

Whether or not Intel is extorting anyone is still up in the air as far as I'm concerned (at least until the appeals get done) -- and just because they're doing at the end of a business table instead of at the end of a gun doesn't make it any better. There's plenty of room for comparison.

And please don't defend the mafia's excellent job security practices. They have loyalty because they're criminals who tend to dunk people in acid and chop off legs and arms. People are scared of them -- they're criminals. :shadedshu
 
Imsochobo said:
STOP MISSUNDERSTANDING THE ANTITRUST REASON.

The reason is that intel made rebates or what the word is for it, to not buy amd cpu's, if you bought amd cpu's the intels got more expensive.

Intel had enough money at hand to do this, and make sure their fabs was occupied, and sold enough, made a name....

READ!
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/09/235&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
Click to expand...

we are not misunderstanding the case. we are saying that what intel did is not morally wrong. if a company that sells intel also sells amd, then perhaps intel will lose money. so intel can either INCREASE prices or they can offer rebates to companies as an incentive. basic business.
 
mdm-adph said:
Once again, you left something out. It's not the market share that's the problem, it's what the company does when it gets there.
Click to expand...

it doesnt matter what they do so long as they dont physically force people to buy their products. and obviously you do think it is the market share that is the problem because you would not have brought it up. do you believe intel is exploiting consumers somehow by controlling a certain percentage of the market?
 
mdm-adph said:
Whether or not Intel is extorting anyone is still up in the air as far as I'm concerned (at least until the appeals get done) -- and just because they're doing at the end of a business table instead of at the end of a gun doesn't make it any better. There's plenty of room for comparison.

And please don't defend the mafia's excellent job security practices. They have loyalty because they're criminals who tend to dunk people in acid and chop off legs and arms. People are scared of them -- they're criminals. :shadedshu
Click to expand...
Intel isn't, and? Their successful. So? I think I'm missing where in here Intel is in the wrong. I guess it just sucks to be the best at what you do.
 
Of course intel have more powerful cpu but that isnt the reason why it is dominating the market. It was using underhand techniques to gain a market advantage even when it was more profitable and had a bigger market share.

When AMD had the A64 it was a technically better cpu and intel didnt want its OEM sector being bitten into because lets face it without all the offices of the world running intel all it would be is a niche market with performance king nerds buying its cpus.

They are trying to keep nvidia out of the game too so tell me what about that you dont understand?

Im not saying this because i have an AMD cpu, i am saying it because its fact they used underhand tactics and they got fined.

You cant do things like this and say oh its competitiveness we have to do anything we can to stay at the top, because then it will start to spread to other areas other companies might start to get dirty and it might spread out of just business.

IF when i was younger my gran said give half to your sister and gave you £20 but you could just keep it all would you? Its like that.
 
Easy Rhino said:
it doesnt matter what they do so long as they dont physically force people to buy their products. and obviously you do think it is the market share that is the problem because you would not have brought it up. do you believe intel is exploiting consumers somehow by controlling a certain percentage of the market?
Click to expand...

not becasue its got a huge market share its because of why it has a huge market share!
your defending bad practise so why dont you defend google or microsoft?

why would there even be a case if it was okay to do things like that?
 
FordGT90Concept said:
Intel isn't, and? Their successful. So? I think I'm missing where in here Intel is in the wrong. I guess it just sucks to be the best at what you do.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what it is. That's why Mark McGwire isn't getting into the Hall of Fame -- because he's the best.

It wasn't because he stuffed his veins full of steroids. :shadedshu

That's it -- I honestly give up. If you don't believe that cheating is wrong, or that you can't even decide upon a definition of what cheating is, there's nothing I can do.

There are two types of people in this world -- there are those that like to play fair, and there are Michael Douglass Wall Street types who think that "Greed is a Virtue" and that anything you do to get ahead is okay, since in the end you have the most money and "might makes right."

If you want to be like that, just admit it, okay? :banghead:
 
Easy Rhino said:
we are not misunderstanding the case. we are saying that what intel did is not morally wrong. if a company that sells intel also sells amd, then perhaps intel will lose money. so intel can either INCREASE prices or they can offer rebates to companies as an incentive. basic business.
Click to expand...

Intel also paid clients to delay or not launch computers incorporating a competitor's CPUs, a conduct which is not linked at all to a company's ability to provide customers with discounts.
Click to expand...

So paying a company CEO like Dell to NOT sell AMD is illegal and caused a loss of choice to the main customer base.

What is hard to understand about this. AMD is not getting a penny from this, other than the right to compete fairly with Intel. No more bribes, no more threats.
 
Steevo said:


So paying a company CEO like Dell to NOT sell AMD is illegal and caused a loss of choice to the main customer base.

What is hard to understand about this. AMD is not getting a penny from this, other than the right to compete fairly with Intel. No more bribes, no more threats.
Click to expand...

that is a fair way to put it, i only hope they use the fine money for a good use!


AMD cant compete because Intel is taking all the business not by popular choice but by underhand tactics like secret deals to large companies, price cuts for certain places, long term relationships.

All that the EU wants is a fairer marketplace that consumer choice will regulate.
Its like Betamax and HD DVD consumer choice won out those times.

If a business chooses not to sell a certain brand or product on its own that is okay but for a competitor to come and go dont sell our competitors products and we will make it worth your while! That is wrong.
Intel even have a hand in macs now.
Intel are trying to stop nvidia attaining a license for making cpus becasue it dosnt want another competitor in the market.
 
Probably not the best place to do my first post but here it goes...
It's pretty entertaining to read all the reactions to the fine. It's obvious that some people have not made the effort to understand why this fine was imposed. The biggest reason in my opinion is the readers age.
There is nothing wrong with Intel offering rebates and incentives. It is entirely different to offer those on the condition to delay or cancel development of competitive products, or to use "shortages" for the OEMs and retailers that don't play along.
This fine is not about who has or had the superior product- both companies had their moments- it's about who got caught breaking the law. Intel have a legal department the size of the entire AMD. Their budget is probably bigger than AMD' R&D. They even have insurance against loses such like the fine. Do you think they didn't do cost-benefit analysis?? They knew a lawsuit will take years- spread the fine over 10 years and it's only 100 mil per year. Intel are probably laughing all the way to the bank that the fine is way lower than the max 10% of their yearly revenue. People should stop with the emotions and fanboism and get the facts straight:
1. Intel willingly and knowingly broke the law worldwide.
2. They got caught.
Whether Nehalem or Penrynn whoops Phenoms' collective arses is irrelevant.
Whether you like to label people as socialists, fascists or don't agree with government is irrelevant.
 
mdm-adph said:
Yeah, that's what it is. That's why Mark McGwire isn't getting into the Hall of Fame -- because he's the best.

It wasn't because he stuffed his veins full of steroids. :shadedshu
Click to expand...
Yeah, he's gonna die of stroke by the age of 60 but, so? Who is he hurting by doing that besides himself? The only reason why they ban drugs like steroids is to prevent the entire league from getting drugged. That's a different debate though and not exactly one I care about either (baseball = blah).



mdm-adph said:
That's it -- I honestly give up. If you don't believe that cheating is wrong, or that you can't even decide upon a definition of what cheating is, there's nothing I can do.
Click to expand...
The only thing I consider "cheating" in the business world is buying out competitors (ehm, hostile takeover). Everything else is regulated by the judicial system (business made contract with a customer and broke it, visa versa, and other disputes of the like) and/or customers (your product/customer service/business tactics suck, I won't support you).
 
mdm-adph said:
How convenient for me -- I can cook your 25-core pastry processor on top of my old Pentium D. :D
Click to expand...
Now your just being ridiculous.

Anyway on topic I would really love to debate and destroy you all on this but I think its not about Intel vs The EU and what happen. I think this thread is becoming an America vs Europe thread. There is a lot if hate towards the US right now and this EU ruling just seems to bring out the "We stuck it to the man" kinda people. I really don't want to fuel that fire. IF thats the case. Its not good for anyone.
 
not a crook

attachment.php


nixon_crook.jpg
 

Attachments

  • otellini1.jpg
    otellini1.jpg
    58.6 KB · Views: 891
MilkyWay said:
not becasue its got a huge market share its because of why it has a huge market share!
your defending bad practise so why dont you defend google or microsoft?

why would there even be a case if it was okay to do things like that?
Click to expand...

it isnt bad business practice to entice your clients with rebates and lower prices on your products in exchange for them dropping the competition. why would you favor AMD in this case who is backed by the EU? people are so quick to point out how intel is going about their business BUT NOBODY HAS MENTIONED HOW AMD USES THE EU TO ADVANCE ITS FORTUNE.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Steevo said:
What is hard to understand about this. AMD is not getting a penny from this, other than the right to compete fairly with Intel. No more bribes, no more threats.
Click to expand...

does the right to compete fairly include Eu dropping their billions in support of Silicon Saxony and AMD?
 
W1zzard said:
why was it wrong what intel did? they used their power to do the best for their company, knowing that there would most probably be an investigation and a ruling. yet they did it, and you can bet, they did it because they ran the numbers and realized that even with a big fine it would be worth it.
Click to expand...

And to top it off their is no punishment for Intel or any other outfit from the USA (just a reminder) in the USA all fines are classified as a business right off. What incentive is there to stop. When the US taxpayers bitch about their taxes going up to support outfits like this and government revenue goes down will you see some pressure on this side of the pond. But then again will it ever stop. When you have a system where a politician cries out: "Please I'll kiss anybodys ass for political contributions, I need to get re-elected.":pimp:
 
Ill say it again.....

America Rulz! EU Suxorz!!1!!

I mean thats where all this is going to go..... OR

EU Rulz! America Suxorz!!1!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top