Slashdot Mirror


Regulatory Probe of LCD Market Widens

narramissic writes "Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Sharp Corp., Taiwan's AU Optronics Corp., and a U.S. subsidiary of Taiwan's Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corp. on Tuesday said they have been contacted by investigators who are looking into possible anticompetitive behavior in the flat-panel display market. This follows Monday's announcement by LG.Philips LCD Co. that it had been subpoenaed by regulators in the U.S., South Korea and Japan." From the article: "The probe centers on TFT (thin-film transistor) LCDs, according to Samsung. They are used in a wide range of electronics products including flat-panel televisions and computer monitors, laptop computers, cell phones and digital music players. The three companies being investigated are among the largest manufacturers of such displays. The investigation comes on the heels of anticompetition probes in the DRAM (dynamic RAM) and SRAM (static RAM) markets. The DRAM investigation focused on price-fixing, which is when vendors cooperate to set prices artificially."

90 comments

  1. Wow! by FridayBob · · Score: 4, Funny

    Good thing this kind of criminal behavior doesn't go on in the market for software!

    1. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This never seizes to amaze me. A non US company is much more likely to be charged for anticompetitive business practices than a US company.

      What about Microsoft?
      Why is the US letting this exceptionally bullish company continue their path of destruction?

    2. Re:Wow! by nine-times · · Score: 1

      No, of course it doesn't. Haven't you heard, the free market regulates itself through supply and demand! It's impossible for anyone to charge more than their product is worth.

    3. Re:Wow! by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 2, Informative

      A free market does an excellent job of supplying almost everything except a free market.

    4. Re:Wow! by russotto · · Score: 1

      There are practices (such as selling goods below cost, called "dumping" when foreign companies do it) which are legal for US companies that are not legal for non-US companies exporting their products to the US, so it isn't surprising that non-US companies get charged for such practices more often.

      It's a double standard, but it's one which is set out in law.

    5. Re:Wow! by TrilateralRegression · · Score: 1

      Because they make a hell of a lot of money and control 99% of the software the US government runs on, so people in office can continue to click with the thingy on the whachamajigger. Capitalism is a darwinistic dog-eat-dog FFA. Omnium fuckin' contra omnes. If artificial price fixing to kill off the competition actually succeedes, then the competition had a bad legal department, not enough hired goons to break some knees in return, or couldn't slash worker wages and useless department budgets lke customer service in order to respond to the fix, and the result is you get to stare into a newer bigger transmitter for about $60 less. Interpol and most other countries actually care about social practices. You wanna know what drives America? Go read Atlas Shrugged.

    6. Re:Wow! by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      There are practices (such as selling goods below cost, called "dumping" when foreign companies do it) which are legal for US companies that are not legal for non-US companies exporting their products to the US, so it isn't surprising that non-US companies get charged for such practices more often.

      It's a double standard, but it's one which is set out in law.
      Uh, no it's not. Domestically, it is called Predatory Pricing and it is just as illegal.
      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
  2. This is why I'm frying my eyes with two CRTs by FunkeyMonk · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I've been waiting to find a decent LCD with screen rotation for under $100. I've been waiting a very long time.

  3. Because the LCD plants cost billions by bestinshow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And yet LCD prices continue to collapse year-on-year whilst getting bigger, brighter and more contrastful (suck on that word, grammar nazis).

    So what's bad for the consumer here? Companies still in business making a profit, or killing off all the companies until the one remaining LCD maker can charge the earth for them?

    Yes, there is a fine line to tread between organised price fixing to pwn the consumer, and a free market where competition kills off choice, but things aren't black and white, good or bad.

    1. Re:Because the LCD plants cost billions by Psiren · · Score: 1
      So what's bad for the consumer here? Companies still in business making a profit, or killing off all the companies until the one remaining LCD maker can charge the earth for them?

      Or more to the point, not being pressured by competition to provide better products. Personally I'd rather have to pay a little more and have a choice of manufacturers, than pay less and get stuck with only one. I can't see how that would benefit consumers in the long run.
    2. Re:Because the LCD plants cost billions by rrhal · · Score: 3, Funny

      And yet LCD prices continue to collapse year-on-year whilst getting bigger, brighter and more contrastful (suck on that word, grammar nazis).
      I believe in would be most cromulent to say "... bigger and brighter while contrastiness enbiggens ..."
      --
      All generalizations are false, including this one. Mark Twain
    3. Re:Because the LCD plants cost billions by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Who said it was about price fixing? the article doesn't say that.

      It could be about preventing others from entering the market.

      Just because the price is going down doesn't mean there isn't price fixing.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Because the LCD plants cost billions by hey! · · Score: 1

      Presumably what is bad is that it is retarding the natural plummeting of LCD prices.

      I just bought a $450 LCD monitor. Maybe that would have been $350 under full competition. Or maybe not, in fact probably not.

      Most price fixing schemes are unstable (eg OPEC), unless the number of players is small. But whether or not the scheme is effective, it is still illegal. You don't want people saying, "Well, this scheme will fall apart in a year, but we can make a bunch more dough until it happens. By the time the regulators catch us, it'll be ancient history."

      You don't want vendors to subject anticompetitive practices to a risk-benefit analysis. You want them not to consider them seriously at all. So screw-ups don't get a pass because their schemes don't work.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    5. Re:Because the LCD plants cost billions by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      I'd like to know, too. You can get the Samsung SyncMaster 931B 19" LCD for around US$225, yet the 931B is VASTLY superior to 19" LCD's of just even a few years ago in almost every aspect.

    6. Re:Because the LCD plants cost billions by spike+hay · · Score: 1

      Endoubitably, the cromulence of LCDs has continued to increase as well.

      --
      If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
  4. LCD's are like Milk & Cookies by bepolite · · Score: 1

    If this means that LCD's are going to be even cheaper then they already are [insert happy dance here] I may never have to stare at non-LCD wall space again. That said it seems like a fairly common practice with these types manufactures. Remember the accusations of DRAM price fixing? http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/ 14/1222215

    --
    Always be polite.
  5. LCD Production by Velcroman98 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Most of the actual LCD screen manufacturing is done by few companies (like LG and Philips), and mostly in South Korea. The other retail names you all know just slap them inside their plastic housing with their name on the front (like Dell or Sharpe). Similar to how many PC's have one of two brands of manufactured CPUs. The consolidated manufacturing could explain perceived anticompetitive behavior, that and the $2 Billion start-up costs for an LCD fab.

    1. Re:LCD Production by MaWeiTao · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I feel compelled to add that Taiwan does at least as much LCD manufacturing as South Korea and Japan does it's fair share. The key companies are LG, Philips as you mention in addition to AU Optronics which is another huge player. They don't have their own brand, however, which is why no one ever thinks of them.

      Sharp doesn't rebrand LCD displays produced by other manufacturers, not as far as I know. They design and manufacture their own LCDs and have produced some fairly innovative display technologies. The American computer companies tend to be the ones putting their own brands on someone else's product, Dell being one of the more prominent ones.

      There are so many companies involved in the various aspects of LCD manufacturing and design that I'm a bit surprised that there would be any kind of collusion going on. And given how LCD prices prices have fallen, it makes it even more unlikely. But then again, I guess it's possible.

    2. Re:LCD Production by Velcroman98 · · Score: 1
      I don't think there's collusion so much as a directed goal by all the LCD manufacturers to take market share from plasma manufacturers. The price drops may be as much from the competition as the worldwide unsold inventory after the failure of the anticipated sales leading up to the World Cup. There's also older inventory left behind as new generation and larger screens hit retail.

      Don't confuse self-manufacturing with contract-manufacturing. There are other countries doing manufacturing, but I think the bulk is currently in S Korea due to the cheaper labor.

      The market is concentrated, but with the high start-up costs how many firms can create their own? I think if people looked, they see Flash memory is just as concentrated with rebranding and contract-manufacturing.

      Production is concentrated within a few corporations due to hudge investment.

    3. Re:LCD Production by Emetophobe · · Score: 1
      Most of the actual LCD screen manufacturing is done by few companies
      Very true. For example, pretty much every 22" LCD panel is made by Chi Mei (in Taiwan). Samsung, Viewsonic, Benq, Acer, Asus, etc all use Chi Mei panels, the only real difference is the packaging and inputs. I happen to have a 22" Chi Mei, an Acer that I got for $400 Canadian a few months ago and I'm very happy with the quality so far.
    4. Re:LCD Production by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sharp is one of the major suppliers of LCD panels, not a re-brander. S Korea has not been a cheap labor manufactoring location for some time. Besides, panel production is an automated thing that is capital intensitve, not labor intensive. Besides, regardless where the panels are produced, they are shipped to China for final assembly.

  6. Exactly by brunes69 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I mean, I am all for the consumer, and very anti-price fixing.

    But shouldn't these guys be investing their time and resources into industries where price fixing is a REAL PROBLEM that affects the consumer?

    I mean, LCD prices plummet month-over-month. An LCD today costs less than half what it cost only 2 years ago for the same size and even higher quality. I would like to see another industry (besides the CPU industry) match that kind of price drop.

    What about stuff like high speed access? How come the cost of my high speed goes nowhere but UP, even though all the significant marginal costs (like laying cable + fibre, back-end infrastructure) were done YEARS ago? Why do I still have a bandwidth cap of 60 GB / month download when 100 GB of bandwidth costs essentially nothing nowadays (I can get a 10 TB web hosting plan for $5 a month) ?

    The answer, of course, is there is no real competition, or reason for the major ISPs to reduce their prices.

    The same can be said of lots of other industries as well. LCDs should be the LEAST of these guys worries.

    1. Re:Exactly by bestinshow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But shouldn't these guys be investing their time and resources into industries where price fixing is a REAL PROBLEM that affects the consumer?

      But LCD panels are made in Asia. Not America.

      You wouldn't want to investigate a company that contributes to your political party now would you?

    2. Re:Exactly by Abreu · · Score: 1

      [Sigh!] Thank you, now I understand everything...

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    3. Re:Exactly by lawpoop · · Score: 2, Informative

      "But shouldn't these guys be investing their time and resources into industries where price fixing is a REAL PROBLEM that affects the consumer?"

      I think they guys who would be investigating shenanigans in the cable and DSL world are the public utilities commissions, whereas price fixing in consumer goods is handled by other organizations. So they can't just drop this and start doing something else.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    4. Re:Exactly by GigG · · Score: 1

      It's not just US regulators investigating. Japan and S. Korea are as well and last time I checked they are in Asia. And since when did a national boarder stop US campaign contributions?

      --
      Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
    5. Re:Exactly by geekoid · · Score: 1

      That's wierd, my price as constiantly been going down.
      Now I pay 15 bucks a month.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:Exactly by Thaelon · · Score: 2

      I don't know how you can bring up other industries with price fixing problems and NOT mention oil/gasoline companies.

      Funny how the war in Iraq was supposed to be so bad for the oil industry and they'd have to raise prices. Then what happened? They posted RECORD profits. Where's the accountability for that little bit of profiteering (I realize it's not the same as price fixing, but still)? The same goes for the hurricane Katrina...

      --

      Question everything

  7. It wouldn't surprise me by simm1701 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There seems a fair basis for these claims.

    The PC LCD market has been notorious have having a "sweet spot" (the biggest screen you can buy before the prices jumps stupidly)

    Right now its 1440*900 19" wide screens - for about 130GBP last time I looked - yet 20" 1680*1080 displays start around 350GBP and go through the roof from there (1500 for the rather nice dell/apple 30" widescreen displays)

    Also LCD TVs have not even remotely kept pace with PC screen prices - they still seem to be at prices PC screens were 1-2 years ago for equivalent sizes.

    The top end of hardware is usually more expsive - CPUs/GPUs/RAM - the top 1-2 models are never on the same price/performace curve as the rest of the product line, but LCDs really do seem to be extracting the urine.

    I'd love to see a little leveling in the fields - especially since I really to want one of the 30" displays - preferably for about half the current price!

    --
    $_="Slashdotter";$syn="OTT";s;..;;;sub _{print shift||$_};s!ash!Perl !;s=$syn=ack=i;tr+LLEd+BLAH+;_"Just Another ";_
    1. Re:It wouldn't surprise me by ivan256 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I just bought a 1920x1080 47" LCD for $1700. Those didn't even exist two years ago, and smaller ones cost 5x as much.

      It seems to me that they're keeping pace...

    2. Re:It wouldn't surprise me by Amouth · · Score: 1

      the larger the screen the worse the yeild.. same thing with CPU's.. the larger the screen the more money you pay the better the quality has to be.. I know that if i got a 30in and even one pixel was bad they would be taking it back.. random mom/dad geta 17in and 1-2 green pixels they might not even notice..

      the people that want the large screens know what they want and are picky.. the masses not so much.. so they have a worse yeild to sale ration for the larger screens on top of higher cost to manufacture..

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    3. Re:It wouldn't surprise me by darthnoodles · · Score: 1
      Are you serious?

      Every market has a "sweet spot." The entire PC industry has a "sweet spot."

      Cars too. As complexity goes up, costs go up even more.

      Heck, even we have a sweet spot where we have youthful vigor and wisdom (hopefully).

      By your reasoning every company in the world should be investigated.

    4. Re:It wouldn't surprise me by simm1701 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I should have been more clear on my comment with regard to LCD TVs, I wa refering to the bottom end of the market - ie trying to get a 1440*900 19" LCD TV screen for a cheap price is stangely difficuly (or was when I looked a few weeks ago) anything other than 14" or 17" seems very inflated in price - especially compared to PC screens.

      --
      $_="Slashdotter";$syn="OTT";s;..;;;sub _{print shift||$_};s!ash!Perl !;s=$syn=ack=i;tr+LLEd+BLAH+;_"Just Another ";_
    5. Re:It wouldn't surprise me by simm1701 · · Score: 1

      I agree with you completely about a single bad pixel and I would take it back - especially at that price!!

      However the law/technical specs do not.

      There were a few court cases about this over the last 2 years (and it put me on my gaurd regards buying one) what it comes down to is the difference between class 1 and class 2 LCD devices and the % of bad pixels. The class 2 specifications were really aimed at screens up to 240*320 size, and for "faulty" they don't define a fixed number of pixels as bad, but rather a percentage of the screen and also split it into 3 difference classes of fault, dead pixels, pixels fixed to a single colour and clusters of pixels in either of the former two categories.

      In theory thats fine. But a lot of companies labeled their much large LCDs as class 2, on much larger resolutions by the class 2 specs you could have several dead pixels - or colour fixed pixels - on the screen and it still not be faulty by the official specs, which then means its not faulty by a legal definition so companies have no obligation to cover you under warranty.

      Class 1 is a far stricter definition, I honestly can't rememebr for certain if any dead pixels are allowed - but I think the answer is no - if what you would expect of a high quality device.

      Admittedly if you just bought it from a store and then took it home you would probably be able to return it for a refund if it had any bad pixels - depending on your local laws (the sale of goods act and the distance selling act would protect uk customers for example) even if it was a class 2 lcd display and not "faulty" by that definition.

      The problem you would hit is if the screen went faulty or got a couple of bad pixels after the first few weeks, you would then have to get it repaired/replaced under the warranty, and not all companies honour the spirit of the warranty, many prefering to take the cheaper option of following the minium requiredment the law demands.

      Given dell are one of the only 2 suppliers I know of for the 30" screen, and given their reputation on customer service issues I'd be very wary if they still considered their 30" screen as a class 2 device. (I'm not certain what they are treated as however, or if they off a zero dead pixel policy, they may do but I'd want to be certain before parting with that kind of cash)

      iirc there was a /. article on this quite some time ago - though it could have been a different website....

      --
      $_="Slashdotter";$syn="OTT";s;..;;;sub _{print shift||$_};s!ash!Perl !;s=$syn=ack=i;tr+LLEd+BLAH+;_"Just Another ";_
    6. Re:It wouldn't surprise me by TheMeuge · · Score: 1

      Is that the Westinghouse?

      How are you liking it?

    7. Re:It wouldn't surprise me by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Interesting... I bought a 22" wide screen LCD monitor a few months ago. It was about the same price as your 19"....

      And the 22" was definitely the sweet spot. The price doubled for anything much larger.

    8. Re:It wouldn't surprise me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where? I did a search on Froogle.co.uk and the cheapest 22" widescreen I found was £228.19 which is about £100 more than the 19" mentioned.

    9. Re:It wouldn't surprise me by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      In Canada. Sorry.

      I think mine was in the range of $300, which is in the same range as 130 pounds.

      I know firsthand that things tend to be more expensive in the UK, but it's interesting that the sweet spot also seems to sit in a different place.

    10. Re:It wouldn't surprise me by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Also LCD TVs have not even remotely kept pace with PC screen prices - they still seem to be at prices PC screens were 1-2 years ago for equivalent sizes.

      Why would they? It's a different market.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    11. Re:It wouldn't surprise me by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      It is unexpectedly good on the digital inputs (I've read people have problems with the input labeled DVI2. I haven't tried DVI2, but DVI1 and the HDMI input work well). DVI output from a GeForce 5900 at full resolution looks flawless. It also displays lower resolutions well over DVI. S-Video in looks terrible. The up-conversion results in a flickering grid of squares... It seems to blank half of the pixels in the alternate frame when de-interlacing. Again, that's only on the S-Video in. It only supports 'stretch' for scaling from 4:3; there is no 'zoom' for watching 16:9 video from a 4:3 letterboxed source. That may be a deal-breaker for people without an external video processing solution. Using an external device to upscale solves the problem. The speakers aren't worth using, but that's true for almost every TV on the market. The remote is also terrible, but since there is no built in tuner it is just a glorified power button anyway.

      I had to return the first one because of a cluster of 9 adjacent dead pixels (looked like a hair was on the glass during the etching process), but the replacement is flawless. I've read that people have problems with vertical brightness bands. The set I returned had this issue, but only for viewing angles outside of 170 degrees; the image was unviewable before the brightness bands were apparent. It is probably because the backlight is in multiple pieces that are assembled at a very slight angle to each other. My replacement set doesn't have this problem at all.

      It is *really light*. That is probably one of its best features. It is about 60lbs with the stand removed. That makes for very inexpensive mounting, and less anxiety while installing it.

      If I had to change anything about it, I would add a video input that was easily accessible from the front. It is quite difficult to plug anything into the set once it is mounted on the wall. I had to plug in a couple cables that I hide behind the set while I'm not using them so I can plug stuff in without taking the TV off the wall. Considering the price, though, I'm quite pleased with it.

    12. Re:It wouldn't surprise me by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      That is a good point. You would figure that without a tuner you should be able to pick up a 19" LCD TV for around $250, and with a tuner for around $500...

      There are some of those available though:

      http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82 E16889251010

      Seems like there should be a lot more. The price of a 19" Aquos, for example, is practically criminal. The profit margin must be 150%.

      If you're going to use a cable box, you may as well just buy a computer monitor.

  8. I disagree. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Personally I'd rather have to pay a little more and have a choice of manufacturers, than pay less and get stuck with only one.

    You're in the very small minority. It has been proven time and time again, the American consumer wants the cheapest working shit that they can buy - and then throw it out when it fails.

    Walmart's success, airline service, customer (no)service across all industries, etc... are some examples of this attitude - people voted with their money and this is what we have.

    The exception to this rule is for status items - cars and homes come to mind.

    1. Re:I disagree. by Psiren · · Score: 3, Funny

      Glad I'm not an American consumer then. Or American, come to that.

    2. Re:I disagree. by c_forq · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't think that is quite right: close, but not perfect. Americans want every product to have a range, and to get what you pay for. They want tools that get the job done, and if the job is their specialty then they want tools that are real nice. For a mechanic a $25 set of wrenches won't cut it, just like for a professional photographer a $200 LCD won't cut it. If you've ever gone shopping for a new range with someone that values their kitchen you know the cheapest option isn't the one you will be buying. Most people want the items they care about to as nice as they can afford, and the things they don't value as much to be as cheap as possible while the object/service still functions.

      --
      Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
  9. -1, redundant by MustardMan · · Score: 1, Funny

    In your haste to get a first post, you forgot to read the second half of the slashdot article summary, where they MENTIONED the dram price fixing fiasco. Way to be insightful there, bucko.

  10. Could someone explain this? by 8tim8 · · Score: 1

    I can understand an investigation that specifically centers around sales in the US, but it sounds like this has an international side to it. I thought that US regulators couldn't do much internationally to cartels in industries like shipping, diamonds or oil (doesn't OPEC do this very thing by manipulating the availability of oil?).

    1. Re:Could someone explain this? by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1
      I can understand an investigation that specifically centers around sales in the US, but it sounds like this has an international side to it. I thought that US regulators couldn't do much internationally . . .

      From TFA:

      Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. said it had been served with subpoenas by regulators in the U.S., South Korea and Japan, while Sharp Corp. and Taiwan's AU Optronics Corp. were contacted by the Japan Fair Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), they said. Taiwan's Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corp. said a subsidiary in the U.S. was also contacted by the DOJ.

      Article doesn't say that US is doing this alone. It's an international regulatory effort. I just hope Dubya doesn't learn that were cooperating with foreigners.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    2. Re:Could someone explain this? by photomonkey · · Score: 1

      The cynical side of me would suggest that the US doesn't go after oil and diamond companies because they own the government, and make the leaders and legislators rich.

      The even more cynical side of me would say that the government hopes to make newest-generation boob tubes (TVs) cheaper so that more people buy them and the corporate-fueled consumerism and brainwashing can continue to enslave the working classes of America. Now in HD.

      In other words, the government loses very little fighting relatively harmless monopolies like Korean LCD manufacturers; at least a lot less than they would lose fighting oil and mineral monopolies. The government also enjoys the side benefit of John Q American being happy that he can now buy (or obtain through credit, more likely) another item that he doesn't really need, and that the government helped make it all possible.

      I'm not saying that people should live spartan lives, devoid of TV or other entertainment, but in a time with a dangerous economy, volatile job market, astronomical personal debt levels and an uncertain future for retirement and disability resources, do we really need to worry about replacing our still-working CRT TVs with Asian-manufactured, unnecessary tech?

      It's sad, but I've only recently realized that the best way to make a buck is to target Americans with stuff they don't need. Governments can get rich easily by facilitating that idea.

      --
      Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
  11. TFA is light on the details by TubeSteak · · Score: 1
    This seems to be the only bit of speculation that I found through Google News:
    http://news.com.com/LCD+price-fixing+investigation +grows/2100-1047_3-6142839.html

    Analysts said the investigation may focus on actions from some years ago.

    A news report from Korean wire service Yonhap speculated that the probe may zero in on suspicions of collusion during 2003-2004, when LCD makers had better control of the market.

    "From what we have heard, the investigation may be stemming from a situation two or three years ago when the two companies were selling LCD panels at comparable prices," said Michael Min, an analyst at Korea Investment & Securities.
    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
    1. Re:TFA is light on the details by TiredOfCrap · · Score: 1

      I would venture to suggest that unlike many industries, this market has very little time to recover development costs, and therefore the initial pricing is likely to be high.

      Unlike the drug industry, for example, the likely research, design and tooling cost will have to be recouped in the first 18 months of the product's life. The drug industry has years to be able to recoup these costs.

      There are far more worthy causes to take up than this. Why can't the "investigators" get a grip, and go for the things that are patently price fixed, like broadband, cable TV, etc?

    2. Re:TFA is light on the details by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Drugs have government granted price fixing. Patents are more corrupt than any corporate collusion, since it has the violent force of the government behind it.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  12. Bring it on by Fist!+Of!+Death! · · Score: 3, Funny

    I loathe the LCD Television - I want the LCD Wall - no - I want the LCD Room constructed purely of LCD Walls. No! more! price! fixing! swines!

    --
    Nothing witty
  13. Econ 101 by mumblestheclown · · Score: 3, Insightful
    "even though all the significant marginal costs (like laying cable + fibre, back-end infrastructure"

    Econ 101:

    • You are referring to fixed costs, not marginal costs
    • The whole point of fixed costs is that you risk a lot at the beginning to hopefully get a stream of rewards later.
    The "there is no real competiton" excuse is whining amongst those who weren't clever enough to make the big investments earlier or can't make them now because of market forces. yes, this is tough for consumers, but that's the market - it goes to those who get in early. You only have a case to whine if your provider has a monopoly by law.
    1. Re:Econ 101 by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You only have a case to whine if your provider has a monopoly by law.

      Uh, they do. The cable company has exclusive rights to lay underground cable along certain routes. The phone company generally has exclusive rights to their phone poles, which are provided by an arrangement with the city/county. You can't just go put up a bunch of phone poles and offer DSL.

      On top of that, the FCC isn't exactly making it easy for people who want to provide wireless internet access to get spectrum. Granted, there's a fixed amount available, but the idea behind the FCC is that they are supposed to portion out the spectrum in the public interest. That means that if someone is ready and willing to provide the public a service that they want, they should get the spectrum. Instead the FuCC plays games with auctions and bullshit and helps media conglomerates extend their control.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Econ 101 by planetmn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The "there is no real competiton" excuse is whining amongst those who weren't clever enough to make the big investments earlier or can't make them now because of market forces.

      You forgot one group: Those that weren't allowed to make the big investments earlier because of monopoly rights granted to the utility companies and other legislative barriers put up by the utility companies who were subsidized in order to make those big investments.

      -dave
      --
      /., where "Apple and Google provide Iran with nukes" will be refuted with "But Microsoft is a convicted monopolist"
    3. Re:Econ 101 by mumblestheclown · · Score: 1
      The cable company has exclusive rights to lay underground cable along certain routes.

      More likely than not, this exclusive right was granted to the cable company at a time when the public wanted ubiquitous cable TV and wanted it NOW NOW NOW even though the market wasnt going to support this, and the city dangled this exclusivity as a carrot for the cable company to make the necessary long term investment.

      The phone company generally has exclusive rights to their phone poles, which are provided by an arrangement with the city/county. You can't just go put up a bunch of phone poles and offer DSL.

      This is because the phone company has to do things by law such as serving unprofitable neighborhoods. But, here's the irony of it all - mobile phones are making much fixed line service obsolete, right? So we see how technology can improve to defeat even an entrenched 'monopoly' provider.

      On top of that, the FCC isn't exactly making it easy for people who want to provide wireless internet access to get spectrum. Granted, there's a fixed amount available, but the idea behind the FCC is that they are supposed to portion out the spectrum in the public interest. That means that if someone is ready and willing to provide the public a service that they want, they should get the spectrum. Instead the FuCC plays games with auctions and bullshit and helps media conglomerates extend their control.

      Putting aside your juvenile ranting for a moment, you *do* realize that spectrum auctions are just about the best way to serve the public good? The reason is that because they are basically 'winners curse' type auctions - if you win, you probably overpaid. I'd sure as hell rather have some given piece of spectrum controlled by some company who is propping up my standard of living because it overpaid than for some amateurs to muck around and, at best, make a bit of profit for themselves. The market mechanism forces the companies in this case to be efficient and innovative to get back on their investment. To wit, all those companies that spent those big bucks on 3G spectrum licenses appear to be taking it up the arse at the moment.

    4. Re:Econ 101 by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Putting aside your juvenile ranting for a moment, you *do* realize that spectrum auctions are just about the best way to serve the public good? The reason is that because they are basically 'winners curse' type auctions - if you win, you probably overpaid. I'd sure as hell rather have some given piece of spectrum controlled by some company who is propping up my standard of living because it overpaid than for some amateurs to muck around

      you are 100% incorrect. the only thing having the prices auctioned up into the stratosphere accomplishes is keeping the smaller providers from participating. it pretty much automatically ensures that one of the titans will get it, and we can see how responsive they are to our needs now.

      And I'm not talking about amateurs, I'm talking about commercial providers.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Econ 101 by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Okay, who's got monopoly rights to LCDs?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    6. Re:Econ 101 by planetmn · · Score: 1

      Nobody. The post I was replying to, was replying to a post about broadband internet monopolies.

      -dave

      --
      /., where "Apple and Google provide Iran with nukes" will be refuted with "But Microsoft is a convicted monopolist"
    7. Re:Econ 101 by mumblestheclown · · Score: 1
      I'm confused - somebody modded the previous tripe as 'insightful'?

      If the prices are 'auctioned up into the stratosphere', then where does the money go? It goes right to the taxpayers. If smaller providers have something of value that is perceived as valuable by the market, then there is nothing from stopping them from banding together to form a collective. If the communication and coordination costs are not excessive, then they can certainly win big for themselves.

      They don't do that you say? Well, it must be that like a Pizza Shop that only makes one pizza a week, the small companies that you mention do not have the right scale to succeed in the marketplace. We can all bitch and moan about large companies, but in this case, it's fairly clear that they are operating at the right scale PLUS as an added bonus they are actually filling out taxpayer coffers by overpaying in bandwidth auctions!

      I don't cry for the subsidy-needing small and medium sized businesses that you suggest. (this is not to say that I don't like small businesses - hell, I own two and have a payroll of 40 people in total, but certainly ones that are propped up by subsidy suck - and that's what eliminating an auction would be - corporate welfare for small businesses).

    8. Re:Econ 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The funny thing here is that in your particular example of ISPs, there was no risk at the beginning. Billions in contracts were given to the TelCos by our local government to install the infrastructure for us. We are the ones who paid for it, and now for those of us who were actually lucky enough to get broadband access to our homes, we're paying for it again.

    9. Re:Econ 101 by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      If the prices are 'auctioned up into the stratosphere', then where does the money go? It goes right to the taxpayers.

      Yeah, right. I bet you believe in fairies and leprechauns, too.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  14. Slashdot slashdot slashdot.... sigh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The probe centers on TFT (thin-film transistor) LCDs, according to Samsung. They are used in a wide range of electronics products including flat-panel televisions and computer monitors, laptop computers, cell phones and digital music players.

    Sometimes I wonder if slashdot is struggling to come up with filler text to make articles look more significant than they are. Was the above REALLY needed for /.ers?

    Come on now..

    1. Re:Slashdot slashdot slashdot.... sigh.... by brxndxn · · Score: 1

      Dammit! Can you please freakin' simplify? How the hell is a normal slashdotter supposed to understand your crazy scientific terms?

      Please explain 'filler text', the capitalization of the word 'really', and wtf is the ?-looking thingEND OF INTEROGATIVE SENTENCE

      --
      --- We need more Ron Paul!
  15. The breaking point by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 2, Funny

    The TFT market suffers a shortage every time Xzibit pimps another ride.

  16. All For It by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 0, Redundant

    If it makes them cheaper, then I'm all for it!

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  17. Wonder if this means cheap 1080p. by Viewsonic · · Score: 1

    If you look around at 1080P lcd prices, you'll find they run around 2500-5000 from companies like Samsung, Sony, etc. Yet, then if you go look at brands like Westinghouse, you'll find the same LCDs for nearly $1500-2000 cheaper all around. Sure, the larger companies use better parts, but $2000 better? Yeah I don't think so. Maybe we'll see a nice $1500 drop across the board after this.

    1. Re:Wonder if this means cheap 1080p. by great90wt · · Score: 1

      What I was told was that Westinghouse uses the panels that don't meeting the other companies specs.

    2. Re:Wonder if this means cheap 1080p. by friedmud · · Score: 1

      Please do some research before spouting off your crap.

      Samsung, Sharp and Sony are all more expensive than Westinghouse _for very good reasons_. There are very real differences in the technologies that drive the panels... even if they were to all use the same exact screens (which they don't) the tech driving the panels would still differentiate the low ball crap from the good stuff. It's just like if you buy the exact same LCD monitor and hook it up to two different video cards... sure you could hook it up to a video card that was $500 cheaper.... but when playing a game the image will look like shit on the cheaper one. Go do some reading of actual reviews of the panels... or better yet, go down to Fry's, Best Buy, Circuit City or wherever and get them to put similar panels right next to eachother and compare the picture quality for a range of different inputs (480,720,1080). I guarantee you will be able to see large differences... even in the more expensive TVs.

      Besides the chips that actually run the panels... there's also all the features. For instance, most cheap Westinghouse (and other cheap brands) TVs _don't_ come with HiDef tuners in them at all. If you look closely they will be called "HD Monitors" instead of "HD TVs".... because essentially they are just a large computer monitor. You have to hook them up to a cable box or external HD receiver to use them. This saves a huge amount of cost, but at the expense of utility. There are many other similar things that effect the price.

      You might notice that this is a hot button for me. The reason is that I see uninformed consumers making terrible purchasing decisions all the time. Now, some people just want the biggest damn TV they can get at the cheapest price (this seems to be the American way) and these cheap panels fill the void. But, if you are actually wanting a good picture at a great price and reasonable size, what to buy is a lot less clear. Money really does buy you something in this market...

      I've been shopping for an LCD TV for about 4 months now (no, I still haven't bought one). In that time I have gone through _completely deciding_ to buy 4 different brands and around 6 different models. Each time I make a decision I do a little bit more digging, a little bit more comparison and come up with a new winner. Looking back to some of my first decisions, I can't believe how terrible of a deal I would have been getting.

      Anyway... sorry for the tirade. Just get out there and seriously do some comparison shopping, I think you'll be amazed at the differences.

      Derek

    3. Re:Wonder if this means cheap 1080p. by Five+Bucks! · · Score: 1

      Maybe in several years... But these anti-competitive cases take a long time to resolve.

      Besides when the case is resolved, there'll be a new technology in visual displays that they'll be able to make us pay through the nose for. Then we might have more allegations for anti-competitive behaviour.

      Wash, rinse, repeat - ad nauseam

      --
      52 52'23" W 47 32'07" N
  18. Don't blow a gasket. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 4, Funny

    This never seizes to amaze me.

    You might want to put some oil on that ... I suggest a good synthetic blend for the winter.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    1. Re:Don't blow a gasket. by therufus · · Score: 0

      Umm, if it never seizes, it doesn't need oil...

      --
      You moved your mouse. Please restart Windows for changes to take effect.
  19. PolySci 101 by Kadin2048 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You only have a case to whine if your provider has a monopoly by law.

    The real problem starts to occur when companies -- any companies, really -- start to interfere in the political process and win concessions for themselves. Large companies have taken to buying influence in politics and using it as a way to protect themselves from competition. This adversely affects and distorts the market, which needs to have barriers to entry that are as low as possible in order to produce the best outcome for consumers, and operate in a regulatory framework that isn't being manipulated by actors in the market themselves.

    Laissez faire on the part of the government with regard to companies would be fine, if the companies were doing the same to the political process. But when companies are habitually attempting to influence politics (on the local, state, and national levels, to a point where it's considered endemic and normal), then there is a valid reason for people wanting to interfere with the companies. You can't judge a company simply on the basis that it's acting according to the law, when it has helped shape the laws itself.

    I think this all comes back to a key problem in the U.S. right now: we have forgotten the place of the corporation as an entity. It is not a person, and has no place in the political realm. It has no inherent rights in the same way a natural citizen does; all of its rights are granted, given to it by the citizens because they feel it will be beneficial to do so. It is the duty of corporations to continually justify their existence to the citizenry, because it is to them that they owe it.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  20. effect on my pocket? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am not sure how these investigations go. My question is, will this result in cheaper devices?

    If I have to pay less for these things due to these investigations, I am very interested in knowing what is all this going on.

  21. CPUs may be a better point than you think. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Similar to how many PC's have one of two brands of manufactured CPUs.

    I think this is the key issue. The situation with LCD displays ought to look like the situation with CPUs, but it doesn't.

    With CPUs, competition between the two major players has created a price war and feature war, giving consumers more power for less money on a basically monthly basis. Billions of dollars of research have been spent trying to further the cycle of better, faster, cheaper (and recently, more efficiently).

    I think that one of the reasons that the LCD market is being investigated is that it doesn't show as much competition as other high-tech sectors that are dominated by a few major players. It ought to be a cutthroat marketplace, where companies are struggling hand-over-foot to outdo each other and deliver a better product to customers for less money. While it's true that prices have come down, it's not the sort of drops that we've seen in semiconductors, and that's a little suspicious. It starts to look as though maybe the major players in LCDs have all gotten together and said "we don't want to get into it like Intel and AMD, so let's agree to slow things down a bit..." and while that may be good for them, it's bad for consumers and also illegal.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    1. Re:CPUs may be a better point than you think. by TheLink · · Score: 1

      "as much competition as other high-tech sectors"

      I wish there were even half that amount of competition and innovation in the furniture sector.

      It's been bugging me for years that you can't get a good chair for a reasonable price (compared to the progress in the high tech sector). One with an adjustable back to seat angle, adjustable overall tilt angle and adjustable height from floor. With decent padding and shape so you don't get pressure sores, and it actually feels comfortable sitting in it.

      I mean it takes how long before you get people to figure out that sitting up straight isn't that good for your back? Sitting up straight, or in those common but crappy chairs sure didn't feel good to me. And it's not even the furniture industry that was interested to find out:

      http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2006/11/27 /sit-posture.html
      http://news.google.com.my/news?hl=en&q=135+degrees +chair+back&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn

      I guess someone in the USA may now start to sue the furniture makers for damaging them, just like the tobacco industry ;).

      --
  22. Re:Least Worries by mpapet · · Score: 1

    LCDs should be the LEAST of these guys worries.

    First, you utterly fail to comprehend how corrupt most tech industries are. if it were possible to effectively quadruple the size of the agency doing this investigation, they would STILL never run out of tech importers that don't follow american business rules. I know this because I worked for an OEM.

    Second, It's this attitude of looking the other way because the price is right TODAY that is the reason that economically, this country is headed for very hard times. You are watching out for number one and everything is right with the world because you are doing well. Check the news on how many "people that matter" are saying the dollar is over-valued. What about the U.S. savings rate? Negative. Trade deficit? What are Americans producing that other countries want? Agricultural goods, entertainment and ? Everything is okay right?

    It's the principal that's important here. Being guided by the rule of law instead of corruption is a win. Yes, it's "water under the bridge" at this point, but transparency and accountability are good things and along the way American industry gets a better chance at competing globally.

    What I want to know is how this particular issue got to the top of the stack. Who pushed it there? How much did it cost them? Why are they allowed to investigate this one? Now THAT's a story worth reading.

    --
    http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
  23. Price fixing in LCDs? Nah! by WheelDweller · · Score: 1

    Just because I can get a 10" LCD with no connector for $30, or put on the connectors for $200? Nah...

    At this point, with not just Apple buying LCDs, but the millions that must be underway now, the prices should be much better than they are. I've heard the CRT market has really dried up...

    --
    --- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
  24. What about the drug and oil companies??? by WallaceAndGromit · · Score: 1

    My only question is... what about the freaking prescription drug and oil/gas companies???

    --
    Name: Mr. Anon E Mouse; SSN: 555-55-5555
    1. Re:What about the drug and oil companies??? by delysid-x · · Score: 1

      or the diamond industry. price fixing at it's finest. i'd only buy syntheytic diamonds, why buy flawed ones?

  25. Very noble by Epsillon · · Score: 1

    ...but I question the motives of these assorted authorities. Where do the fines go? Did DRAM get cheaper? Nope. All that happens, all that will ever happen, is that the fines levied get passed on downstream. As anyone who has ever worked for a PHB knows, shit collects on the way down and, folks, we're at the bottom. It's a stealth tax that appears, on the surface, to be for the public good but ends up reaming us anyway.

    Thanks, assorted .govs, but until you change your penalties from fines to oversight of corporate policy for offending firms, all you're doing is making our lot less happy.

    --
    Resistance is futile. Reactance buggers it up.
  26. Re:Least Worries by Botgirl · · Score: 1

    Ok, so what tech industry should they be looking at? Computer prices are going *down.* I can finally afford an Apple laptop, and that's saying something.

  27. Re:Least Worries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    What are Americans producing that other countries want?
    That's an easy one: Most wanted American export product is peace in other countries.
  28. Re:Least Worries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Most wanted American export product is peace in other countries.
    Second perhaps only to war in third countries.
  29. Ah, ze spelling!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean: "Undoubtably the chromulence of LCDs has continued to increase as well."

  30. Re:Falling Computer Prices by mpapet · · Score: 1

    Computer prices are going *down.*

    They are going down for two reasons:

    1. Apple's laptops are using more generic components than long ago.
    2. Volume of components produced has gone up.

    Do Intel's newest/fastest/bestest CPU prices go down with each successive release? Factoring in volume, they do not.

    There are quite a few bits and bobs inside the average PC where absent corruption an American company would have a chance.

    --
    http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html