Slashdot Mirror


DRAM Makers Accused of Price Fixing

AdamWeeden writes "According to the EETimes, many of the states in the U.S. have entered into a class-action lawsuit against a group of eight DRAM manufacturers. The companies are accused of price-fixing computer memory for over five years, beginning in the late 1990s." From the article: "Four companies and 12 executives have so far pleaded guilty to participating in the conspiracy and have been assessed more than $730 million in fines. In May, three of the four companies, Samsung Electronics, Hynix Semiconductor Inc. and Infineon Technologies AG agreed to pay a total of $160 million to settle class action suits related to price fixing. Elpida Memory Inc., the fourth company to plead guilty, is still involved in the class-action suits."

29 of 177 comments (clear)

  1. DRM; oh nos! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Blasted DRM makers.... oh, wait a minute.....

  2. Price Fixing by richpulp · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Instead of fining these companies, they should force them to provide double the amount of memory for the same price for say 90 days, e.g. 256mb chip for the same price as 128mb chip: that way the consumer benefits instead of the government.

    1. Re:Price Fixing by arivanov · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And what if I do not want to upgrade in the next 90 days?

      This way you are actually helping them by creating a gold rush which will clear their stock inventory in the next 90 days and they can even write it off as a loss as well.

      A penalty is supposed to hurt the penalised, not the improve its financial and inventory positions.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
  3. Great news! by Crasoum · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Always good to see lawyers making more money off class actions suits, and the rest of us getting a rebate.

    1. Re:Great news! by Crasoum · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Oh I agree, my cynicism is more towards the lawyers who get the real payoff in most of these cases.

      Smart people, and I'm extreamly jealous of the ability they have to cash in big on class action suits. When the claimant tends to get a modicum of the settlement/judgement.

      The consumer, in the end continues to get ripped off; if not by one side, the other.

    2. Re:Great news! by mi · · Score: 4, Informative
      The consumer, in the end continues to get ripped off; if not by one side, the other.

      The compensatory damages would not amount to very much.

      The idea of punitive damages is to, well, punish the guilty. It does not matter, where the money goes — the consumers benefit from the companies' not doing it again.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    3. Re:Great news! by Otter · · Score: 4, Interesting
      The idea of punitive damages is to, well, punish the guilty. It does not matter, where the money goes -- the consumers benefit from the companies' not doing it again.

      Punitive damages should be paid to the government, with no lawyers' cut. Then we'd see how concerned the plaintiffs and lawyers really are about serving humanity through lawsuits.

  4. Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    They price fixed for 5 years ... starting in the 1990s...

    I wonder if the summary author knows that it's 2006.

    1. Re:Wait... by LordLucless · · Score: 2, Informative

      Firstly, summary says more than five years, secondly that it began in the 1990s, and thirdly, just because the suit is being brought in 2006 doesn't mean that's when the price-fixing ended.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  5. Corporate Charter by professionalfurryele · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why why why why why when these companies do crap like this don't we just abolish thier corporate charter, sell their assets to their competitors and realse their patents and copyrights into the public domain and abolish their trademarks? I'm getting very tired of hearing about large corporation X acting against the public intrest by breaking the law. Make it so that shareholders will punish them for breaking the law and a corporation will not break the law.

    1. Re:Corporate Charter by 91degrees · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That would involve punishing a lot of people for crimes of a handful. Most of the sharehholders had no way of knowing that such illegal activities were going on. Why should they be punished substantially more than they gained?

    2. Re:Corporate Charter by professionalfurryele · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ah I don't agree with more government involvement. The market does a fine job regulating price when it is allowed to (if there is health competition, no monopolies and no collusion). If you make it so that it is very inadvisable to price fix the shareholders will make sure no one does it. Massive fines and invest that in public research in the field if you don't like the corporate death penalty. Just don't let them get away with it with a tiny fine.

    3. Re:Corporate Charter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why should they be punished substantially more than they gained?

      As a shareholder in a limited-liability corporation, should the government decide to dissolve the corporation, they'd be out their stock, and that's it. This was the risk they signed up for when they invested in the company.

      My personal belief is that we should stop using the "corporate veil" to protect everyone in the company. Take Merck for instance, if I went out and gave people pills that I knew could kill them and they do, I'd probably be looking at first degree (premeditated) murder. The people there who chose money over not killing people (starting with the author of the memo regarding the millions that they could save by not letting people know that it can cause heart problems, the person who acted on the memo to supress the information, then moving on to everyone who read that report inbetween as an accomplice) should be ripped out of the corporate veil and prosecuted.

      Until this starts happening, our corporations will continue to be led and staffed with sociopaths who can and will destroy everything they touch for personal gain, and then get hired at another company to repeat. When the companies' employees recognize that they will be personally accountable for dumping the barrels of waste in the river, they will balk at their superiors' orders, who in turn will hopefully recognize that they will be personally responsible, and balk at their superiors' orders, on up the chain until finally whoever is deciding to break the law is either ignored or removed. And yes, that means that if any particular shareholders orders the company to break the law, they are as responsible for that as if someone hired a hitman to kill their wife.

  6. Was it really that bad? by RingDev · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So they fixed prices, so what, memory prices in the mid/late nineties plummited. Early 90s buying a 4 meg chip costed hundreds, mid 90s a 32 meg chip cost under a hundred, by the end of the 90s we were paying under a buck a meg, heck now it's what, under a buck for 10 megs?

    In the end, the consumers will see none of it (who's really going to go through to paper work for a $3 rebate?), the lawyers will see millions, and the government will get the unclaimed payouts.

    IOW, a complete waste of time.

    -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
    1. Re:Was it really that bad? by evil+agent · · Score: 2, Interesting
      who's really going to go through to paper work for a $3 rebate?

      I've seen a few places that now offer "e-rebates." So you can just fill out the rebate info at their website instead of mailing it in. Hopefully this will catch on.

      --
      End transmission.
  7. Haha by Rinisari · · Score: 4, Funny

    If the DRAM market is corrupt, I'll just switch to something else: Rambus! Oh wait...

  8. Free RAM to everyone by vincnetas · · Score: 2, Funny

    730.000.000$ / 200$ = 3.650.000Gb = Free RAM to everyone.
    Yahooooo !!!

  9. I want to see them on the stand. by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 5, Funny

    PROSECUTOR: Did your company engage in price fixing?

    DRAM MEMORY: Maybe, maybe not... I just woke up, so I can't remember anything before that.

    FLASH RAM: He did! He did! I'm sure of it.

    BUBBLE MEMORY: We never had this nonsense in my day, I tellya what. *cough cough*

    PUNCH CARD: You're tellin' me. *wheeze*

    1. Re:I want to see them on the stand. by WilliamSChips · · Score: 2, Funny

      What type of memory is "Prosecutor" memory? Is that some new-fangled method?

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  10. Re:VLSI by amliebsch · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Assume the plant, the research and development has been paid for and the obvious thing must be stated...

    How is this a remotely valid assumption, given that RAM chips have seen orders of magnitude increases in speed and capacity?

    --
    If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
  11. They weren't very good at it by acvh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1993 - 4 MB SIMM $160
    2003 - 256 MB DIMM $160

    Spitzer should go after real criminals, and stop using threats and publicity to extort big settlements.

    1. Re:They weren't very good at it by Surt · · Score: 2, Insightful


      1993 - 4 MB SIMM $160
      2003 - 256 MB DIMM $160

      Spitzer should go after real criminals, and stop using threats and publicity to extort big settlements.


      That doesn't make much sense.

      Suppose I then told you that in the alternate history with no price fixing, the 2003 line looked like this:
      2003 - 256 MB DIMM $16

      Surely you'd then agree that a >$100 profit per dimm from price fixing wasn't exactly a good situation for the consumer?

      Price fixing is bad for the consumer, regardless of other improvements in the technology of memory manufacturing.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  12. DRM Makers Accused of Price Fixing by jaweekes · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I misread the subject as "DRM Makers Accused of Price Fixing" and got all excited!

  13. Insightful?????? by Frankie70 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This way you are actually helping them by creating a gold rush which will clear their stock inventory in the next 90 days and they can even write it off as a loss as well.
    A penalty is supposed to hurt the penalised, not the improve its financial and inventory positions.


    Huh! If this is going to be good for them, then why don't they do it themselves?
    Is anybody going to stop them?

    1. Re:Insightful?????? by arivanov · · Score: 3, Informative

      If one of them does it all the others wills cream about selling under cost and sue the living hell out Hynix. Oops... Maybe a different one this time.

      If all of them will do it that will be price fixing and collusion.

      Lose, lose.

      But if the DOJ forces them to do that... Hmm... That is an entirely different matter...

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
  14. Difficult situation for us anarcho-capitalists by dada21 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Here is one area that is very difficult to win the anarcho-capitalist debate on -- the cartelization of this particular market in this particular industry sounds very insidious and hard to compete with without the government intervening and bringing the hammer down.

    Most people believe that memory manufacturing is a VERY expensive business. This is true in terms of overall numbers (billions), but it is false in terms of actual products required on the market. Memory is used in much more than just computers (cars, microwaves, cell phones, digital cameras, DVD players, etc), and it is a huge market, possibly a trillion dollar one coming soon. When you have a big market, a big demand and a low supply of manufacturers, it doesn't take much to raise the billions needed to enter a market where there is obvious collusion. 1 million Americans risking US$3000 in a market that you can prove is selling at a overwhelming profit is not a big risk -- and many people were aware of the over-priced memory market back in the 90s.

    Yet I think the debate is won by the free marketeers when you realize that one of the biggest reasons for the cartelization in this case is patent and copyright law. Memory chips are heavily burdened by patents, and many of those patents are cross licensed by those in the cartel. This smacks of government-paternalism and is one reason why patents generally help the cartels and the State rather than the inventor. The cartel:inventor ratio in terms of who is helped by patents is very very high (more cartels are helped than individual inventors).

    I believe the government is wrong for starting class-action lawsuits. We all know that few companies are hurt by class-action lawsuits, and even fewer "victims" are helped. The lawyers (who are the biggest supporters of the expanding State) win the most! Why don't we roll back before the cartel-State collusion and see what the real cause of this problem is? The biggest barrier to the market is NOT money -- stop thinking that! No matter what the financial cost is, if there is a profit to be made, people will invest. I don't care if it is quadrillions that are needed, as long as it is profitable (and cartels can always be beaten in price), people will risk money. The real barrier is the State -- no one can raise enough "force" to overcome the force of government patents and copyrights.

  15. Can anyone answer this question for me ? by runner_one · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why when any two or more companies in the world get together and settle on a price for their product do we come down on them like a ton of bricks for price-fixing, yet when OPEC gets together and "FIXES" a price for oil we just bend over and take it up the tailpipe? Anyone besides me ever think about how hypocritical that is? Price fixing is bad, but why do we allow it for oil?

  16. err by TrekkieGod · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Maybe because American laws against price fixing wouldn't apply to an internation organization of which the US isn't even a member?

    What do you think that we can do? We're a large consumer of oil, so we can apply economic pressue. That already happens though, and we already get very good deals. Believe me, gas is much less expensive in the US than in just about any other country.

    --

    Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

  17. Re-Occuring Theme by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Havent we seen this a few times in the past? " Oh, bad industry.. you are fixing prices.. *slap on wrist* .. now be good.. " then we go thru it again in a few years as nothing ever changes. Governmental 'fines' are considered a cost of doing business anymore, and have long since stopped being a deterrent.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----