Slashdot Mirror
Sources Say EU Will Find Intel Anti-Competitive
Anarchduke sends in a Reuters story quoting unnamed sources who say that the European Union has decided to find Intel anti-competitive. The finding should be announced in the coming week. "...the Commission will say Intel paid PC makers to delay or scrap the launch of products containing AMD chips. The Commission will characterize the payments as 'naked restrictions' to competition, the sources said. ... Intel set percentages of its own chips that it wanted PC makers to use, the sources said. For example, NEC Corp was told that 20 percent of its desktop and notebook machines could have AMD chips, the sources said. All Lenovo notebooks had to use Intel chips, as did relevant Dell products. The figure was 95 percent for Hewlett-Packard's business desktops, they said." Previous infractions by Intel include giving illegal rebates to computer makers back in 2007 and paying retailers not to sell AMD-based computer systems.
Intel also had that deal with Skype.
I wonder what else they've been up to?
Are there any plans to punish companies that went along with this? Sure, they could argue they were strong-armed into it by Intel but that's no comfort for AMD and the sales they'll have lost.
...for what the EU executive sees as "naked restrictions" to competition, the sources said.
Pictures of the naked restrictions or it didn't happen.
Just connect the dots. What is the criteria?
1) The company is big
2) The company is essentially a monopoly
3) The company is American
I'd say Google. Maybe Oracle.
So the EU fines Intel.
Exactly who is paying the fine?
Uh, people buying Intel products. As such it means people all over the world will chip in their pennies to pay the EU for Intel's violation.
A better solution than taking money, banning their product for a set time. That is how you truly stop this type of anti competitive behavior. Fining them just means anyone buying the product has a new embedded tax. Locking them out gets the shareholders pissed and makes heads roll. Can you imagine the grief caused by having your major new processor line forbidden from sales? Suddenly vendors look elsewhere for product and possibly for future contracts because your past actions have now interfered with their business.
Being a government entity in need of cash I suspect the EU will fine them less than they fined MS.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
You mean they shouldn't punnish corporation that harm the free market?
Is it me or is no one even remotely interested in following capitalistic rules?
I mean being for the free market and against socialism and all is not just about exiling the commies and making sure you get the highest bonus you can get away with
You forgot:
4) The company abuses its dominant position.
All the time?
The way how companies work, guarantees that it will happen. SOP is to abuse the dominant position as much as possible, and absorb all court decisions and fines that come from it, as they are never enough to make those activities unprofitable.
That is, in US. I hope, EU will do enough slapping to change that.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
In case you need examples:
Saint-Gobain ( 900m euro)
ThyssenKrupp ( 500m)
Hoffmna-La Roche ( 500m)
Siemens ( 400m)
Pilkington ( 400m)
BASF ( 300m)
Otis ( 300m)
You could ask who the US regulators will shake down FIRST. The EU are the only ones with some balls in fighting (mostly) US corporate abuses in the EU. It'd be nice if the US paid attention to their own.....until that day begins, the EU will have to take the role.
A long time ago, Intel had all sorts of wondrous projects in the works. Open formats and innovative chips that would have made it possible for any OS to work with it. And then Microsoft swooped down and quashed this. Played hardball and pigeon holed Intel. Now, close to twenty years later they're finally being busted for similar practices. Part of me says good for the EU for not putting up with this, part of me is a little sad for the young Intel full of potential that got bullied into the position its in today.
The musings of just another geek and his junk.
Unless they fine them billions they'll just shrug it off as a business expense.
Even then it's a hollow victory. The people will be the ones paying the fine via increased prices.
No sig today...
You mean EU firms such as Lufthansa, Daimler, Deutsche Bank, Viag Interkom GmbH, Telefonica S.A., KONE GmbH, those kinds of firms?
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
The problem with going after Microsoft is that there are far too many deeds they need punished for that it'd tie up the courts system for decades to come, and waste a LOT of EU tax payers money on a show trial. There is no "first offense" or "mitigating circumstances" in a lot of what Microsoft have done and continue to do. They are unrepentant in their intentions. It's time to tell them to fuck off in the only terms they will understand. It's easier to just ban Microsoft from the EU altogether as an organized crime syndicate. Make their products and services illegal. Give perhaps a years grace period to allow other businesses in the EU who are reliant on Microsoft time to move their business away from Microsoft.
If you don't want to compete fairly in the EU, you're not welcome in the EU.
From what I remember, the commission can impose fines up to 10% of annual turnover, which for a company like Intel is a funny sum of money.
3) The company is American
See this
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1228499&cid=27904971
and this
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1228499&cid=27904903
for EU companies fined
And get over your 'EU hates US' paranoia
Duh.
Intel have been anti-competitive since end of the nineteens. Once AMD vas viable as alternative, suddenly you couldn't buy AMD supported motherboards anymore, let's not talk about systems. Actually Intel did bad for their distributors, because disallowing to sell AMD it allowed to do it their new competitors - in result new branch of distributors grow up with AMD-only stuff (reselling Intel only when it was really needed).
Intel dealership tactics have been ugly all the time. Even now, OLPC got burned from them few years ago.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
It's not the finding them guilty that counts, it's the actually making them pay up and change their ways. The appeal process can be strung out almost indefinitely, as Microsoft have proved.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
I'm really starting to like the E.U. government. The only thing I wonder is how long it will take corporations to buy-off EU politicians the way they already bought-off U.S. politicians (campaign contributions). It's only a matter of time.
I'm also not nuts about the 50% tax rate (average) in E.U. States. The U.S. tax rate of 40% is still outrageously high, but better.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Now I for sure won't. JMHO, but I believe AMD to be true innovators anyway. I bought a laptop that has an AMD-X2 dual core processor (with the Nvidia chipset and video card) that absolutely smokes. People who see it are totally impressed with the display and video capabilities. Probably because they're used to the crap Intel passes off as their best effort.
The Tea Party is just the GOP with a bag over its head.
Even then it's a hollow victory. The people will be the ones paying the fine via increased prices.
Until now people have been paying Intels bribes and anti-competitive cost on top of the hardware prices.
I'd say the prices will stay the same for Intel and AMD should finally be able to compete.
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
I'm also not nuts about the 50% tax rate (average) in E.U. States. The U.S. tax rate of 40% is still outrageously high, but better.
The high tax rate is also what gives us Europeans luxuries such as free health care.
You fail to appreciate that for that extra 10%, citizens of the EU pay 25% less in out of pocket expenses for such things as healthcare. I don't know about you, but a 40% honest tax, and a 25% hidden tax sounds worse than a 50% honest tax with no hidden taxation.
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
3) The company is American
The 'anti-american' card you guys keep playing is getting old.
Was the AT&T breakup anti-American? Was the United States v. Microsoft case anti-American?
There is a selection bias here. If a Belgian supermarket chain or a Dutch bank gets slapped by the EU anti-trust commissioner, it doesn't make the headlines on Slashdot, so you will never hear about it.
Fact is, Slashdot reports mainly on technology related things that might interest American readers. The technology monopolies and near-monopolies in the last few decades have mostly been American, so if one abuses its monopoly, it's likely to be an American based company.
The European market is actually a patchwork of independently grown and recently connected markets. Some companies you have never heard of have local (near) monopolies, and face severe anti trust restrictions in those markets. None of this would be news that belongs on Slashdot.
1. Start up a retail store
2. Get varrious large organisations to pay you to not sell stuff.
3. Profit!
. Intel could pay you to not sell AMD products.
. Microsoft could pay you to not sell your products with Linux on them.
. Jack Thompson could pay you to not sell your products with violent or sexually explicit software on them
. Pepsi could pay you to not sell Coke
. McDonalds could pay you to not have a Hungry Jacks (Burger King) store in your food court
I'm sure there's money to be made here!
Normally I would agree with you there, but I'm in a slightly less cynical mood today so I'll offer a more toned down view...
Standard operating practice is to use your dominant position as much as possible without abusing it to the detriment of the overall market. This from what I can tell is what Oracle (to pick one of the above examples) does - if they were unfairly treating companies who ever recommended/use other databases I'm sure wed know as Microsoft would be very quick to head to the courtroom about it and open source groups would be up in arms too.
Going above and beyond using your position, i.e. abusing it to the detriment to others, should not be seen as encouraged by the markets any more than someone accidentally dropping their wallet should be seen as encouragement to take the cash found there-in before handing it to "lost property". It is abuse of the monopoly that the EU is going after, not just use. MS were suspected of abusing their monopoly so were investigated and called to order (with little effect it would seem, but that is a whole different discussion), now so have Intel.
Of course the above depends greatly on the definition of the very fine (and arguable) line between use and abuse... Intel's behaviour in this case is definitely abuse, I dont' see how else it could be interpreted, but in other cases things are not so clear cut. Are some of Google's plans an abuse of their position or just use of it? What about some behaviour of (to be more general) the large chain supermarkets?
One final complication is that some monopolies, often those that stemmed from a company having spun off from a previously government owned project, being forced to *help* the competition or at least provide services to them at no cost greater then they would cross-share themselves in their internal economy. BT in the UK having to provide access to exchanges for other companies to install equipment, where possible, being one example. I don't see how this would be possible with Intel, but you can see the reasoning in some of the edicts given to Microsoft by the EU about making the installation of alternative browsers easy and obvious to the user.
Ireland - GP visit: 60, prescription drugs - cutoff is 130 per month, per household, Accident and Emergency visit - 90 unless referred by a GP, public hospital outpatient visits - 90 charge. Waiting lists for public outpatient procedures can be the better part of a year (private patients are treated in public hospitals and get priority).
Some of us haven't experienced enough EU influence.
People earning 30,000 or even more might be paying no income tax, and yet are "poor" due to having to pay through the nose directly for everything.
-- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
Then it's not really "free" is it? You're still paying the bill, except the money is being sucked directly from your paycheck, instead of as a voluntary arrangement between you and your doctor (or dentist).
Also government healthcare is a monopoly, with all the negativity that word implies. People rail about the Comcast monopoly being too dominant and taking-away freedom of choice, and then five minutes later cheerlead the benefits of an Uncle Sam monopoly. Yeah that makes sense. :-| Look at the U.S. government school monopoly - it sure has worked great, hasn't it? Yay, lack of choice. Woo hoo. ;-)
I prefer a system that has literally tens of thousands of hospitals spread across the continent, such that if one hospital (or doctor) sucks ass, you have the freedom to choose a different hospital (or doctor). Embracing monopoly takes-away freedom. It is anti-choice.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
You bought a monopoly. An EU monopoly is no better than a Microsoft monopoly. Both take-away freedom of choice.
Plus your 85-year-old neighbor demanding that you give him money so he can buy a new heart (or house or car), is called theft of property and labor. It's no different than if your neighbor called himself "Lord of the Manor" and forced you the serf to labor, not for your own benefit, but for the Lord's benefit. It's a human rights violation to steal other men's labor.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Stop bringing facts into this! Slashdot groupthink says that the EU is anti-American so it is! Is is is!
While we're on the subject the EU is a communist utopia (hey is there a difference between Socialism & Communism? I dunno, lol) which is out to destroy life as we know it in the United States of America. One day the United States and the EU will read Atlas Shrugged see the light and in a fit of teenage angst convert to Libertarianism and those nice benevolent corporations who just love everybody will help us all become transhuman masters of the universe.
There, I think that about covers this entire article.
The chances are you don't actually pay for your healthcare out of your own pocket you probably buy insurance instead. EU healthcare is just like having an insurance company which includes the entire population and is thus more effective that smaller commercial insurance companies. The additional benefit we have is that we don't have to argue as to whether such and such an illness is covered in the policy - we're looked after brilliantly whatever the problem.
I agree with you that this does not have an "anti-American" motivation and I'm generally pretty sensitive to that sort of thing. To my mind it's that the EU has a different view of how monopolies should be regulated than the U.S. government does - at this time. I actually agree more with the EU position in the cases of Microsoft and Intel. (I do think the EU tends toward over-regulation instead of letting the markets work while the U.S. seems to be too laissez faire.)
I'm pro-capitalism and pro-market, but here in the U.S. we seem to have forgotten that the objectives of government economic policy should not be the perfect "efficiency" of markets. It should be the well being of it's population over the short, medium and long terms. Capitalism and free markets are a means to this end. They are not the end itself. Neither were mandated by God or advocated by any of the major prophets so why do some people act as if they were?
Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
Riiight...
I'm sure you're not "stealing other men's labor" by relying on public roads, your local fire department, police, national defense, federal courts, CDC, FTC, FAA, FCC, etc. etc. etc.
Maybe you'd be happier in a place where government doesn't "steal your labor", and every man makes his own way... Say, Somalia?
10:1 odds say that despite your hatred of civil society, you call yourself a Christian...
One day the United States and the EU will read Atlas Shrugged see the light and in a fit of teenage angst convert to Libertarianism and the dark masters of those sinister, malevolent corporations who just love to exploit everybody will all become transhuman masters of the universe while their slaves and mid-level managers toil in constant labor and agony.
There, I fixed it for you.
How about Intel stops selling its chips to EU nations? They can all run OpenOffice under *nix with AMD chips.
It's a human rights violation to steal other men's labor.
Summary of your postition:
Either a) You really are a fully blown anachist and would rather live in a state with no goverment even if it was like Somalia - consistent, but totally barking
OR b) You believe that govt expenditure you approve of is OK (police? military? roads? schools?) and expenditure you don't approve of (health etc.) is a 'human rights violation', in this case you are a hypocrite.
Take your pick.
You get a 1.5 out of 3. The first item is likely true, in part because smaller cases are probably either handled at the national level (do not need to involve the EU) or perhaps such cases exist but do not get the same media coverage. But OK, I'll give you that one.
As to item 3: the EU also regularly heavily fines large European companies. For example, Siemens got fined for 400 million euro for forming a price cartel. Also see here: "The total fines slapped on 11 companies based in the EU and Japan amount to some 750.7 million euros. [..] The total penalty for the cartel is the second-highest imposed by the commission [as of 2007], following a record 790.5 million euros for fixing vitamin prices in 2001".
Oh, and before you ask, that vitamin cartel involved Hoffman-La Roche of Switzerland, which got fined 462m euros, and BASF of Germany, which got fined to the tune of 296m.
As to 2: the company doesn't have to be a monopoly either, although such fines do indeed commonly concern oligopolies (since forming cartels is a very lucrative prospect in such an environment, for obvious reasons). See above examples. Because of such cartels you could perhaps call this "essentially a monopoly", so ok, half point there.
I'd have assumed you where just trolling, but since you are getting upmodded and I've seen such sentiments in other discussions as well, I thought I'd point this out.
Every expression is true, for a given value of 'true'
"How often does the EU find companies in Europe anti-competitive?"
Here is what you have on /. with the /tardian Moderation, the question above was aksed and modded TROLL. Obviously its a legit question and yet its forbidden here to discuss and its obvioulsy relevant.
Of course to moderation here, its GWB's fault
Thats how they roll and its obvious whats going on in the EU, the socialist house of cards needs to bleed more money from the producers of the world to pay for their utopian delusion that is just a giant ponzi scheme of an economy.
...not just about... making sure you get the highest bonus you can get away with
Communist! Get him!
I'm really starting to like the E.U. government. The only thing I wonder is how long it will take corporations to buy-off EU politicians the way they already bought-off U.S. politicians (campaign contributions). It's only a matter of time.
See, the EU have thought this out rather nicely... How are they going to bribe them when all their money is already taken in fines? Hah!
And the free market works even here. Here in Belgium you can choose between the Christelijke Mutualiteit, Bond Moyson and the neutral health care insurance.
To my mind it's that the EU has a different view of how monopolies should be regulated than the U.S. government does - at this time.
Maybe it has more to do with monopolies playing by the rules when doing business inside the USA, but until recently having very little incentive to do so in other parts of the world ?
You mean they shouldn't punnish corporation that harm the free market?
I think you might have an odd definition of "free market". IANAE, but it seems to me that a business protecting its interests against competition is a fundamental part of the free market concept.
Is it me or is no one even remotely interested in following capitalistic rules?
The ultimate state of any corporation in a sufficiently large market is to become a monopoly - and the only way to do that is to stifle or absorb all competition. This vaunted competition that drives the free market also drives the free market toward the consolidation which forms monopolies.
As soon as the government starts interfering, it's no longer a true "free market" - and certainly isn't adhering to the "capitalistic rules".
This offers two benefits: the first is that Intel gets hit in the wallet where they need to be for their actions. The second is that AMD recovers some of the money lost due to Intel's actions, thus encouraging actual competition by allowing AMD to survive. As a side benefit of this action, ATI would also survive, thus ensuring that Nvidia has effective competition in the graphics card market,
Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
NY Times "WASHINGTON â" President Obamaâ(TM)s top antitrust official this week plans to restore an aggressive enforcement policy against corporations that use their market dominance to elbow out competitors or to keep them from gaining market share."
"The new enforcement policy would reverse the Bush administrationâ(TM)s approach, which strongly favored defendants against antitrust claims. It would restore a policy that led to the landmark antitrust lawsuits against Microsoft and Intel in the 1990s."
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
What are you talking about ? By having a nationwide healthcare system, any doctor or hospital would accept you, instead of having to look through your insurance policy to see which doctors you can visit.
A good example of a case covering both points you make was the BA/Virgin price-fixing case, handled by the Office of Fair Trading here in the UK instead of by the EU. It wasn't monopoly that caused the problem, but oligopolist price fixing.
The US DoJ got a look in on that one for obvious reasons.
All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
In a truly free market a monopoly is unlikely. The semiconductor market is not a free market at all, but one based around artificial monopolies (patents and copyrights). In this case adding regulation actually makes it freer.
Of all the reasons to speak against universal healthcare, "theft of property and labor" based on your value judgment of another life is not one of them.
I mean being... against socialism and all is not just about exiling the commies...
That's called uniting a nation through a common enemy thus making them susceptable to manipulation. Every major ideology works just fine if it would be implemented and practiced properly. But none is, due to the "human factor", thus we have failed capitalism and failed socialism. The ignorant merely frown and point to the other side whilst the wise understand the difficulties of any side.
I am the lawn!
Please. You may get a wet dream out of banning MS, but here in the real world, people are dependent on their products and services.
Don't get me wrong, I would love to see a world devoid of the evil MS monopoly, replaced by cooperation, interdependence, and strong commitments to open standards and free software.
But it has to happen gradually, and the main reason for the transition has be to a desire of the industry, not a government ruling. Government has the responsibility of guiding society, but under no circumstances should it be able to control it so directly and heavy-handedly.
except if you add all those together, you barely hit the amount for JUST the microsoft fine, and once the Intel fine kicks in, it will look like pennies.
Let's do a foot race analogy!
Two racers competing. Ideally, the faster runner should win. But one competitor isn't quite sure that he will win or that the margin will be big enough. So instead of focusing on being the best runner he can possibly be, he sets about bribing judges, paying shoe sellers not to sell the best shoes to the other runner, and making deals with sponsors not to sponsor the other runner.
This is about fair competition and calling people out for using dirty and ILLEGAL tricks to suppress the competition. In the U.S., big companies have largely purchased most of the government and get away with things they shouldn't. In the E.U., a relatively fresh government body, has not yet been bought out by large companies and are more free to enforce laws in which big businesses are in violation. This may eventually change as time goes on. I suspect the change will come through pressure by the U.S. government, on behalf of U.S. industries.
Wouldn't it be nice if the E.U. could somehow gain leverage and apply pressure on the U.S. government to reform?
A free market is a really nice way for optimal results from use of infinite resources by infinite competing entities. Too bad reality intrudes with things like not being infinite.
The specific problem here is that semiconductor fabrication plants are bloody expensive, so the amount of entities that can afford one will not allow for even a reasonable approximation of a free market.
While it's true that Capitalism is "efficient" (for some values of efficiency), the purpose of capitalism is not to maximize utility or efficiency or distribution of resources. While it does all those things, and even many of its proponents have claimed them to be the greatest virtue of Capitalism, they are mere side effects.
The purpose of any government policy should be to maximize freedom and autonomy of the individual. Capitalism is the economic manifestation of this principle. It is the idea that anyone may select their own destiny based on their abilities, effort, values, and the resources that are voluntarily given to them by others.
It is not necessary to be a capitalist in the traditional sense, since free capitalism allows groups to form with their own values (up to and including communism), so long as those groups form voluntarily. All that capitalism requires is that its members have no power to force their beliefs and values on others, something that even many "capitalists" miss out on.
I tend to think that the monopolies have more freedom in the US, thanks to *ahem - cough* "lobbying" *cough cough* in Washington. Any company that can go to capital hill with millions to spend (read "lavish on greedy politicians) can come back down the hill assured of the fact that regulation won't touch them.
"Playing by the rules" is easy when the rules writers are on your payroll.
IMHO, AMD makes a better product, and that opinion is being borne out in recent news. Virtualization on almost any 64 bit AMD processor is a given. Virtualization on Intel chips is a big "maybe", because Intel has gone cheap, and tried to make people pay a premium for full virtualization capabilities. I'm happy to see Intel slapped around by the EU. It's time that the US got onboard, and did some slapping of it's own.
That makes me wonder how honest the politicians are. Do they STAY bought after they've been payed for?
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
First, your arithmetic is atrocious. Work on that. Second, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "the Microsoft fine", seeing how Microsoft has been fined several times, since unlike those European companies, it just doesn't want to learn. Third, none of the companies I listed were stupid enough to try to string the commission along. But then, with profit margins reaching 81%(par. 464), perhaps it's not really a matter of "stupidity", ey.
I never did the first time. Point being, if Intel didn't release such crap, their laptops with Nvidia hardware would perform as ably as my new one does. Does at a price under $500, I might add.
The Tea Party is just the GOP with a bag over its head.
Even then it's a hollow victory. The people will be the ones paying the fine via increased prices.
Why would they wait until they get fined to raise prices?
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Wouldn't it be nice if the E.U. could somehow gain leverage and apply pressure on the U.S. government to reform?
As an American and an Atheist, I say to this: "God Yes."
Skiffy is Spiffy, but Ort is tort.
They're larger companies so they get fined more. The point of a fine is to be a deterrent, which means it has to scale with the size of the company's earnings. How would it deter them if it was some tiny fixed cost?
Microsoft's fine had penalties added in for not paying on time, so it's not exactly a fair comparison point. They could have gotten off rather lighter if they'd skipped dicking about.
And the size of the fine is based on yearly revenue, so if Intel's fine is bigger, it just means Intel is bigger.
I am just not getting how the MOD's can MOD a first post redundant.
You mean they shouldn't punnish corporation that harm the free market?
I think you might have an odd definition of "free market". IANAE, but it seems to me that a business protecting its interests against competition is a fundamental part of the free market concept.
You're the one with the odd definitions. If I protect my interests by hiring mercenaries to shoot anyone who goes into my competitor's business that's the free market since I'm just protecting my interests against competitors?!?
As soon as the government starts interfering, it's no longer a true "free market"
Umm, without government protections, there is no free market, just anarchy, which is decidedly unfree for everyone who doesn't have the most firepower.
Except that when the government runs the insurance company, they CAN decide "Well, you're 75 years old and this heart surgery is REALLY expensive......so we've decided it's not in the best interest of the country to pay that much money since you're already old. Sorry Chuck, you're going to die. Oh, and we still want your taxes too". THAT, along with the blatant inefficiency (it's real easy to find the numbers about how long it takes to get treatment -- plenty of examples out there of things like 8 months to live with no treatment for cancer, but due to government run health systems you can't see a doctor for 10 months -- so 2 months after you're dead, you can go see a doctor), is why government run health care is a very bad idea.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Ban Microsoft from an entire region with only a year's grace period??? I have heard some crazy things in my time, but this is just...
Oh wait, this is Slashdot. Never mind.
It appears that not everyone agrees with this: ...
4. Tendency for industry competition to evolve into monopolies and oligopolies
Martin J. Whitman
it's important to remember that "monopoly" when used here doesn't mean 100% of the market, but (like MS) enough of the market that it might as well be 100%, or at least large enough that they can exercise anti-competitive behavior. Some might suggest that Walmart is already influencing the market: I don't know if they're actually anti-competitive, and there are certainly other retailers, but let's face it, they have no artificial monopoly protections such as patents and yet they are still dominating the market. Unchecked (and if nothing else changes) they could easily grow to encompass the majority of the retail market... personally I happen to agree with Mr. Whitman: there needs to be some regulation on business to ensure that there continues to be competition. It's somewhat counter-intuitive, and it's certainly not what Big Business wants people to believe
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
Well that depends on if you're using a Pentium to calculate it.
I'd say the prices will stay the same for Intel and AMD should finally be able to compete.
Yeah, because a bureaucrat can fix the fact that Intel is well ahead in manufacturing capacity and technology, and that Intel's chips are now superior across the board including AMD's last holdout the server market.
Going to be tough for AMD to compete with only the low-end market.
*Ahem*
[shout]NOTHING RUN BY THE GOVERNMENT IS FREE![/shout]
Ok, you see, when the government does something for "free", you're still paying for it. Every time you make any money at all, the government takes money from you by force. The more things the government provides for "free", the more money they have to take from you in order to pay for it. Just because they're taking more from your paycheck before you get it doesn't mean that you're not paying for it.
It's the same as the stupid "free college education" people try to claim about the EU -- just because the college doesn't send you a bill doesn't mean you don't pay for it. In fact, a typical American 4 year degree costs between $50,000 and $80,000. Sounds like a lot, right? Well you pay a hell of a lot more when the government provides it "for free" because EVERY DAY OF YOUR LIFE that you pay taxes, you're paying for that "free" education -- the more successful you become, the more money you make, the more you have to pay for that "free" education and "free" health care.
The biggest lie governments ever told was convincing the masses that the government can give them things for free.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Every major ideology works just fine if it would be implemented and practiced properly. But none is, due to the "human factor", thus we have failed capitalism and failed socialism.
Umm, ignoring how humans act is kind of a non-starter for any ideology. We don't have failed capitalism or failed socialism. Every reasonably stable economy in the world operates with a mix of both. What fails is extremism. Trying to push an economy too forward towards either socialism or capitalism destabilizes it.
The problem is that the vast majority of people, regardless of what country they live in, think that they're SO wonderful that they should have everything they desire and that if they aren't successful enough in life to be able to afford what they desire, then someone should force others to give them what they desire.
I had a high school dropout complaining the other day that the government should force all car companies to sell their cars for no more than $10,000 so that "everyone can afford every car". Of course he was completely unable to understand that it costs money to design and build cars (as well as being unable to understand that companies exist to make a profit and that if they can't make a profit, they'll shut down).
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
The "free" in "free market" refers to freedom of entry and exit. It in no way underwrites the archaic understanding you are pushing. It used to be believed, back before large conglomerate monopolies, that the free market governed itself. Then monopolies happened, either state manufactured via patents, or through what you describe. Nations wishing a free market economy then realized that the "free" had to be enforced via regulations and those regulations needed teeth to punish the Business School Product who connived, cheated, and stole violating the "free".
Antitrust regulation was drawn up and enforced. Then a strange thing happened, people like you never read up on what makes a free market and the "free" stopped being as protected as it needed to be. The consequence is companies that feel they can do anything they like to restrict "free" causing those of us who do read heartburn.
If I protect my interests by hiring mercenaries to shoot anyone who goes into my competitor's business that's the free market since I'm just protecting my interests against competitors?!?
No, I'm pretty sure that that's just conspiracy and Murder 1... d: </pedantic>
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Those figures should have euro symbols in front of them. Slashdot is still stuck in pre-1999 currency era.
-- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
The problem with going after Microsoft is that there are far too many deeds they need punished for that it'd tie up the courts system for decades to come, and waste a LOT of EU tax payers money on a show trial.
Well, the EU could make money with fines, so that isn't a big deal, but I do agree taking all of their illegal acts piecemeal as it has been so far is a lost cause. The EU either needs to be much more aggressive with pursuing individual violations and make the punishments really hurt, or they need to take a different tack. Personally, I think they need to coordinate with the US and take a concerted action and break MS up.
It's easier to just ban Microsoft from the EU altogether as an organized crime syndicate. Make their products and services illegal.
This breaks competition just as much as MS's actions do. I also don't think it is practical. It is better to have Windows and other MS products existing in a competitive market and getting better as a result than it is to have them removed from the market.
My solution would probably require the US, but Microsoft should be broken up. After the breakup, at least two new companies should exist, both with all the intellectual property rights to the Windows code base. Each company should have half the monetary and half the human resources. They should be explicitly forbidden from any non-public communications or exclusive partnerships.
Basically, imagine if next year, Dell could license Windows 7A from Company A or Windows 7B from company B. Imagine if Dell could ask them to bid on the contract and took the lowest bid. Imagine if Dell could ask for changes to be implemented and give the bid to whichever company was willing to make the improvements they wanted. Company A and Company B would both be motivated to lower prices on Windows and make improvements OEMs want... just like the free market is supposed to work. Windows would start to get better as the two companies compete and MS could no longer leverage their monopoly power by breaking compatibility because doing so would break compatibility with the other version of Windows, making their product lose significant sales. If they wanted to change some protocol to keep Linux from being able to be interoperable they would have to lose compatibility with the other Windows as well. If they wanted to keep compatibility with the other version of Windows going forward, they'd have to publish and license any changes allowing Linux and OS X to use them as well.
I know a lot of people are both angry with MS and supportive of Linux here, but the move that promotes Linux the most is not necessarily the most practical move or the move that is best for the market overall. Splitting up companies is a classic method for removing monopoly influence and with intellectual property like Windows, this does not have to be too different in principal. The main difficulty with these plan, of course, is the EU is not going to do it on their own for diplomatic reasons and we don't know if Obama's claims to be harder on monopolists is actually going to ever happen.
So, because roads are OK, then everything is OK?
The issue is that for all of those things, you're allocating someone else's labor. It's always immoral to do this, so the proper thing to do is to have a damn good reason, and be as limited as possible.
In the case of roads, they should be constructed as locally as possible. We allow the national government to build freeways because of the national security implications of the investment (need to be able to move troops quickly and have nice flat space for clandestine air strips. The other option is a huge standing army to cover everywhere all at once).
And even that is dangerous. With the kind of money to build national-scale freeways flying around, an entity could make some pretty bogus unrelated side-requirements. Like manipulating states into a uniformly high drinking age or drug laws.
Local roads should be handled and funded at the local level where objections can be more readily heard and addressed. Right down to your driveway, which is funded only by you.
There a very few needs which the government is best at addressing. For those, it should always keep its scope as small as possible because the money always comes from the threat of violence.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
You're kinda missing the point of the free market. You're thinking of wild west I can gun any man down sort of freedom. The free market is free as in freely competed within. Which is why the US and EU and many other governments have groups that are supposed to maintain exactly that, the ability for anyone to enter and compete within the market based on their goods. Not on their ability to pay people to use them.
Free markets aren't the natural progression of capitalism but something that has to be enforced.
You're right, a year is very tight. It was more the principle of the thing than an exact figure.
I'm also not nuts about the 50% tax rate (average) in E.U. States. The U.S. tax rate of 40% is still outrageously high, but better.
Actually, too low of tax rates are a big part of what has destabilized the US economy. It's not quite that simple, of course. Not many countries have a flat tax rate and you really don't want to live in any of them. First world nations use progressive taxation coupled with socialism to balance out capitalism and keep it from collapsing under its own weight. In a pure capitalist system having money allows you to make more money more rapidly and all wealth consolidates into fewer and fewer hands until the whole shebang crumbles. In the past this has happened whenever economies have become too heavily capitalist, usually collapsing in a bloody peasant rebellion, but occasionally in a vast economic redistribution ala the New Deal.
To keep wealth from consolidating not based upon merit, but instead upon how much wealth has been accumulated (this is called wealth condensation by the way) we tax people with more wealth, more heavily than people with less wealth. This is called "progressiveness" of taxes. The idea is balance out wealth condensation with the tax rate of the wealthy then use that tax money on socialist programs (public schools and roads and welfare and police and healthcare and the the military, etc.) that benefit everyone. This effectively redistributes wealth from the top down to the bottom of society and prevents all the money from consolidating and the resulting instability.
In the US, the progressiveness of taxes has been slashed to absurd levels and the distribution of wealth has become alarmingly uneven. This is the same thing that happened during the great depression. Obama's very modest plan to return tax progressiveness to the levels they were in the 90's is viewed as radical, but in truth it is probably not even enough to stabilize things. We really need to get rid of the tax shelters and return to levels closer to what we had in the 70s or 80s.
Don't get me wrong, in general I'm in favor of lower overall taxes, but not until we've stabilized the economy, remedied the uneven wealth distribution to safe levels, paid off the national debt to sane levels, and replaced the progressiveness of taxes to sustainable rates. Then, I'm all in favor of cutting taxes, although that doesn't ever really happen. Democrats are focused on getting support via social programs, which need to be paid for, and Republicans as a party claim to be for lowered taxes but any of them that vote to lower government aid to their district is immediately deposed by their constituents and it is the Republican controlled states that are being disproportionately funded by the taxes in the more wealth Democrat controlled states.
Don't fine them for abusing their dominant position—take away the dominant position.
Take their CPU patents that they use to cripple the competition, and make them public domain. Not only does this open up the market for extreme competition, but it also removes the licensing fees from AMD.
Both of these changes result in a more free market place, with greater competition and lower pricing.
If Intel collapses in the process, it would be a solid warning to other companies not to abuse your position. Also, it would be a slow decline (the brand name will still hold power even if anyone and their brother can make the same thing), and many others will step in to fill the gap, so the market won't collapse.
Before commenting on the Bible, please read it first
It's also what's destroying them. Good riddance, too. It'll be fun to watch their socialist utopias crash down to Mother Reality over the next several years.
Except that when the government runs the insurance company, they CAN decide "Well, you're 75 years old and this heart surgery is REALLY expensive......so we've decided it's not in the best interest of the country to pay that much money since you're already old.
As opposed to the private insurance company making that decision like they do now? This problem is actually better with government control because no politician wants to be the one saying it is not cost effective to treat the sick or elderly at some point so policies go into place that prevent just this thing from happening. Government healthcare is answerable to voters. Private insurance companies are answerable to shareholders who can afford to pay their outrageous medical bills out of pocket.
THAT, along with the blatant inefficiency (it's real easy to find the numbers about how long it takes to get treatment -- plenty of examples out there of things like 8 months to live with no treatment for cancer, but due to government run health systems you can't see a doctor for 10 months
Yeah, it is easy to find numbers. What you're talking about though are anecdotes. The numbers say other countries manage to have overall longer lifespans and overall better care while spending half as much as we do. Buying in bulk makes a difference. If we make healthcare in the US socialized and we spend the same amount and our government screws it up badly as we expect them to, we're still almost certain to have better overall care and longer lies than we have today... based upon the numbers from countries that have already done it.
Governments are inefficient bureaucracies, but so are current insurance companies and the government at least has motivation to make individuals happy as they aren't trying to profit. Healthcare, like police and fire departments and military are simply not suited to capitalism because when they are needed consumers don't have the luxury of comparison shopping because they go with the first offer or likely die.
Your claims of other countries having longer life expectancies due to socialist health care are bogus. They have longer life expectancies because they eat healthier and exercise more. It has nothing to do with their health care system being "superior". As for WHY ours costs more? Because like it or not, we DO have better doctors and our pharmaceutical companies are the ones doing most of the research to create new drugs. So go ahead, tell that company working on a drug to cure disease XYZ that they can't make charge enough for it to make a profit and then that company will simply shut down and there goes the cure....
You have to think farther along than "I think someone else should pay for me to get medical treatment".
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Your claims of other countries having longer life expectancies due to socialist health care are bogus. They have longer life expectancies because they eat healthier and exercise more.
Why do they eat and exercise more? Do their physicians suggest they do so regularly as part of preventative medicine. Do they see their physician more regularly for this to happen?
As for WHY ours costs more? Because like it or not, we DO have better doctors...
Umm, sure we do. Any evidence to support that hypothesis?
...and our pharmaceutical companies are the ones doing most of the research to create new drugs.
So? They pass on the costs to their customers. Just because the research is done in the US does not mean US citizens are charged more per pill. In fact, drug companies tend to charge higher rates in Europe where people have higher incomes than the US. In canada drug prices are lower because they buy in bulk and because the companies don't add on the cost for advertising to individuals (which is illegal there).
So go ahead, tell that company working on a drug to cure disease XYZ that they can't make charge enough for it to make a profit and then that company will simply shut down and there goes the cure....
A strawman.
You have to think farther along than "I think someone else should pay for me to get medical treatment".
Another strawman.
You don't have much in the way of real support for your ideas do you?
It's redundant across articles instead of being redundant in THIS article.
it's important to remember that "monopoly" when used here doesn't mean 100% of the market, but (like MS) enough of the market that it might as well be 100%, or at least large enough that they can exercise anti-competitive behavior.
One of the clichés in economics texts is the "5-50" rule of thumb saying that a "market" acts like a monopoly if 5 or fewer companies get 50% or more of the sales.
Of course, like any rule of thumb, this is basically "economics for dummies", because the reality is that there's a continuum of actual behaviors. Some big companies are run by people with ethics and a long-term view (though they tend to disappear with time). Some markets have sufficient delivery problems that they act like local monopolies even with a hundred companies.
But the point of such things is to debunk the traditional even sillier idea that you only have a "monopoly" if there is just one company. This is called the Etymological Fallacy, the idea that the meaning of a word is defined by the meanings of its parts in the original (long-dead) languages. It's popular with the people who like the idea of unbridled, lassez-faire capitalism. But that's not how economists or most other people use the term in English. In the real world, there are such things as "gentlemen's agreements" that produce monopoly markets even when there are several sellers.
It's fairly clear to nearly everyone that the US retail computer business is a monopoly market, although there are two companies supplying the core hardware and two companies providing the OSs. A small fraction of the population can actually name the second software supplier (though very few can name either hardware supplier). But it's been that way here for a few decades now, so we don't expect that we'll see an actual free market in computer retailing in our lifetime. It's interesting reading about efforts in other parts of the world to do something about the monopoly. It'll be even more interesting if they actually succeed, and make it possible for smaller startups to actually do business.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Use €
Heh, you could look up the numbers easily. If you'd ever bothered to learn anything about Europe, you'd know it's in their culture to eat differently and do more walking -- it has nothing to do with doctors recommending it.
Your entire argument rests on you being a lazy, greedy bastard who wants everyone else to work while you get rewarded for doing nothing.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Do you think maybe just maybe that the reason AMD is trailing is because Intel has been pulling this shit for so long that AMD had less capital to reinvest back into R&D?
There can never be a free market in the purest sense, the price mechanism and property itself itself is subject abuse and flaws. For instance corporate personhood is a farce that should be doone away with, as well as owners and businesses being liable to society. There's a severe problem that money can buys laws, so the more powerful you are in the market you can simply buy people to lobby for laws that protect you and your buddies.
For instance in large population sizes, those who strategically position themselves via influence and politics (office, government, people, etc) will get a disproportionate share of the wealth not because they are better then everyone else but simply because there is so many people and out of physical efficiency institutions tend to centralize commercial power.
Also the system we usegives the illusion of competition, tell me how it is that CEO's can have million dollar salaries. I don't buy it that there aren't millions of people vying for such a job, the problem is that many business's by their nature are dictatorships or whether communal / distributed dictatorships or not.
We lie and convince ourselves that CEO's are the best and brightest but it's nothing but politics, workers have no legal power to throw out their bosses from badly run businesses.
Truth be told the whole capitalist worker relationship of modern society is quite messed up to begin with. Since most wage workers are non-owners, they are at the beck and call of those who control the most.
. If I protect my interests by hiring mercenaries to shoot anyone who goes into my competitor's business that's the free market since I'm just protecting my interests against competitors?!?
That would just be murder, far as I know. How do you compare hiring mercenaries to shoot competitors to paying someone or offering discounts to not stock a product?
I know that wikipedia's not the most reliable source of information, but that's a pretty accurate description. Including the "theoretical" part.
That would just be murder, far as I know. How do you compare hiring mercenaries to shoot competitors to paying someone or offering discounts to not stock a product?
Both are breaking the law to undermine the free market. If murder is illegal and undermines the free market, how is antitrust abuse, which is also illegal not undermining the free market? In both cases they are simply a business protecting their markets against competition. Your implication that because the government is involved it is not a free market is thus disproved. If you want to assert antitrust laws hinder rather than protect the free market you need to support that assertion with a different premise.
You mean that since Intel was first and made the right decisions to stick with x86 and got large because of it they got to enjoy the spoils of being first?! That's crazy!?! Atrocity! Atrocity!
You're making the assumption that government is more likely to refuse you than a private company.
The "cure" for disease XYZ is a healthy immune system. Diseases pop up because the immune system gets compromised. Those people with longer life expectancies because they eat healthier and exercise more also have fewer diseases to cure. The idea of a "cure" for disease is a load of crap. The medical industry sells "treatments", not cures. The unfortunate fact of life is that being healthy requires a good diet and exercise, both in moderation. You can't get a pill or a treatment to make you healthy. Being healthy is a lifestyle choice. Unfortunately for us, it's a lot easier to be unhealthy than it is to be healthy.
I agree with just about everything that you said about the basis for progressive taxation and the need to prevent large imbalances in the benefits of being wealthy. However, I think you might be putting too much emphasis on the tax rates themselves adn missing the biggest cause of the economic problems we are having. The Federal Reserve destabilized the US economy. The tax rate does not matter anymore because the Fed can simply print as much money as they want. The low interest rates that put too much money into circulation, and put the burden of repaying that money in the hands of people unsuited (morally and fiscally) to handle it is what cratered the economy.
Read "Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith. You are referring the later capitalists which re-interpreted free market to require "hands off" by the government. What that meant was that the government should not help to create monopolies or distort the market. It has nothing to do with keeping the playing field level.
The purpose of any government policy should be to maximize freedom and autonomy of the individual. Capitalism is the economic manifestation of this principle. It is the idea that anyone may select their own destiny based on their abilities, effort, values, and the resources that are voluntarily given to them by others.
I disagree with you on this point. I don't think that the purpose of government is to maximize freedom and autonomy of individuals. Why would you need government at all then? Obviously I'm not a libertarian. I believe that we form governments to maximize our collective welfare.
Now I believe that in order to maximize our welfare we have to limit the power of others whether they be government officials, aristocrats, labor unions, business and property owners, or common bullies and thugs. So, I tend to see capitalism and market economies as being consistent with freedom and limitations on power, I don't see it as being particularly good at protecting us or insuring that we don't starve. Capitalism essentially harnesses our proclivity to sin (each of the "seven deadly sins" is someone's incentive) for productive uses. However, we have to remember that it works by appealing to our darker natures and as such we need to keep an eye on our most ardent capitalists because they have shown themselves to be both clever and highly motivated.
Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
There's absolutely no basis in fact to believe that at all.
Innumerable market forces, like economies of scale, very heavily favor the larger, entrenched company, over all challengers.
And with a completely free market, there's nothing stopping the entrenched companies from engaging in anti-competitive behavior to squash all competitors before they get a foothold.
It was during the Gilded Age, where there was the least regulation, and from which sprung forth the largest and most dominant monopolies in history. Carnegie Steel, Standard Oil, etc. History has never shown deregulation to be a panacea.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
You say "collective welfare" as if it's some intrinsic ideal, that its parameters and requirements should be obvious to a diverse set of individuals. In reality, collectivists have shackled individuals to their own ideals (whether they be economic, social, religious, environmental, or otherwise) and view them only as slaves towards fulfilling those ends. To the collectivist, no one is worth anything outside of their ability to be sacrificed.
I also disagree with the idea that capitalism is merely a hack that takes advantage of a propensity for greed. It allows anyone to completely opt out of the greed system, and allows anyone who so chooses to choose their own values. To be a "good" capitalist really just means that you don't use force or fraud in your dealings.
Governments should exist at the will of the people, not as an idea of majority rule but of minority rights. If one chooses to be autonomous from "his" government, he ought to be able to. Capitalism allows diversity in that small, voluntary societies can develop inside of it. If one so chooses to be a pure socialist where his society owns all that he is and all that he has, he is free to gather his friends and neighbors, but he is not free to rob and steal from others, no matter how many friends he has. He is free to elect leaders for himself, but cannot appoint those leaders to others.
I don't mean to sound harsh if I do, and I enjoyed reading your thoughts and remarks. I just wanted to clarify my position.
The purpose of any government policy should be to maximize freedom and autonomy of the individual. Capitalism is the economic manifestation of this principle. It is the idea that anyone may select their own destiny based on their abilities, effort, values, and the resources that are voluntarily given to them by others.
Capitalism is just an economic model, there have been terribly repressive dictatorships with a very capitalist, even laissez-faire economy. There are social democracies with a large government stake in the economy, where citizens enjoy great personal and political freedom. I don't think freedom and capitalism are connected, unless one has a very cold, business oriented definition of freedom.
>>>you don't actually pay for your healthcare out of your own pocket you probably buy insurance instead.
Nope. I consider insurance a scam, which exists for the profit of the executives, not for you. For that matter government healthcare exists for the benefit of the politicians, not us. Yes I'm a cynic. ;-) I simply feel that with my current health expenses (~$200 a year) it's cheaper to pay the bill myself rather than pay ~$5000 a year for insurance.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>>>And the free market works even here
Only if you're rich enough to go to the private hospital (or school). Otherwise there's no choice but one - the government monopoly.
>>>This problem is actually better with government control because no politician wants to be the one saying it is not cost effective to treat the sick or elderly at some point
>>>
This doesn't seem to bother the UK Politicians who have and do issue policies to turn-away patients (they call if budget cutting).
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Not assumption. Experience. "Dear Senator, please don't vote for the Patriot Act. It's a clear violation of the constitution, the bill of rights, and will result in a loss of freedom for Americans."
He voted for it.
"Dear Senator, please don't vote for the October Dubya Bush Bailout Bill. Let AIG die and leave our taxpayer dollars untouched."
He voted for it.
"Dear Senator, please don't vote for the February Stimulus Bill. It will only drive us further into debt, from $110,000 to $170,000 per home. You do not cure a problem of excessive debt with more spending and even more debt."
He voted for it.
See? The government politicians don't listen to us. Not even a little bit. I get more responsiveness from Comcast ("Remove the $5 fee you tacked-on, else I will cancel my service. Your choice.") The only good news is that it looks like this Senator will be voted out (only 30% support). The bad news is that he just switched parties, and now he has the support of Caesar.....er, President Obama including access to the Democratic Party's war chest, and now his numbers are climbing. Yay. :-(
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
No.
I just want the old man to stop stealing money from my wallet. Who does he think he is? Mr. Soprano??? "Give me money for my new heart, or you're gonna git it." I consider theft of money, property, or labor to be an immoral act. A human rights violation.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Current law requires a hospital to see you even if you don't have insurance.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Also roads are a voluntary tax. If you use the roads, you pay the gasoline tax/road toll. If you don't use the roads, you don't pay. It's probably the most fair tax ever devised, since it's basically a usage fee. No use==no fee.
Too bad some politicians misappropriate road taxes towards trains/metros. Oh well.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>>>Not many countries have a flat tax rate and you really don't want to live in any of them.
Some of the EU states have a flat tax, and from what I've read, they are experiencing a boom even in these troubled times. A flat tax helps eliminate a lot of paperwork, and expenses related to that paperwork (like the $200 I paid H&R Block to do my complicated form). If we had a flat tax, it would be ridiculously simple. $80000 multiplied by 15%. Done.
Still doesn't solve the headache of all the other taxes, like sales, phone, cellular, electricity, gasoline, gas, propane, water, property, school, occupation privilege tax, and on and on and on.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
There are some companies that sell companies for around $10,000. Like the Toyota Echo. So there's really no excuse for a poor person to say they can't afford a car. Heck, they could buy them used for around half price, and still get a decent car. My car cost just $2000 and only had 35,000 miles on it.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Where is the line?
The only advantage you have with a company over the government is you can always count on the company to be actively trying to screw you out of as much money as possible. The government is a bit more unpredictable because you can never be sure in whose name they're screwing you over, but every once in a while they can't find someone to pay them to screw you, or they have too many people screaming at them to get away with it. That almost never happens with a company.
Call me Captain Obvious, but it irritates me that companies would rather put $ into marketing, sales, management, and lawywers, rather than engineering R&D (me!). It's especially irritating when they're so unethical- outright evil. Can't we just put them ... never mind.
As so often, this is both funny and sad:
http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2009-05-10/
You are deliberately being stupid. The fact is that Intel did benefit from being first, and they were also very good at what they do. They are great engineers. The problem was they decided to not just go down this route, they decided to break the law to extend their monopoly. If they hadn't have done this, no doubt they still would have been the biggest, but we would have had better chips from AMD, and better competition... so in the current case, we all suffer.
I wonder what happens to this fine, does AMD get any?
It would be an issue in the U.S. Our legislators will nominally cut the budget during a bad year then reinflate it even bigger during the boom times. As a result the federal government grows over long periods of time.
Or they go to an alternative, who offers chips at cheaper prices. They go to AMD, exactly what this charge is meant to do... you do realise that you don't HAVE to but Intel.
Intel broke no laws. The EU bureaucrats chose to interpret antitrust in a way such that Intel retroactively broke laws. Effectively, the law was "don't do bad stuff" and they decided Intel did "bad stuff".
AMD doesn't get any directly, but the jobs from the Dresden plant get protected, which is the main goal. The money is a secondary goal.
I pointed out to him that there are cheap cars like the Echo and Aveo and such and also pointed out used cars, but he thinks that he should be able to buy a Lambo for $10,000 just because he dropped out of high school and at 25 is making a whole $7.30 an hour.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
If Intel it's so great why do they have to bribe other companies to bundle their products?
Way too much a smart decision for an Intel consumer knowing that buying his overpriced processor is actually causing that his next processor is going to be equally overpriced.
You bought a monopoly. An EU monopoly is no better than a Microsoft monopoly. Both take-away freedom of choice.
Plus your 85-year-old neighbor demanding that you give him money so he can buy a new heart (or house or car), is called theft of property and labor.
He's not asking me for money because the government will pay for the expenses. I pay taxes to the government, but the 85-year old guy has probably paid more taxes in his life than I've yet managed to. He's voted in the elections as have I so it's government by the people. We both wanted public health care, or at least I did (since it comes in handy when I'm unemployed, or maybe when I'm 85 and need a new heart). Where's the theft?
My sig will be released in 2015 third quarter. Rating pending.
When the USA government had balls (read as not as corrupt as they are now, or beholden to the large corporates) they broke up AT&T, which at the time was the biggest corporation on the face of the earth. However, I suspect it had unwanted side affects. (Like less money spent on pure R&D ... and a breakup in name only, nothing changed behind the scenes)
... dicking with any company could be a very bad thing!)
So, the EU are only doing what the US government can no longer do, no matter how much it might want to! (I am not saying they do want to either
Where is the line?
Excluding cases where the mere fact of the monopoly harms the market to the point of stifling progress because it creates cost-to-market problems that essentially block competition (which is essentially why BT in UK were ordered to open up their exchanges to other companies), which is a massive grey area criss-crossed with fine lines, I would draw the line at companies actively harming the business of their competition instead of just competing on their own merits. This is in fact what Intel were doing here.
Of course these things can be difficult to prove at times, and often get decided by who-ever has the better (or at least better connected) legal team....
>>>Not many countries have a flat tax rate and you really don't want to live in any of them.
Some of the EU states have a flat tax
There are a few EU members with something close to a flat tax, notably Lithuania, Romania, and Estonia, but like I said, they aren't places most people want to live and have some of the worst standards of living in Europe. I'd credit their economic success more to EU membership than tax policy at this point.
A flat tax helps eliminate a lot of paperwork
Sure it does, but you miss the point. It also creates an unstable economy in that wealth continually consolidates until the system collapses. Flat taxes don't last because economies that rely upon them fail.
It's the American way, capitalism for the poor and socialisim for the poor.
The "Free Market" has never existed in the US, and never will.
Huh? AMD developed x86-64 when Intel hijacked HP CPU development and was busy developing Merced/Itanium as their primary 64-bit platform. It was also AMD who implemented multiple packet-based links with on-chip controller as the primary bus architecture. Intel has more resources, however their development often goes into stupid directions, then returns back to sanity imitating AMD decisions.
If AMD will stop doing new research, Intel will eventually get derailed into some new Itanium/RDRAM/P4/... crap.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.