Slashdot Mirror


Samsung To Pay Out $300 Million In Anti-Trust Suit

infernalC writes "Reuters is reporting that Samsung has agreed to plea guilty to charges of price fixing in the memory market in a $300 million settlement." From the article: " Samsung would become the third chip maker to plead guilty in the wide-ranging probe of the prices of dynamic random access memory, or DRAM, chips. The Justice Department has blamed the price-fixing conspiracy for driving up the price of chips used in products ranging from personal computers and servers to cell phones, cameras and game consoles."

36 of 227 comments (clear)

  1. So expensive by DingoGroton · · Score: 2, Funny

    So thats why I can never afford anything!

  2. And How Does This Help Me? by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Samsung has agreed to plea guilty to charges of price fixing in the memory market in a $300 million settlement

    This may enrich the justice department, computer companies, and/or their shareholders, but how does it help me?

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:And How Does This Help Me? by ChocoBean · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly.

      are they planning on refunding each consumer of said chips a quarter each or something? or does it just mean Samsung loses money to greedy lawyers, so for the next 6 quarters Samsung will drive up the prices of the new chips (logally, maybel) to make up for it?

    2. Re:And How Does This Help Me? by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      IT wasnt designed to help you, dear consumer. You have been screwed, and you must learn to accept that.

      The government gets the extra cash, and of course the lawyers.

      We the consumers, almost never get a break after its proven we overpaid.

      I bet prices wont even drop after this, 'due to inflation'.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    3. Re:And How Does This Help Me? by Moofie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your optimism is so darn CUTE!

      If Samsung made more than $300M, then (from their perspective) the gambit worked, and they should do it again.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    4. Re:And How Does This Help Me? by kilgortrout · · Score: 3, Informative

      I know this is slashdot and no one reads the article but really. This was a criminal prosecution for price fixing brought by the US Dept of Justice and I can assure you those government attorneys will be getting their usual monthly slalary. The $300 million metioned in the article is a criminal fine to be paid to the government.
      And for the other legal retards out there, criminal fines are not normally divied up among members of the community; it goes into the treasury.

  3. Holy moley... by Sinryc · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yay! Some GOOD Tech news for a change!

    --
    Yay, I have a sig.
  4. $300M? by geomon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I always wonder how much these fines really hurt mega-corps. If they were able to control prices so effectively that they were accused of price-fixing, then the potential profits from that enterprise would be in the billions.

    Seems like these fines are just the cost of doing business. I'm sure that $300M is a lot less than their manufacturing charges, or even their advertising expenses.

    --
    "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    1. Re:$300M? by ergo98 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I always wonder how much these fines really hurt mega-corps.

      $300 million is a lot of money to anyone - even a mega-corp.

      Nonetheless, a better question would be the motivation and impartiality of governments. It seems that the US government is busy fining every "foreign" company in every way it can (usually bullying for multi-million, or BILLION, dollar settlements), adding the proceeds to the general slush fund (it seldom makes its way to consumers), and the European governments are busy taxing - sorry fining - American companies to the tune of hundreds of millions as well.

      Welcome to the world of "free trade".

  5. Do we get any of our money back? by SeanDuggan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I guess the question is, do those of us who have bought memory during this time get money back? My first impression would be no, as this is a criminal suit, not a civil suit. *shrug* If that's the case, I'm sure there will be some opportunistic^K altruistic lawyer who will file one on our behalf for a substantial legal fee^K^K^K^K^K pro bono.

    --
    This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
  6. So... by steveo777 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Does this mean Apple is off the hook in Korea? Or are they twice as screwed because they got "fair" prices?

    --
    This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
  7. Doesn't matter..... by 8127972 · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...... cause I can't afford the price of gas so that I can drive to the computer store to buy that "affordable" RAM.

    --
    This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
  8. What this translates to... by mpath · · Score: 2, Interesting

    is the lawyers are getting $275mil and then everyone else gets a buck. ;)

    --
    I'm not sure what the secret to success is, but the secret to failure lies in trying to please everyone -Bill Cosby
  9. what about by Rac3r5 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    what about those oil and medical companies that drive the prices on the smallest pretext

  10. The Real Question... by caenorhabditas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The real question here seems to be, "Will Samsung actually change their practices?" In many high-profile anti-trust cases, it seems that the government will fine the company involved, but then the company goes back to the same old tactics of price fixing and other monopolistic behavior. How does the DOJ propose to prevent Samsung from illegal tactics in the future?

    1. Re:The Real Question... by bani · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the only punishment that historically seems to have any impact on corporate behavior is to send corporate executives to prison. anything else has no effect, it's just "the price of doing business".

    2. Re:The Real Question... by kansas1051 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The answer is simple, criminal penalties against the people who orchestrated the price fixing. The settlement only "settles" Samsung's corporate liability, but the government has said they are likely to pursue criminal charges against 7 Samsung executives for Sherman act violations. So, i agree that $300 million isnt a financial deterrent to high-powered executives, but taking it up the ass in Leavenworth is.

    3. Re:The Real Question... by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 2, Funny

      taking it up the ass in Leavenworth

      Why is it that every time someone mentions prison on /., they feel obligated to include a reference to the ass-fucking that presumably takes place there? I'm not trying to single you out here, just commenting on what I perceive to be a persistent trend.

  11. If you want to... by alexandreracine · · Score: 2, Funny

    You can buy the $300 million memory! Going once... going ...

    --
    No sig for now.
  12. Fines and Penalties by SeanDuggan · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well, in theory, it's supposed to discourage them because fines will continue and increase if they continue such a practice. However, the companies are always able to switch to the next shady business practice.

    --
    This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
    1. Re:Fines and Penalties by geomon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      However, the companies are always able to switch to the next shady business practice.

      And they do so without admitting guilt.

      I wish I could break laws and not admit guilt.

      I guess we should all become corporations. That way we could just disincorporate and reincorporate under a different name.

      Beats going to jail.

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    2. Re:Fines and Penalties by geomon · · Score: 2

      Because often there isn't guilt.

      Often? Care to cite some numbers in support of your claim?

      If you really buy into the Spitzer-following belief that big companies are evil and governments are clean,..

      I don't, but I do know that corporations wield political control beyond their importance to society at large.

      As for Spitzer, consider the numbers game that AIG performed. Not only did they settle, but they settled on *their* terms. .. then I have a bridge to sell you.

      Keep it.

      In many ways a lot of these settlements are the end result of extortion - maybe there is a kernel of truth to them,

      You have just contradicted yourself. If their is a kernel of truth in the indictments, then they have criminal liability. ...but the companies settle because they can't compete with the endless resource (and law setting) ability of government.

      So we should just quit prosecuting criminal cases against corporations?

      I fail to see the point in your rant.

      If the government really has a case, it should be proven in court. Settlements out of court are a travesty, and are far too open to abuse.

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    3. Re:Fines and Penalties by RingDev · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "I wish I could break laws and not admit guilt."

      You can, it's called pleading "No Contest". It means you don't admit guilt, but it is easier/cheaper for you to accept a guilty verdict then to fight it.

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
  13. Cue the libertarian economists by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who will tell us all how regulation will never solve anything and how the government is evil for trying to break up this scam based on their own outlandish economic theories.

    Of course, from my way of thinking, $300 million, or even $485 million if you count the fine against the other chip manufacturer fined so far, is probably just a drop in the bucket compared to the money earned by this scheme. We're lucky to have a regulated economy where the government can do *something* about this at least- but if you think this is going to make those who like money more than people stop trying to destroy the free market, then I've got a bridge or six in Portland to sell you....

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    1. Re:Cue the libertarian economists by dada21 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There isn't easy empirical evidence or equations to be had.

      The Austrians (Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Rockwell) point to the fact that money is a commodity affected by supply and demand and that prices are as well.

      When you involve a million regulations, tariffs, taxes and fees, it is very difficult to scientifically attribute prices to reality. Fox example, gas. The price of gas is affected by too many government mandates to set an equation to. Mandated blends, refinery monopoly, distribution restrictions, price controls, etc. Did you know we sell our oil to Iraq for pennies a gallon? Government gas needs also raise prices by reducing supply.

      In a free and unregulated market, the best quality and best price occur from billions of consumers making unique choices.

      Economics to me is philosophical today. How else can you account for nearly every American putting faith in legal counterfeiting (inflation) and legal bubble-building (artificially low interest rates and artificially high loan acceptance due to FNMA)?

      Don't read Mises for junk science, read Mises to better understand those you put in public office.

  14. Micron Tech organized the price fixing, then ... by rlglende · · Score: 4, Interesting


    I believe the story here is that Micron Technology organized the price fixing ring, then informed the government(s), thereby obtaining immunity.

    This is an interesting strategy for handling competition, but dont' fool yourselves that it means lower prices for anyone.

    Lew

    --
    "The Constitution, the WHOLE Constitution, and nothing but the CONSTITUTION."
  15. increased RAM prices to help Rambus out? by dueydotnet · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just did a little bit of searching when I read the article. According to wikipedia, the first motherboards with Rambus were in 1999, and Intel had an agreement with Rambus to use their RAM until 2002. These are the same years quoted in the article. I wonder if there are other players in this game other than Samsung?

  16. How much! by squoozer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What I would like to know is how much money it is estimated they made from price fixing. While $300 million is a lot of money I can't help feeling that they made a lot more than that and therefore over all they have still made a profit. Personally, I think these companies should be fined to the point where they are all but bankrupt. After all it's not like they did it by accident. Perhaps makign the directors personally liable would be another route to take. The threat of a couple of year behind bars would probably make them care about shady practices.

    --
    I used to have a better sig but it broke.
  17. Wonderful! by medeii · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now, can we do something about the other industry cartels?

    --
    got standards? --- http://www.w3.org/
  18. Jail Time As Well? Infineon Execs Serving Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/press_releases/200 4/206631.htm

    Four Infineon executives were sent to prison (albeit briefly) as part of their plea bargain, also in SF Superior Court.

  19. Re:Clas-action time? by jac0b84 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Are you all mad? It is Samsung's right to increase prices if they wish. Even if they control a specific technology, it was their development and capitol which achieved this. Price control works both ways, companies increase while the government caps. You all are so blinded by the mere chance that you could see some cash to realize that the government is limiting the sucess of our economy. When one of you create a company with its own technology , will you then be in favor of the feds denying your reward on investment?

  20. Re:Greasy Wheels of Justice by KillShill · · Score: 2

    because you are far more observant than the average shil--err slashdotter.

    you and i notice things like this but try getting anyone with less than 2 brain cells to notice or even acknowledge.

    same thing happened with the intel anti-trust suit. following the announcement, i saw far more AMD machines being advertised in my local sunday newspaper than ever before. before there are 2-3 AMD machines... after the suit, i saw 8-9 AMD computers per ad.

    intel is even more guilty than MS yet i see only a small handful of slashdotters even remotely aware of what they're up to and the rest try to "spin" it as "business as usual".

    i've lost a lot of respect for /.... i remember years ago there were far fewer "industry insiders" than there are now. it's just the price of fame i suppose. given that there are so many slashvertisments now...

    --
    Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
  21. So who thinks? by olddotter · · Score: 3, Funny
    So who thinks they are guilty of selling memory too cheaply to Apple?

    Buy those Nanos while Apple is still getting a good deal on memory. :-)

  22. Re:Clas-action time? by jac0b84 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Look, someone else pointed out that the technology wasn't even developed by Samsung. Another company could come along and produce a similar good for those who didn't wish to pay such a price.

    Profits are never unreasonable. And consumers have no right to be sold a specific product. Each and every sale is an agreement between the buyer and the seller. If the consumer does not want a good at a price, they won't buy it. Monopolies have never existed to the point at which people whine about them. Oil is expensive due to foreign imports and restricted domestic drilling.

    Capitalism is not necessarily competition. What you call a monopoly had to get there somehow, probably by competitive practices and superior goods.

  23. that fine is a pittance for them. by MMHere · · Score: 3, Informative
    According to Samsung's 2004 annual report, a $300M fine is pretty much a slap on the corporate wrist for them:

    2004 revenue was just under $122 BILLION, with net income of $11.8 BILLION.

    So the fine is 2.5% of one year's net income, 0.25% of one year's revenue, and a mere 0.14% of their total assets.

    This is incentive against cheating in future? How??

  24. Re:Maybe someone can answer this for me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Assume that you are in the middle of desert and you run out of water. Water trucks run by your location on a regular basis. You flag one down and discover that all the water carriers have decided that buying water this way costs $1,000,000 per pint. In cash. You don't have it and you die.

    Big joke, right? This never happens in real life, right? I live in Califorina, and during the Enron era THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED to energy prices. Although there was no single big meeting to plan it out, all the energy market players realized that they could lie, cheat and steal as much money as they wanted AND THEY DID. Some of it was recorded in audio, and your can hear them laughing about it. If you are interested in the details, and you want to watch a very good movie, see "Enron: The smartest guys in the room".

    Even after they were caught, very little happened. The Bush appointed federal regulators in FERC took the attitude "they stole the money fair and square, so they should get to keep it." Various state regulators went to court, and when they started winning cases the energy companies (or at least the ones that had not gone bankrupt), paid settlements and admitted no wrong doing.

    Meanwhile, during the energy crunch, Califorina energy suppliers signed long term contracts based on the extremely inflated prices. We are still stuck with these high prices. Many of these contracts are with the very same companies that inflated prices initially (El Paso Corp, if I remember correctly). WE ARE STUCK PAYING THE VERY PEOPLE WHO CHEATED US IN THE FIRST PLACE.

    If this is actually capitalism, then I guess I'm against it. The theory is that capitialism is about rational decisions in a free and open market. The reality is that a bunch of insiders lie their teeth out, steal hundred of millions of dollars, and walk away laughing. If they get caught they almost never go to jail, and the fines don't have any long term impact. Most of the time, what they do is legal because they buy the people who make the law. Or they become the people who make the law. Just remember, Bush and Cheney are oil guys first, and elected officials second.

    And by the way, at the beginning of this rant I used the example of someone dieing for lack of water. Well, when blackouts happen people really do die. They die in car crashes when lights don't work or they die in their houses when they can't pay the gas bill and they build a charcoal fire to stay warm. Greed kills. But as long as you pay a fine and don't have to admit guilt so you can "put it behind you", the dead aren't complaining.