The European Commission today announced that it has fined Intel a record €1.06 billion ($1.45 billion) for abusing its dominance in the market for computer chips to exclude its biggest (and frankly, the only serious) rival AMD by paying computer manufacturers Acer, Dell, HP, Lenovo, and NEC as well as retailers to postpone, cancel or downright avoid using or selling the latter’s products.
That’s one hell of a fine, considering the previous record for similar abuses in the EU was ‘only’ €497 million (Microsoft, back in 2004).
The European Commission has ordered Intel to stop the exclusion practices immediately, and said it would closely and actively monitor Intel’s compliance with its decision. E.U. regulators first began investigating Intel in 2001, after AMD filed a complaint in Brussels the year before.
The commission estimates the world market in the specific chip set in question (x86 CPUs) to be worth about €22 billion a year, with Europe accounting for approximately 30% of that (€6.6 billion). Intel currently maintains a share of about 80 percent of the European market.
Intel has not commented yet, but the general expectation is that the company will appeal both the fine and orders to change its business practices to the European Court of First Instance.
Update: Paul Otellini, Intel Corporation president and CEO just issued the following statement:
“Intel takes strong exception to this decision. We believe the decision is wrong and ignores the reality of a highly competitive microprocessor marketplace – characterized by constant innovation, improved product performance and lower prices. There has been absolutely zero harm to consumers. Intel will appeal.”
“We do not believe our practices violated European law. The natural result of a competitive market with only two major suppliers is that when one company wins sales, the other does not. The Directorate General for Competition of the Commission ignored or refused to obtain significant evidence that contradicts the assertions in this decision. We believe this evidence shows that when companies perform well the market rewards them, when they don’t perform the market acts accordingly.”
“Intel never sells products below cost. We have however, consistently invested in innovation, in manufacturing and in developing leadership technology. The result is that we can discount our products to compete in a highly competitive marketplace, passing along to consumers everywhere the efficiencies of being the world’s leading volume manufacturer of microprocessors.”
“Despite our strongly held views, as we go through the appeals process we plan to work with the Commission to ensure we’re in compliance with their decision. Finally, there should be no doubt whatsoever that Intel will continue to invest in the products and technologies that provide Europe and the rest of the world the industry’s best performing processors at lower prices.”
(Image via BusinessWeek)
Yes that the huge amount which fined by Intel,But the fine is reasonable.
American companies are EU ATM. Next in line is goog.
This is Holocaust of American companies. Don’t deny.
there should be a world body where they can appeal eu decision. i dont think the said infringement happened only in europe. let part of fine be sent to eu development works too, but not their fancy money.
American companies (AMD, Sun, etc) were and still are requesting the help of the EU or Asia antitrust bodies because under the Bush mob-administration abusive business practices were a given: the Justice Department did not file a single case against a dominant firm for violating the antimonopoly law.
Hopefully the latest head of the US Justice Department’s antitrust division, Christine Varney, seems to want to put justice back on tracks, aligning American antitrust policy on monopolies and predatory practices with the views of antitrust regulators at the European Commission.
Funny, if not pathetic, that people whining about the EU with the usual “patriotic” garbage fail to mention that it was bullied Americans companies that had initiated the cases versus their Americans counterparts, out of disgust for the US justice inertia/corruption.
bingo
Sensi,
Start your premise from the rights of the owner/s first, then work your way out from that if your brain can’t comprehend a very simple fact about individual rights including the rights to one’s own property, then you’re just merely following a mob rule. You’re not using reason at all, you just obey the law and see it as a good thing without thinking what the law is actually violating. This means that the majority adopted tyranny to rule or violate the rights of others.
You need a good reading on objective philosophy to be able to grasp what mob rule is and the rights of one’s to enjoy his/her own property which is primary where it can’t be more basic than that. Anti-trust violates property rights and it should be killed, fullstop.
this seems so ’socialist’ to me… just because intel did awesomely well n no freak in europe ever made any chip by themselves…this is like bad.
Sensi got it right…I am guessing this Falafel person is an Intel plant based on the bullying tactics and straw man arguments.
yeah.. bush should be tried for not fining intel. all anti bush people got followers
these ******* people know very well that bush cant become prez again, not bcoz of vote but by constitution.
Bingo! Bingo!
No the case should have been thrown out . Intel is no guilty of any crime. Anti-trust itself is a crime against property owners and the free consents amongst business entities. The following blog posts about similar EU ruling against Microsoft, sums it up better:
Punishing success: It’s not un-European
The question to ask if Intel was threatening anyone via physical force ? Nope! They never done that. Using physical force is a crime. Persuading a business partner for an agreement is not a crime in a free market.
Falafulu for president! Let’s bring the Alaska Gold Rush days back and spread it to outside of Gods Own Country as well!
Without antitrust laws the “free market” will be just one step from mafia practices.
Mike said…
Without antitrust laws the “free market” will be just one step from mafia practices.
Mike, your premise is wrong. Mafia agents initiate physical force which violates the rights of a property owner, while the free market agents use persuasions to exchange with other property owners , ie, trade ? No initiation of physical force is being used in the free market. Anti-trust laws is no different from mafia. Anti-trust uses initiation of force via legal means, while mafia uses initiation of physical force to achieve the same outcome, which is illegal. Do you see the difference ?
If you have time to read and take a break from engaging in Twitter/Facebook, then you should check out the following sites:
- Capitalism Magazine
- Ludwig von Mises Institute
- Ayn Rand Institute
Easy reading and informative, it is readable to the general public and there is no differential equation or calculus in there to make them hard to grasp. Easy readable stuff.
Where have you been lately ?
Didn’t you hear what your outdated conception of free market has done to worldwide economy ?
How come you don’t understand these anti trust rules are in fact set up to protect business and other companies ?
What is this obsession about physical force ? Is that the only thing you know that should be punished ? Seriously ?
Stop reading easy stuff, and start thinking. Please.
Xavier said…
Didn’t you hear what your outdated conception of free market has done to worldwide economy ?
So, you’ve been in a coma huh? Blame the free market & capitalism for the current economic crisis, that’s classic. Here is the short answer for you:
Clinton Democrats are to blame for the credit crunch
So, it is property violations via legal means that cause this financial crisis. Government initiated force against private financial institutions and forcing them to lend to low income earners (highly likely to default) in which any sane business person wouldn’t do such a thing. Either lend to low earners or else, that was the government.
Xavier said…
What is this obsession about physical force ?
That’s the language that is used by scholars in objective philosophy (Ayn Rand, et al) , so you should look it up on the internet or Amazon.
Xavier said…
Stop reading easy stuff, and start thinking. Please.
Right. I read complex stuff all the time (stuff that you cannot read) plus I also read easy stuff like the newspaper for current affairs every day, watch the evening news to be informed on what’s happening. I read history, economics & philosophy so that I am well informed .
Now, do you read anything else or you just Twitter/Facebook all day and nothing apart from those? I suggest that you follow your own advise and start thinking hard about rights.
Fisi is correct. You aren’t even in the same league. Go back to your delusion where Bush is blamed for everything bad. Morons like yourself are more culpable than Bush, such are the consequences of blindly following popular philosophies.
amd ftw!
AMD ATI FTW!
1 billion euro…wow that is really extreme.
Intel is not only going to release products which demolish AMD, but they are going after the NVIDIA and ATI big time. That is the next push. AMD will cease to exist in its current form, if at all, 5 years from now.
NVIDIA better have something spectacular up its sleave too, otherwise it will be a relic of its current form in 5 years as well.
A billion euro fine is nothing if that is the ultimate outcome.
That’s definately going to make an impact in their finance books.
Where does this money go? What can or can’t the EU do with it?
This is nonsense. EU has been looting American tech firms. this should stop.
Or you might say that the EU takes (illegal) antitrust issues very seriously…
Imposing a billion dollar fine for aggressive marketing is illegal (and unethical)
Please read the post thoroughly… It’s AMD that filled the suit… Sensei has it well summed up.
Intel made a profit of over $5 billion last year, on revenue of over $37 billion. You have to fine them at least a billion to get their attention. Anything less is just a slap on the wrist, to be ignored as just another cost of doing business.
Maybe now they’ll at least consider giving antitrust law some respect.
As I understand it, the fine could have amounted up to €4 billion based on Intel’s finances. Not to say the EC did the company a favor by lowering it to €1 billion, but notable nonetheless.
Robin,
I agree with Mohit, that this is nonsense and EU has been looting American tech firms in the last decade or so.
The American came to save the Europeans from the Germans during World War 2 and they also poured financial aid via the Marshall Plan and this is how those nutbars and judges treated them in return? Fuck the EU including those socialist member countries that endorse anti-capitalism. The Americans should have left you socialists leeches to the mercy of Hitler & Stalin to divide Europe among them.
logic leaves the room
Falafulu Fisi remains.
let’s join him!
1. European companies have also been fined in the recent past.
2. How could US do that since Europeans helped Americans to defeat poverty in 1872?
intel sells product all over the world u fool. that 5 billion from all over the world. fine is not to get their attention, there are different set of rules.
It is funny Robin Wauters doesnt understand basic economics.
Thanks for voicing my opinion,
moreover AMD does not stand anywhere near Intel in technology (at low cost) so they cry foul time and again.
dayum…….that’s a lot of money on all sides.
Lawsuits draw so much attention. I think I need to someone.
Yes! The EU shows the big companies they should play by the rules as well.
I’m sick and tired of reading about the questionable practices of the big guys.
And for all Americans that say US companies are the ATM of Europe: European companies have also been fined in the past.
The argument is that Intel engaged in practices impeding AMD’s ability to compete and paying a retailer “on condition it stock only computers with Intel x86 CPUs” and paying manufacturers “to halt or delay the launch of specific products containing competitors’ x86 CPUs and to limit the sales channels available to these products” seems pretty anti-competitive to me.
Full statement by the European Competition Authority: http://europa.e...;guiLanguage=en
Ouch, that’s gotta hurt.
Some people thinks that USA companies are EU ATM, but the EU has fined european companies as well, but thouse americans hadn’t any news, like Telefonica, for example. I think they are ignorants.
EU has fined Intel at a request of protection of other american company, AMD. So… those people could think that EU is protecting USA companies too.
About time. 1 Billion may seem extreme, but as Roger noted above, it needs to be that high for Intel to take note.
This all should be taking place within the US Justice system though. The EU is only stepping in as the US has ignored this for so long and consumers are getting hurt.
To those complaining about this being anti-free market. Nowhere has a truly free market – we all have regulated markets to protect consumers.
Tim said…
consumers are getting hurt?
I think that you’re spewing out bullsh*t. Can you list some examples of where the consumers are being hurt ? I bet you can’t list any, because it doesn’t exist in a free market. Perhaps , if you manage to list any, those examples are not really something that hurt consumers at all.
C’mon, go on a list those for us to see?
Consumers get hurt by higher prices of there is a monopoly, as that company is able to charge whatever they like.
This case is trying to prevent anti-competitive actions by Intel, which is straining AMD. It is a preventative measure rather than a cure, as if AMD went out of business (and by no means am I saying they will), then Intel could easily jack up their prices and slow development by spending less in R&D. This would ‘hurt’ the consumer, as they would have to pay more for a computer than if the prices were pushed down via competition with AMD.
Yes you can argue that people could stop buying computers, but they are s ingrained into society that they have become a need rather than a want.
With monopolies hurting the consumer though, a good example at the moment is cable/broadband.
In the UK, BT basically has a monopoly over the telephone exchanges, and so to get broadband via adsl you must pay BT line rental. There is no (or very little) competition here, so BT can pretty much charge anyone wanting to use the internet via adsl £11/month. There is no reason for them to reduce this fee as if people want the internet (and cable is not as widespread as an alternative) they have to pay BT. Up until regulations forced BT to perform local loop unbundling, even more of the UK telephone infrastructure was monopolised, and allowed BT to charge ISPs whatever they liked for other parts too.
In the US, cable companies often have basic monopolies, so internet speeds are not continually being increased or prices dropped as there is no reason for these companies to do so. This leaves the internet connections to be slow in such areas, whilst others where there is competition between Verizon, TW and others, these companies are rapidly rolling out fiber to the home and other new technologies.
Tim said…
…hurt by higher prices of there is a monopoly…
Tim, your reasoning is not that sharp. That’s why I suggested to Sensi to do some reading on objective philosophy, because you have no clue to what you’ve just spewed out. I’ll just give a brief example:
Here is a first hint for you? Who owns the things/goods/services that you’re trying to buy in the first place? Who has the rights to those things, is it you or the owner? What if you don’t buy those things at all? Do you as a consumer is being hurt? From your reasoning, that you can be hurt if you don’t buy a BMW car, right? Here is the quick answer, just don’t buy the bloody thing/s, because the owner/s don’t come with a gun and force you to buy their goods/services. It is you the consumer who run to the owner of those things to buy them. They didn’t come to you and force you (via physical force) to buy their products. Are you with me here?
Now, here is a homework for you? Try and read the following link about what rights is, then come back with a counter-argument.
Rights (The Importance of Philosophy)
I suggest that you read it thoroughly including other links withing the document. That brief guide will enlighten you to what is absolute and what is not. Owners have absolute rights and consumers don’t and you must deal with that fact. If you argue otherwise, then present your argument below.
Very true. And now US companies are learning that revenue “stimulation” by veiled threats and masked bribes will not work outside of the US.
@Falafulu Fisi
I have no desire to get into any kind of flame war here, but you are missing the point.
Your example of BMWs is not really valid, as BMW do not have any kind of monopoly and you also may not need a car at all (I live in a city and don’t use one for example). The only way that would be similar is if BMW had a monopoly over engines to all other car manufacturers.
With Intel, yes you could survive absolutely fine with no PC or Mac, but you would not be able to perform the various office tasks that are required in many jobs, reducing your chances at a good job and thus negatively affecting you (or ‘hurting’ you).
Monopolies aren’t just in physical goods either. How about your water supply? If your local water supplier was unregulated, they could also charge whatever they wanted. They have exclusive right to supply the water, why should they share it with you?
The link you provided has a very simplistic view of rights. To live within a society, most rights are qualified, take a look at the ECHR. Your right to liberty can be restricted by prison, your right to free speech is affected by various legal provision depending on where you live including copyright, anti-terror legislation and others.
Tim said…
With Intel, yes you could survive absolutely fine with no PC or Mac, but you would not be able to perform the various office tasks that are required in many jobs, reducing your chances at a good job and thus negatively affecting you (or ‘hurting’ you).
You’re contradicting yourself here Tim. You say you don’t need a PC, then you ended up saying that you do indeed need one or otherwise it would hurt you in the job hunting department.
Tim said…
Monopolies aren’t just in physical goods either.
So, you think that government can monopolize a specific industry but not private companies? How about government monopolies ? Here is a quote:
Quote:
—–
The only monopolies that can in fact exist are government-created ones. Only a government can prevent someone from entering a market and thus eliminate competition. The Post Office, for instance, is a monopoly. There is little doubt that Federal Express could provide better service, more cheaply, and still earn a profit. But the government forcibly prevents it from entering the Post Office’s market. The Post Office’s dominant market position is unearned: it offers sub-par service but because of government coercion faces no competition.
So, do you think that DOJ should file anti-trust charges against the US government for being a monopoly in the postal services market ? If not then why not?
Tim said…
How about your water supply?
I buy my monthly gallons and gallons of water from the private supplier (it is their property) in my city. So, what’s the problem?
Tim said…
The link you provided has a very simplistic view of rights.
Nope! The link is a summary (not simplistic) of what rights are, and there are lots of books on objective philosophy available from Amazon (some from Ayn Rand) that you can buy, which they cover more and wider on the subject.
Tim said…
Your right to liberty can be restricted by prison
That’s a different issue.
@Falafulu Fisi
I was not contradicting myself. I said you can survive without a PC. You can, no problem. However, you are adversely affected by not having one in various ways, including finding employment. Therefore, while you can just not buy a PC if you don’t like their pricing/tactics, doing so ‘hurts’ you.
The only reason that governments are the only ones with monopolies is because of anti-trust legislation that prevents it happening in the private sector. Privatisation happened for the reason that competition makes for more efficient running of companies/services. I am not fully sure of the situation in the US, but in the UK, Royal Mail is privately run and is open to competition for just this reason.
The reason that Royal Mail (and so I imagine the US Post Office) were publicly owned companies was so that everyone was covered and would receive mail. Delivering the daily post to out of the way areas is not a profitable business, and private companies don’t really want to compete in this sector. Since Royal Mail was privatised, much competition has developed in the area of parcel delivery and post delivery and pick-up within cities. No-one is competing for the delivery of post to rural areas. Monopolies for post are not to stifle competition, but to keep post being delivered to rural areas. I very much doubt FedEx or anyone else would be interested in these services, if they were I imagine the US would privatise their Post Office and let them otherwise, as currently it is a drain on public funds. Post is a monopoly of necessity in the modern world.
You say you buy your “monthly gallons and gallons of water from the private supplier.” Are they the only supplier in your city? If so, what would you do if they decided to increase their prices by 10X? Or 100X? There are regulations to prevent them from doing this, but that is restricting their private rights, no?
And yes that link is simplistic and idealistic. Nothing is as black and white as the rights portrayed there. The reason I brought up the limitations on the rights of liberty was to show how simplistic the description of rights is on that link. That one is just the most straight forward to rebuke to demonstrate this.
Tim, from much of what you said in your last message, is from someone who is a state-worshiper and a proponent of statism. Statism have failed and look no further than the former Soviet Union.
Yes, the page is easy to read, it is not Quantum Physics, but you haven’t rebut a single point from that page, you thought you have, but actually you haven’t. What you own is your own and no one else and that is a fundamental thing that a living human could naturally possess. Using anti-trust laws to prohibit the owner from doing things to his own property is a violation of that fundamental right (refer Microsoft case for bundling IE with its own Windows). No matter what argument you put forward , it would not change the fact that Microsoft’s constitutional rights to its properties have been violate by the anti-trust case against it.
My water supplier is the only one in our city. But hang on, our district had a formal agreement with the supplier about certain things that we wanted (my district residents) to be guaranteed, which includes the price (annual), the supply – (disconnecting of unpaid customers if unpaid for more than 3 months ) and many other important issues.
Europeans found great new income resource.
Are you an American giant? Do you like to sell in our territory?
Great..
Now pay a fine, or you’ll be expelled from the city.
I’m sorry, sounds to me like a mob tactics.
Who need to build sustainable businesses when you can simply fill your empty pockets with American money, and then have a siesta.
Microsoft and Intel, please pay the protection and be kind.
I assume that protection racket paid AMD to request the EU investigate Intel?
For god sake, get information before saying such things.
Many european firms were fined by the US as well!
Do you ever read or listen to news from other countries?
You have no clue as to what anti-trust laws are, they are protecting other AMERICAN firms as well…
The whole world is now paying for what unruled american businesses have done to the economy!
As for sustainable businessesin Europe, if you can’t name any, it’s not that they don’t exist, it’s that you are an ignorant.
Want examples ? Who owns Chrysler ? lol. I guess that one was hard to swallow for you.
Renault (french) rules Nissan (heard of Nissan, right ?). Heard of Airbus ? L’Oreal ? BMW? Nokia? Ericson? Mercedes? Nestle ? GlaxoSmithKline? Vodafone? Roche ? Unilever ? countless others.
I bet you thought 80% of these were american companies.
Xavier ,
Do you have a business? If yes, then tell us what’s your business in. Once you tell us what’s your business is, then I can tell you what the anti-trust means to you. Put it in this way. Anti-trust is non-objective, ie, there is no clear definition of what’s legal and what’s illegal. That’s the problem. The anti-trust wasn’t mean to protect the consumers. Check the following blog post:
Target: Google
it has already been written often enough:
It was AMD who filed the case – not any european country or company
free market is a great thing – nobody is arguing against it, but where is the free market for competitors of intel, when intel is paying distributors to prevent them from selling other products..
That practise is what intel got fined for – they were not fined for making great products and selling them, but for preventing a free market by excluding competitors.
Thomas said…
…when intel is paying distributors to prevent them from selling other products.
Again, if the distributors were accepting the payment, then that means that the distributors were persuaded peacefully for a deal to the exclusion of others, ie , free-market. The distributors own their businesses and not own by Intel’s competitors for them to object. If Intel’s competitors want to up the ante, then they should pay the distributors more than what Intel paid, this in turn will exclude Intel. See, the power of persuasion ? This is what free market is about. It is free because there is no state interference.
“Again, if the distributors were accepting the payment, then that means that the distributors were persuaded peacefully for a deal to the exclusion of others, ie , free-market.”
In other words, you support corruption and bribery. You are American, right?
weird idea of a free market..
if your idea would be thought to the end.. then we would end up with monopolies everywhere, because the biggest company can dictate the rules – as its the one company, that has the most money to “persuade”.
The idea of free markets is the complete opposite – markets should be free for everyone – if you or anybody wants to start building a company which sells computers, then you should be free to sell them and let the customers decide – and not your competitor, who pays the distributors to prevent competition.
The most essential thing to a free market is competition. Monopolies are the complete opposite of free/competitive markets.
Mike said…
In other words, you support corruption and bribery. You are American, right?
Nope, I am from New Zealand. You comment deserve no response because I don’t think that you have to ability to reason. There is no corruption in having 2 business entities having agreements in a free society, how hard for you to grasp that very simple idea? For simplicity, just scan the whole TechCrunch over the last 4 weeks and see how many agreements had been formed between 2 consenting companies? Is that corruption? How idiot is your assertion? The point about the anti-trust laws is that anything can be deemed uncompetitive and yes, there is no clear definition in the law of what can be constituted anti-competitive and also it is arbitrary? What’s the implication of this? The implication is that you (the property/business owner) is at the mercy of the government of how they interpret the law. You the owner have no prior knowledge of what you can or can’t be allowed to do and this is the problem with non-objective & arbitrary laws such as anti-trust.
Thomas,
It is not weird idea, your ability to grasp reason is what’s weird.
Let me make it clear to you one last time:
You said…
because the biggest company can dictate the rules – as its the one company, that has the most money to “persuade”.
They don’t dictate, they just wait there for customers to come and buy. Customers are free not to buy those goods or services from that so called monopoly? The monopoly that you so despised doesn’t hold a gun to your forehead. Is this clear enough? A 5 year old can understand that point very clearly. If you can’t get it, then it is a waste of my energy to give you further explanation. The monopolist might throw in X if you buy Y or perhaps give you a warranty for 10 years if you buy X, Y and Z, where the competitor only gives you a 5 year warranty for the same services/goods. This is persuasion and not dictating. Do you get the difference? Who’s hurting? The buyer (ie, you) or the producer (owner)? The risk is always on the producer (owner). It is he/she who put up his house as a guarantor for a loan from the bank to start his business, so he/she is carrying the risk. Either perform better (persuasion, brilliant marketing, excellent strategies, etc,…) in the market or risk his house being re-possessed by the bank? The consumers bear no risk at all. The consumer is free to buy or not buy? Now do you get it? Businesses rise and fall on their own and that’s what free market is all about, ie, you’re both allowed to fail and you’re allowed to succeed.
You said…
if you or anybody wants to start building a company which sells computers, then you should be free to sell them and let the customers decide…
Now you put yourself into a corner with that argument because if you apply the same thing to the Microsoft case which was charged for bundling its OWN (read property of Microsoft) browser , IE with its OWN Windows (again read property of Microsoft), then your argument collapses. Customers don’t decide what properties of Microsoft can they or can’t they bundle with its own windows (read property of microsoft) and not the consumers?
Phew! Do you follow/grasp the philosophy about rights? If you don’t then read up on all the links that I have cited on this very thread. If you still can’t grasp the well reasoned argument that I have put forward here on this thread, then God help you.
it would be nice if your comments would be less insulting.. we can have a discussion about facts
Also you should admit, that we dont have one universal truth in our world – there are many competing ideas and concepts which can be discussed and have advantages and disadvanteges.
just one false assumption you have in your reasoning (from my point of view):
a monopoly means: one firm controlling a market – there is no freedom of choice for a customer. A customer can not choose another product.
For goods like cars you might say.. well he does not have to buy a car – that might be right. But other goods like clothes or food are essential and a customer does not have the freedom of “not buying”.
Even the most radical advocates of liberal free markets admit, that monopoly controled markets are a bad thing.
well.. but this comment section is not the right place to have this fundamental discussion – i dont think there is a way that you would change your mind about it – and this is ok, different competing opinions are a good thing – just like competing companies
If you plan to do business in a country/group of countries, like EU, maybe you should obey their legislation? Nobody has forced Intel to do trade in EU, right? And U.S. govt knows how to punish monopols too — you guys just split up (AT&T, Standard Oil..) the companies rather than fine them
And I have to note that, effectively, there hasn’t been such thing as “American money” for almost a decade now. USD is — and has been for some years now — effectively owned by Chinese govt
If you are a corporate giant and trying to force a monopoly in EU you will get punished, no matter how many rims you grease up.
Bow down to Chinese americans.
Clean their shoes and lick their buttholes.
Greetings from Europe!
“Bow down to Chinese, (you) americans”?
OR
“Bow down to Chinese-Americans”?
Well finally. About time something was done about Intel and Microsoft. They have turned to monopolies more than anything. To those who are saying “No one got hurt”: I’m sorry, but I don’t wish to be paying extra for a processor, nor do I agree with paying a company money in order to only use those processors. This not only hurts you (your pocket), but also development. Intel really was simply squeezing out AMD as competition. Also, it wasn’t the EU that had sued Intel, but AMD. You too would if your firm was being monopolized against in such a manner.
This is the only way Europe can compete with US: by fining our companies.
Can people please read the article. This action was brought by AMD (a US company) against Intel (another US company) in the EU courts. No-one from Europe is competing here at all.
Surely Intel’s willingness to pay retailers and PC manufacturers for exclusively shipping Intel products is testament to the market’s competitiveness.
First Microsoft paid up, and now its Intel’s turn. The fine was pretty high, but if some of those accusations are true, the fine is just.
I love AMD but TBL stepping errata killed the first wave of Phenoms not Intel. Just like AMD’s K6 – Athlon chips fucked up Intel’s shitty NetBurst based ones.
No one cries when an underdog wins, but everyone scowls when a market titan does. Humans are generally weak-minded and don’t think past themselves or the basic, superficial exterior of issues. Kind of like our economy and how people are thinking that all these “free” services and “free” money that are being pushed through the legislature are really free or good for us. Take a deeper look at things folks.
I have AMD and an Intel boxes, when I bought each it was based on speed EU morons, not anything else!!!
Oh and PS – We have to pay all that money back with interest you liberal tards! Nothing is free ass wipes!
I hope that the EU will be re-visiting Microsoft’s recent anti-competitive activities that curiously (!) mirror the same actions for which Intel has been fined.
Ever wonder why PCs with Linux pre-installed are so hard to find in department stores?
Because there is no demand for them?
Microsoft is more monopoly-like than Intel.
Intel will have been prosperous without this vicious marketing mentality ….Intel will have keep the lead more or less with a good margin and less fines…
This is really such a double-edged sword.
An example is when Microsoft defeated Apple and was punished for it. Microsoft was forced to keep Apple alive due to their monopoly status and even invested in Apple (stock).
Look where Apple is now — poised to take even more of Microsoft’s market share.
Successful companies should be rewarded in ways that allow for competition but don’t threaten their own success in the long run.
A lot of you would have better spent your time reading what the commission said than posting here.
Did Intel sell products under cost? Commission: No evidence.
Did Intel pay to keep AMD out of the market? Commission: No evidence.
Have consumers been hurt? Commission: No evidence.
They inferred from the market conditions that Intel must have done these things.
However the market data shows that when AMD has a better product than Intel, it gains market share (Phenom/Opteron). When Intel had better products, it took market share (Core2).
Today you can by a processor with 100 times the performance for 1/10 the price from a few years ago. Is this a bad thing? Is anyone hurting over this?
There is no logic behind this ruling except thug thievery.
It is a sad thing in the world today when we think it is right and we are happy when a successful company is beat down. That is a 1B euro that will not be paid to keep people employed. Fantastic.
Most people live in the illusion that free markets exist. This is the theory and indoctrination of corporate capitalism. Corporate capitalists need to make profit and free markets are contradictory to that. In a free market companies would enter the market freely and compete with an existing company, lowering the prices and the costs. There comes an end to this lowering of prices and costs. The consequence is that profits converge to zero. This would be the end of corporate capitalism.
Corporate capitalism needs monopolies, kartels, cheap labor, working slaves, etc. in order to make profits. This is the rule.
All the rest is illusion and indoctrination, just like the “American dream”, democracy, justice and the existence of one or more gods are illusions to increase the power of the rich.