Slashdot Mirror
Intel Faces $1.3B Fine In Europe
Hugh Pickens writes "European antitrust regulators, who have been aggressively pursuing what they see as anticompetitive practices among technology companies, could impose their largest fine ever in a market-dominance case against Intel. The commission began investigating Intel in 2000 after Advanced Micro Devices, its arch-rival, filed a complaint. In two sets of charges, in 2007 and 2008, the commission accused Intel of abusing its dominant position in chips by giving large rebates to computer makers, by paying computer makers to delay or cancel product lines, and by offering chips for server computers at prices below actual cost. Some legal experts speculate that Intel's fine could reach about a billion euros, or $1.3B. 'I'd be surprised if the fine isn't as high or higher than in the Microsoft case,' said an antitrust and competition lawyer in London. In 2004 Microsoft paid a fine of €497M, or $663M at current exchange rates, after being accused of abusing its dominance; the EU imposed another $1.3B fine in Feb. 2008."
AMD already has more bang for your buck. Intel's only the best at the top end and even that's questionable when you look at how many benchmarks are forged. Do your own and you'll find they're a lot closer than you think.
Entitlements cost money, you know.
It's a smart move, really. Go after successful foreign companies with the cash and avoid raising taxes at home.
Think of this as a tariff that is not regulated by the WTO.
It's not just about Intel and AMD, it's about the whole market. This kind of behaviour hampers competition, which in the long run hurts users. If some little company comes in with a wonder chip, we all want it to be in a market where it can succeed, not where it is unfairly squashed by this kind of behaviour.
Seems like if you're making tens of billions of dollars annually due to your dominance of the market, a piddly little couple billion dollar fine every few years is a small price to pay. The accusation against Microsoft, similarly, is that they just see the fine as a business expense. When the fine is a drop in the bucket, why not just pay the fine and keep doing what you're doing?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Also, it is true that fines are a significant portion of the EU's small budget.
If so, doesn't this make it rather difficult for the EU to be a disinterested, fair, regulator?
It seems like they would have an incentive to invent corporate crimes and then impose fines for them, regardless of the targeted behaviors effect on consumers.
(Not withstanding TFA, which I haven't read.)
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
They kept AMD in the niche, especially during the days when AMD was indeed making better chips for cheaper. AFAIK the practices they were accused of were stuff like forcing retailers to carry only PCs with Intel CPUs so AMD couldn't get any OEM system sales and was unable to expand its market presence while Intel could prepare better chips to make the money on.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
series of failures
I recently bought a mobo with an AMD Phenom II X3 710 processor. You know, it's one of those quadcores where one of the cores doesn't work, and it gets fried by AMD and sold as a triple-core for about half the price of the quad-core.
Anyway, it worked as advertised, and then after a few days it magically turned into a quad-code !
$ sudo lshw -C cpu
description: CPU
product: AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 10 Processor
vendor: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD]
physical id: 4
bus info: cpu@0
version: AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 10 Processor
All 4 CPUs show in the system monitor and seem to work fine. Should I be happy or worried ?
Non-Linux Penguins ?
I don't think it's just a guise. Intel really appears to be guilty here, and are being punished legitimately. However, you're right that the EU is also motivated by the money, and the judgment is likely to be skewed by a conflict of interest.
I think a much better plan would be to use the money to fund a coupon program under which EU members can get discounts on competitors' products. That would be the most fair because the EU regulators would not have a conflict of interest. It would also really help those companies (ok, AMD) who were hurt by Intel's practices to regain ground that they lost.
Yes, misapplication of antitrust at its worst. This is just protectionism. Know the difference? In this case, AMD benefits, customers pay higher prices. In fact, say Intel raises its prices 0.5%. AMD can then raise their prices 0.4% and come out ahead. Who loses: Customer.
Please, spare me the "but in the future there's more competition, it's better in the long run" argument. I'm tired of reading stupid things today.
You say 'threaten' where the word 'persuaded' is more applicable. It doesn't say Intel was threatening people, it said that they were selling below cost and that THAT action seemingly got retailers to buy.
Don't other companies sell products below cost to expand their market share?
Please refrain from misrepresenting what is happening with subjective/opinionated misleading words.
But to do so after the financial collapse and the current crisis it must take a either a superhuman level of irony special kind of lobotomy.
OK, you call me when that happens. After all the regulated banking systems of Canada and Australia are in such turmoil at the moment in stark contrast to the stable and unshakable US banking system.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.