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.

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.

It is funny Robin Wauters doesnt understand basic economics.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Ever wonder why PCs with Linux pre-installed are so hard to find in department stores?

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.

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.

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?