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.

Comments

frist psot

[Anonymous Coward]

frist psot

Re:frist psot

[Chrisq]

Not bad for a dyslexic

Re:frist psot

[Anonymous Coward]

I am just not getting how the MOD's can MOD a first post redundant.

Re:frist psot

[Bryansix]

It's redundant across articles instead of being redundant in THIS article.

EU needs more money

[Anonymous Coward]

Wonder who they will shake down next.

Re:EU needs more money

[BadAnalogyGuy]

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.

Re:EU needs more money

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:EU needs more money

[Futile Rhetoric]

You forgot:

4) The company abuses its dominant position.

Re:EU needs more money

[Alex Belits]

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.

Re:EU needs more money

[AnalPerfume]

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.

Re:EU needs more money

[Joce640k]

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.

Re:EU needs more money

[Futile Rhetoric]

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.

Re:EU needs more money

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:EU needs more money

[AftanGustur]

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.

Re:EU needs more money

[rve]

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.

Re:EU needs more money

[asdf7890]

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.

Re:EU needs more money

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:EU needs more money

[Old97]

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?

Re:EU needs more money

[Idaho]

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.

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.

Re:EU needs more money

[Dragonslicer]

...not just about... making sure you get the highest bonus you can get away with

Communist! Get him!

Re:EU needs more money

[rve]

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 ?

Re:EU needs more money

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

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".

Re:EU needs more money

[jabithew]

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.

Re:EU needs more money

[Mprx]

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.

Re:EU needs more money

[noundi]

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.

Re:EU needs more money

[trickyD1ck]

If anyone is harming the market it is the EU bureaucrats.

Re:EU needs more money

[erroneus]

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?

Re:EU needs more money

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:EU needs more money

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:EU needs more money

[Runaway1956]

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?

Re:EU needs more money

[KDR_11k]

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?

Re:EU needs more money

[Zashi]

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."

Re:EU needs more money

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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.

Re:EU needs more money

[dwandy]

In a truly free market a monopoly is unlikely.

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 ...

Re:EU needs more money

[Late Adopter]

Well that depends on if you're using a Pentium to calculate it.

Re:EU needs more money

[RightSaidFred99]

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.

Re:EU needs more money

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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.

Re:EU needs more money

[gtall]

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.

Re:EU needs more money

[Ihmhi]

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>

Re:EU needs more money

[Cormophyte]

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.

Re:EU needs more money

[jc42]

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.

Re:EU needs more money

[Bryansix]

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?

Re:EU needs more money

[blahplusplus]

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.

Re:EU needs more money

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

. 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?

Re:EU needs more money

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

"A free market is a theoretical term that economists use to describe a market which is free from government intervention (i.e. no regulation, no subsidization, no single monetary system and no governmental monopolies)." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Market

I know that wikipedia's not the most reliable source of information, but that's a pretty accurate description. Including the "theoretical" part.

Re:EU needs more money

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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.

Re:EU needs more money

[RightSaidFred99]

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!

Re:EU needs more money

[gtall]

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.

Re:EU needs more money

[Old97]

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.

Re:EU needs more money

[evilviper]

In a truly free market a monopoly is unlikely.

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.

Re:EU needs more money

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:EU needs more money

[rve]

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.

Re:EU needs more money

[Khashishi]

Where is the line?

Re:EU needs more money

[mgblst]

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?

Re:EU needs more money

[mgblst]

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.

Re:EU needs more money

[RightSaidFred99]

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.

Re:EU needs more money

[indi0144]

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.

Re:EU needs more money

[SlashWombat]

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)

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 ... dicking with any company could be a very bad thing!)

Re:EU needs more money

[asdf7890]

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....

Re:EU needs more money

[blahrvat]

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.

Re:EU needs more money

[Alex Belits]

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.

Skype

[Spatial]

Intel also had that deal with Skype.

I wonder what else they've been up to?

Re:Skype

[commodore64_love]

I don't understand why companies like Skype or NBC agree to these types of deals. If an Intel salesperson came to me and said, "You must limit how many calls an AMD processor may receive" or "You may only have 20% of your computers at NBC be powered by AMD", I'd tell the salesman to go fuck off. Intel has no right to come into the offices of Skype or NBC and boss them around.

The only reason I can think Intel got away with such dictatorial demands is because Skype is small, and NBC depends upon Intel advertising to survive. i.e. Fear of losing money.

Re:Skype

[jimicus]

I don't imagine Intel sent a sales rep in one day to speak to anyone that lowly.

Far more likely that these deals were agreed on the golf course by senior executives.

Re:Skype

[commodore64_love]

Yes that was my point. If I was a senior executive I'd tell Intel to "fuck off". I'm not going to allow some other company to run my company, or otherwise boss me around.

Re:Skype

[codegen]

If the hypothetical Intel sales person came and offered your company several millions of dollars, and you personally several hundreds of thousands of dollars, would your answer be the same?

Re:Skype

[johny42]

If an Intel salesperson came to me and said, ... "You may only have 20% of your computers at NBC be powered by AMD", I'd tell the salesman to go fuck off.

What if an Intel salesperson came to you and said "If you only have 20% of your computers at NBC powered by AMD, we will sell you all of our processors at 50% the price we sell them to your competitors."?

Re:Skype

[Hurricane78]

Well, for hardware shops, pc builders and mainboard manufacturers, it's "do what we say, or you will never be able to buy intel products again, or create compatible systems". Which for mainboard manufacturers would mean going out of business. And for the others, to be seriously limited and damaged.

That's the problem.

From what I heard, even back in the days of the first Athlon, some manufacturers had a really heated discussion with intel over such practices. I dunno if intel got punished for it back then. But I sure hope they get a really hard punch in the nutsack this time.

Re:Skype

[jonbryce]

Well presumably Skype got something in return that made it worth their while doing this?

Re:Skype

[Anarchduke]

I would say, how dare you try and bribe my company without trying to bribe me personally as well!! I am shocked!

Re:Skype

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't be so sure about that. The whole point of becoming a CEO of a computer manufacturing company is to get the backhander from Intel (which is at the very least in the same ballpark as your already helthy pay packet).

Plus if you say no, say goodbye to ANY discounts of any sort, part-payment of advertising (so long as you mention Intel a few times and play their little ditty), access to high-end chips. Low end chips suddenly become more expensive than you can afford to put in a low end machine. Of course, Intel successfully stopped anyone making chipsets to work with their CPUs, so suddenly you find those unaffordable or mysteriously "not for sale", too.

Without the many "perks" of being Intel's bitch, you have to be VERY sure that you can run your business at mostly off the back of AMD.

Bend over and take your bribe, or tell them to fuck off and watch Intel's pricing force you out of competition with those who did bend over.

Re:Skype

[Dragonslicer]

I'm not going to allow some other company to run my company, or otherwise boss me around.

Most executives will gladly allow a truck full of pictures of Ben Franklin to boss them around.

Re:Skype

[timeOday]

Don't you see, that's the whole point - the PC makers have no choice but to do Intel's bidding because most customers do want Intel chips. When Intel tells a PC maker what to do, it is not a choice. If Intel were to punish HP for insufficient loyalty by giving a 10% "good customer discount" to Dell, then HP would have a very hard time competing in the market.

Re:Skype

[Anonymous Coward]

Intel doesn't work this way, at least in the US. They are afraid of anti-trust regulators coming after them, so they bend over backwards to make sure they don't do anything like you described. They never threaten to take away any of the rebates or special pricing they offer to everyone.

If Intel comes to you for something, they offer you so much, that you just can't say no.

I worked at a large tech company and had the more or less final say on what CPUs were better for us. More accurately, I would give equivalent price points for AMD processors vs Intel processors (in reality, we looked at many other cpu's, but no one else was every really in contention.) I.E. I would say at $X Intel's latest CPU is better than AMD's at $Y. Intel always managed to lower their price until their CPUs were a better deal than AMD's. AMD was so used to this, they used to come in with their latest CPUs acting like dogs that had been kicked until they were nearly dead.

Finally one year, Intel's chips were so much worse than AMD's that Intel would have had to pay us to buy their chips. For obvious reasons, Intel couldn't do that. That year, we went with AMD's chips. That latest exactly one cycle. Intel managed to fix their chips and provide a really good deal. We switched back to Intel.

Yes, Intel used to give all of us lots of interesting swag and we would always accept it. The informal policy was for anything small, we would give it to the first person that didn't deal with Intel that wanted it. For large things we would have a drawing. When ever they would take us on an outing, all the purchasing and technical purchasing people had to work late and couldn't make it, but tons of people who had nothing to do with purchasing chips would always stand in for us.

Re:Skype

[dave562]

What makes you believe that the conversation was adversarial at all? What if Intel simply presented it along the lines of, "The AMD processors don't do anything that an Intel processor can't. If you agree to xx% of Intel processors on your network, we will give you a big yy% price break."??

Re:Skype

[Bryansix]

There is this small requirement to being a senior executive. This requirement is that you have no decision making skills, no work skills, and no brains. So most likely some Intel guy told some senior exec that "I"ll give you a great deal" and the senior exec said "have your guys call my guys" and then told his guy "do what it takes and make it happen" and so the senior execs "guy" feeling inordinate pressure to do that job right just went along with whatever shit Intel shoveled at him.

Re:Skype

[commodore64_love]

I'd call AMD and see if they were willing to sell their processors at 50% off. If no, I'd go with the 80% of all NBC's computers will be Intel. If yes, then I'd buy my computers from both companies equally (50-50).

Re:Skype

[hitmark]

Especially if the agreement can make the stock price go up, up, up...

Thing is, management is only as loyal as they can squeeze from the corp, and stockholder only care about the stock value.

So when corp goes nuts its because management have found they can squeeze more out of it by bending or breaking the rules, and then run like hell ones its discovered...

Re:Skype

[hitmark]

What customers? other corps? they go where the biggest bang for the buck is.

Joe on the street? meh, as long as it can play solitarie and porn, they are happy, and will grab the cheapest one that the guy in the tie tells him is the best value for the amount asked...

Re:Skype

[Pla123]

What Intel probably did was:
We will give you 50% off rebate any Intel CPU IF you don't sell any AMD CPU.

If you reject, you can't compete with the store next door which sells 30% bellow your invoice price and still makes 20% profit.
In other words, you won't be able to sell Intel anymore.

I guess this shouldn't apply to Skype though...

Re:Skype

[mgblst]

Or more likely they were given incentives to maintain such a high proportion of Intel CPUs, this is the way they work.

"If you guys but only intel for this quarter, we will give you a 10% discount."

Out of curiosity...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Out of curiosity...

[Anonymous Coward]

If this were an abuse of dominance case under Art 82 EC, then no. Intel's abuse would be characterised as unilateral.

That said, and note that TFA does not make this clear, it does refer to "naked restrictions", using forms of language which tend to crop up in relation to agreements "which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition" under Art 81 EC. In that case both Intel and the downstream companies violate the rule, and both can be punished.

I've no idea if the Commission plans to pursue the downstream companies, although it is an option open to AMD as a civil action for damages, using the Commission's findings, against Intel or the downstream companies. In any event, it would probably be cheaper and simpler to sue Intel on its own, the company with the deepest pockets.

Re:Out of curiosity...

[hdon]

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.

AMD may even benefit from this. They may have in fact come to an agreement with Intel about how this would be done. AMD may have seen more sales, but then there would have actually been competition, and that means more product for a lower price! Yikes!!!

Pictures

[jeffhenson]

...for what the EU executive sees as "naked restrictions" to competition, the sources said.

Pictures of the naked restrictions or it didn't happen.

Tell me who actually pays?

[Shivetya]

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.

Re:Tell me who actually pays?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice idea, but imagine the grief of having a major processor line forbidden from sales in general. AMD couldn't pick up all that slack, and other CPU companies are hardly in a position to replace Intel.

Result? A vacuum of components. Not good for the industry in general.

Re:Tell me who actually pays?

[an.echte.trilingue]

A better solution than taking money, banning their product for a set time.

No, that would be punishing EU member states at least as much Intel. Have you looked at the market for servers lately? Desktops? Laptops? Intel is subject to anti-competition laws because it has a dominant market position. If you were to suddenly cut their products out of the market, that would hurt every manufacturer of IT equipment and every business that uses said equipment. That is a great way to hurt the EU's ability to perform in the world market.

The reason a fine is useful is precisely because the costs are passed on to Intel customers worldwide, not just in the EU. This means that it really is Intel that is paying for its behavior on a global scale.

Re:Tell me who actually pays?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly who is paying the fine?

Uh, people buying Intel products.

They could buy AMD products, instead, which is more or less the point.

Re:Tell me who actually pays?

[Allicorn]

Unfortunately no. Banning their product effectively fines huge numbers of completely innocent smaller organizations who rely - in whole or part, directly or indirectly - on Intel's products for their income.

I don't think it's fair that little guy should suffer just because the big guy who's scraps he scavenges is a douchebag?

Re:Tell me who actually pays?

[Chaos Incarnate]

Which is why Intel should do that voluntarily. "You don't like our business practices, we won't sell there. Good luck buying your next computer."

Re:Tell me who actually pays?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and no. Only Intel products will be more expensive, therefore AMD products competitive, which is the idea. Also take into account that the fine will revert to EU citizens as if Intel paid more taxes. I'm sure people would prefer Intel give them the money directly, but this is better than nothing...

Re:Tell me who actually pays?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the prices of Intel products go up as a response, then the fine has - to some extent - reached its goal. Other companies' products get more competitive.

Re:Tell me who actually pays?

[AnalPerfume]

Then let the flood of lawsuits against Intel begin. Small companies who suffer because of Intels behavior should be compensated by Intel. Perhaps with that compensation money, they'd be wise to look into tying their income to corporation with some integrity instead of the scumbags they've found themselves in bed with.

Re:Tell me who actually pays?

[cluke]

And this is what is known as "cutting off your nose to spite your face".

Re:Tell me who actually pays?

[iJusten]

European Union has slightly bigger purchasing power than United States ($14.82 trillion to $14.29 trillion, accoarding to CIA Factbook). It is probably the biggest market Intel has, as China buys cheaper processors and Japan is just smaller.

If it would stop operating in Europe, the local manufacturers would just buy the chips from USA while AMD cranks up its production to meet the demands for a whole continent which despises its competitor.

Please think before you write.

Re:Tell me who actually pays?

[iJusten]

I'd like to add to parent by mentioning that by passing the costs to their customers, the Union is making the products of AMD more competitive in comparison to Intel. To avoid that, Intel must suck it up and pay the fine from The Bad Day-fund.

Re:Tell me who actually pays?

[Joce640k]

Another alternative would be to force the companies named to use a minimum 50% AMD chips averaged over the next five years.

Extra costs for them, loss of market share for Intel. Seems to me like justice is done all round (I consider the companies almost as guilty as Intel for their complicity).

Yes the price of computers would undergo a hiccup as they retool for different chips but that's not _really_ any different then Intel being fined billions of dollars.

Re:Tell me who actually pays?

[AftanGustur]

So the EU fines Intel. Exactly who is paying the fine?

Well, Intel has been paying bribes.. Whoose pocket do you think they came from ?

Re:Tell me who actually pays?

[commodore64_love]

>>>Exactly who is paying the fine? Uh, people buying Intel products

Then switch to AMD if Intel's price goes too high. AMD makes fine processors. In fact I have two in my laptops (K5 and K6) and I don't notice any difference between them and my brother's Intel laptop.

Re:Tell me who actually pays?

[wren337]

It would be nice if the stores and manufacturers had to hand back their ill gotten payments. Talk about generating ill will towards Intel, make HP hand the government every penny of the bribe money.

Re:Tell me who actually pays?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is why Intel should do that voluntarily. "You don't like our business practices, we won't sell there. Good luck buying your next computer."

Followed by massive drop in Intel share price and massive lawsuit from Intel shareholders ('willful destruction of shareholder value', I believe it's called).

These discussions always get some idiot saying "if X US company can't ignore EU law then it should just stop selling there" without apparently understanding that -for publicly quoted companies - it is effectively legally impossible for them to just pull out of a very major market like the EU.

Congratulations, today you are that idiot. It'll be someone else's turn tommorrow, probably making the same statement in respect to MS.

Still, it could be worse, you could be 'RightSaidFred99'

Re:Tell me who actually pays?

[hopelessliar]

Surely, the point is that because Intel is so unbelievably rich when compared to AMD (and getting comparitively richer all the time as AMD haemorrages cash) that no matter how large the fine, there would be no pressure for Intel to raise their prices. My guess is that if they believed they could get away with it, Intel could destroy AMD in a heartbeat simply by:

• 1. Intel sells products at a loss
• 2. AMD forced to follow suit to remain 'competitive'
• 3. AMD goes bust.
• 4. Intel is now the only supplier in town, a swift price rise recoups all the losses they've incurred during the price war.

After being caught out to some extent by AMD in the past, Intel has responded strongly and now has the better technology and this gap only looks as though it will increase since AMD can't raise a candle to Intel's R&D capability.

Sure, there's still some value to be had in certain AMD products, but to me, it's beginning to feel a bit niche - which is a shame. I can't see AMD being run into the ground as being good news for any of us (unless you hold a lot of Intel stock!)

Assuming I have the relative financial strengths of the two companies correct, the only question this leaves is why Intel would have decided to try and tie up these kinds of deals - surely they could have achieved the same effect without resorting to such draconian measures. Sure, getting this kind of agreement from the major system builders protects them from being squeezed on price because the system builders can't choose AMD instead but since they can afford to be squeezed whilst AMD can't, it seems to be a very bad strategic decision - or maybe somebody is now going to point out how I haven't understood the situation at all...

Re:Tell me who actually pays?

[Anonymous Coward]

If it would stop operating in Europe, the local manufacturers would just buy the chips from USA while AMD cranks up its production to meet the demands for a whole continent which despises its competitor.

Please think before you write.

Maybe in the long-term yes, but currently AMD only owns something like 20% of the market share. If the EU properly barred the Intel product line then importing the units from the US wouldn't be worth it, and AMD can hardly crank up it's production fast enough to gobble up the vacuum that Intel would leave without a period of serious disruption to the EU industry, not to mention motherboard manufacturers needing to gear up their AM2/AM3 socket lines and having to dump their Intel ranges.

Having to suddenly crank up production to fill an ~80% market share gap for an entire continent won't happen overnight, you know.

Re:Tell me who actually pays?

[Anonymous Coward]

One questions whether their draconian policies allow the EU to qualify as a market.

Re:Tell me who actually pays?

[Krneki]

Or use the taxes to balance. Let's say +10% on Intel chips and -10% on AMD.

We need a healthy competitions in order to push the prices down and promote the research.

Re:Tell me who actually pays?

[noundi]

You know such prohibiting laws would just drive people into cooking their own CPUs in their cellar bathtub and then sneak them through underground tunnels to your local vendor.

Re:Tell me who actually pays?

[noundi]

You don't happen to be the former CEO of Lehman Brothers?

Re:Tell me who actually pays?

[Anonymous Coward]

force the companies named to use a minimum 50% AMD chips averaged over the next five years.

and while we're at it, let's just have all stores' stocks dictated by the government. what can go wrong?

Re:Tell me who actually pays?

[Runaway1956]

Simple solution. One that will fix the problem more permanently, too. Fine the shareholders and stockholders. Make certain that the fines are paid by the people who own the freaking COMPANY. Miss Hottentotty expects to make 20,000 dollars on her investment, but finds that she makes NOTHING due to illegal decisions on the part of company executives, she will become those executive's worst nightmare personified.

Those executives will NEVER try anything shady again, without the approval of the investors.

Re:Tell me who actually pays?

[KDR_11k]

Besides, if Intel isn't already pricing as high as they can (including all constraints like competition and simple demand) they're just stupid. Unless they are that stupid increasing prices would NOT increase profits.

Re:Tell me who actually pays?

[RightSaidFred99]

Good luck proving that Intel charging you less for processors hurt you. Good luck indeed.

Re:Tell me who actually pays?

[CherniyVolk]

They could buy AMD products, instead, which is more or less the point.

O'RLY?

I still find it difficult to buy a laptop with Linux preinstalled, or no OS installed at all. Servers might be readily available, but for a geeks personal desktop or home computer your options are limited. Last time I bought a laptop with hardware requirements to meet my tastes, with Linux preinstalled, I had to purchase a very expensive one from a portable UNIX solutions provider.... niche market item, usually nice but always expensive.

Now, anti-trust violations are typically in the manner of some Big Company purchasing security for their revenue streams. Microsoft paying off distributors, or charging much more or otherwise penalizing those who also cater to the competition (i.e. they sell laptops with linux preinstalled, charge them double for their Windows installations).

In short, the stuff that these companies are being nailed for is too far up the food chain.

This sort of stuff, in effect, entrenches nasty trends that are unforgiving to the consumer on the phone with Visa in hand.

So while you say, "buy AMD products"... how? Intel has been found to have already shunned a significant number of hardware manufacturers from distributing AMD...

Last time I bought a motherboard, the guy I've been going to for years said he no longer had any AMD motherboards.

THIS is why Intel is being hammered, and THIS is why consumers can't so easily "just buy AMD". If consumers HAD such abundant and available choices, Intel wouldn't be in trouble.

Re:Tell me who actually pays?

[Jesus_666]

Meanwhile, Europe gets raped through the WTO and TRIPS. Giving Intel a black eye isn't worth trade sanctions up our butt.

Re:Tell me who actually pays?

[Jesus_666]

AMD boards are easy to get by. Took me five seconds to find one online. And I'll gladly refer people to mail-order businesses I've had positive experience with. Don't like the selection in your local store? Don't shop there. Easy as that.

Maybe they'll notice they are selling less processors and mainboards than before and stock up on AMD.

Re:Tell me who actually pays?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who do you think was paying for Intel to pay off customers for not using AMD products? That's right, intel's customers.

And you know what would have happened if Intel's market abuse had put AMD out of business? That's right - their customers will pay monopoly prices.

You know what would have been better? What could solve this problem? If intel didn't abuse the market in the first place, they wouldn't have any direct anti-competition costs or fines to pass on to the consumer. That's the goal here: to encourage corporations to follow the law. Barring that, it seems the best option is to force intel to price this fine into their products, decreasing the competitive advantage conferred by abusive practices.

Re:Tell me who actually pays?

[indi0144]

>> decreasing the competitive advantage conferred by abusive practices.

Make them pay with IP and patents.. Free up the market.

Intel has lost the last little love I had for them

Re:Tell me who actually pays?

[artsrc]

If Intel gets more expensive then more customers will buy AMD.

Intel does not want AMD to increase their share of the market, so they will cut their profit by 1 billion dollars, and think about the tactics they use.

EU is EU Centric

[Anonymous Coward]

How often does the EU find companies in Europe anti-competitive?

Re:EU is EU Centric

[Futile Rhetoric]

All the time?

Re:EU is EU Centric

[Anonymous Coward]

Since they've destroyed their own businesses, they need to tax companies in other countries.

Re:EU is EU Centric

[Futile Rhetoric]

In case you need examples:

Saint-Gobain ( 900m euro)
ThyssenKrupp ( 500m)
Hoffmna-La Roche ( 500m)
Siemens ( 400m)
Pilkington ( 400m)
BASF ( 300m)
Otis ( 300m)

Re:EU is EU Centric

[downix]

You mean EU firms such as Lufthansa, Daimler, Deutsche Bank, Viag Interkom GmbH, Telefonica S.A., KONE GmbH, those kinds of firms?

Re:EU is EU Centric

[Andy_R]

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.

Re:EU is EU Centric

[commodore64_love]

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.

Re:EU is EU Centric

[oneirophrenos]

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.

Re:EU is EU Centric

[downix]

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.

Re:EU is EU Centric

[zoney_ie]

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.

Re:EU is EU Centric

[commodore64_love]

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.

Re:EU is EU Centric

[commodore64_love]

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.

Re:EU is EU Centric

[CmdrGravy]

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.

Re:EU is EU Centric

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re:EU is EU Centric

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:EU is EU Centric

[Spatial]

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!

Re:EU is EU Centric

[chthon]

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.

Re:EU is EU Centric

[ianare]

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.

Re:EU is EU Centric

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Do you really want to go down the road of making value judgments on the lives of other people? This person is too old to be of value, that person is not productive enough. Maybe the guy over there is in the wrong caste? Or that lady in back, is her skin the right color?

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.

Re:EU is EU Centric

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:EU is EU Centric

[Futile Rhetoric]

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.

Re:EU is EU Centric

[Spatial]

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?

Re:EU is EU Centric

[Ornedan]

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.

Re:EU is EU Centric

[Totenglocke]

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.

Re:EU is EU Centric

[Totenglocke]

*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.

Re:EU is EU Centric

[Totenglocke]

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).

Re:EU is EU Centric

[zoney_ie]

Those figures should have euro symbols in front of them. Slashdot is still stuck in pre-1999 currency era.

Re:EU is EU Centric

[zippthorne]

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.

Re:EU is EU Centric

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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.

Re:EU is EU Centric

[RightSaidFred99]

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.

Re:EU is EU Centric

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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.

Re:EU is EU Centric

[Totenglocke]

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".

Re:EU is EU Centric

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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?

Re:EU is EU Centric

[Super_Z]

Use &euro;

Re:EU is EU Centric

[Totenglocke]

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.

Re:EU is EU Centric

[Cormophyte]

You're making the assumption that government is more likely to refuse you than a private company.

Re:EU is EU Centric

[dave562]

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.

Re:EU is EU Centric

[dave562]

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.

Re:EU is EU Centric

[commodore64_love]

>>>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.

Re:EU is EU Centric

[commodore64_love]

>>>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).

Re:EU is EU Centric

[commodore64_love]

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. :-(

Re:EU is EU Centric

[commodore64_love]

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.

Re:EU is EU Centric

[commodore64_love]

Current law requires a hospital to see you even if you don't have insurance.

Re:EU is EU Centric

[commodore64_love]

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.

Re:EU is EU Centric

[commodore64_love]

>>>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.

Re:EU is EU Centric

[commodore64_love]

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.

Re:EU is EU Centric

[Cormophyte]

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.

Re:EU is EU Centric

[Lost Engineer]

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.

Re:EU is EU Centric

[Totenglocke]

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.

Re:EU is EU Centric

[HoppQ]

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?

Re:EU is EU Centric

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

>>>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.

About Time

[StormReaver]

It's about time Intel got nailed for this. Now the EU needs to go after Microsoft (again!) for the same illegal practices.

Re:About Time

[AnalPerfume]

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.

Re:About Time

[ianare]

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.

Re:About Time

[PeterFranks]

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.

Re:About Time

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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.

Re:About Time

[AnalPerfume]

You're right, a year is very tight. It was more the principle of the thing than an exact figure.

*SNIFF* They're finally growing up!

[mc1138]

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.

Re:*SNIFF* They're finally growing up!

[commodore64_love]

>>>part of me is a little sad for the young Intel full of potential that got bullied [by Microsoft] into the position its in today.

Young Intel? Bullied? Funny.

Intel was the most-powerful computer company in the late-1980s and throughout the 1990s. Microsoft was just one of dozens of software companies and had no real power until it released Windows 95 and squashed the competition (Os/2, GEOS, DR-DOS). You mis-characterize the situation when you call Intel a puppet of MS. Intel was the goliath of the industry, having ridden the IBM PC platform to 95% dominance.

Re:*SNIFF* They're finally growing up!

[Hurricane78]

You must have missed, that intel already was well-known for doing that, ten years ago, when AMD wanted to get mainboard manufacturers to make some boards for the then new Athlon CPU. I remember this, because I bought an Athlon 850 back ten. And there were only 4 companies on the planet who offered a board. And way too late too. Which was because of intel's practices.
I also remember, that it was before 2001, because I moved at the end of 2000 and then already had my new computer.

Re:*SNIFF* They're finally growing up!

[weicco]

And you have to remember DEC Alpha processor. Folklore says that Intel wanted to enter into some business agreement with DEC. They got to look at DEC's Alpha processor and after that they immediately dropped the deal. But for some curious reason Alpha technology ended up in Intel's Pentium line processors... Wonder why?

If I recall correctly DEC even tried to sue Intel for this but they ended up with some very stupid arbitration where Intel would have manufactured DEC's processors. I don't think that went very well because Alpha was sold to Compaq and then to, guess what, Intel.

And how does this concern Microsoft? Windows NT supported Alpha processors back in the days (maybe still does, at least with some effort?). Rumour says that someone, somewhere, was able to actually run NT on top of Alpha.

Re:*SNIFF* They're finally growing up!

[Carewolf]

Windows NT ran fine on Alpha. The problem was that NT was not very well known, and with Alpha being even more rare, there was no applications written for Windows NT Alpha. For a moment Alpha processors was so much faster than Intel processors that they could successfully run simulations of x86 processors faster than the fastest x86 processors. This x86->Alpha translation software is the granddaddy of many modern JIT compilers.

When Intel starting doing hardware simulations of x86 in the Pentium Pro architectures, they finally beat the Alpha on price and performance (thought first in P2). The Alpha guys managed to beat Intel on last time though when they jumped ship help design the Athlon for AMD.

Re:*SNIFF* They're finally growing up!

[mikael]

There were some graphics coprocessor cards back in the early 1990's. Texas Instruments TMS34010/TMS34020 range, that could have up four floating point units per processor. All of that was wiped out after Intel deliberately introduced a faster video bus and it became faster to render using the CPU again.

Re:*SNIFF* They're finally growing up!

[evilviper]

The Alpha guys managed to beat Intel on last time though when they jumped ship help design the Athlon for AMD.

Intel got a bunch of Alpha engineers from HP, just as AMD did.

Intel set theirs to work on the Itanium, while AMD set theirs to work on x86-64.

Re:*SNIFF* They're finally growing up!

[hitmark]

That most be the single bloodiest nose intel have ever gotten...

Re:*SNIFF* They're finally growing up!

[Carewolf]

AMD didn't get the Alpha developers from HP. They got them from DEC. Before DEC was bought by Compaq they were working with AMD developing HyperTransport. Some of the key developers behind HyperTransport moved to AMD instead of being bought by Compaq.

Wow, after 9 years justice finally catches up

[Pecisk]

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.

Re:Wow, after 9 years justice finally catches up

[Anonymous Coward]

Even now, OLPC got burned from them few years ago.

Would that be the same OLPC that sold out to Microsoft? Intel did one thing right then.

minus 5, troll)

[Anonymous Coward]

Serves t0 reinforce

I don't buy Intel anyway.

[xjlm]

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.

Re:I don't buy Intel anyway.

[Joce640k]

Um... explain to me again which part of the "display and video capabilities" is being done by the AMD chip...

Re:I don't buy Intel anyway.

[obarthelemy]

all of it: the chipset is ... a chip, too ?

the OP is probably comparing the radeon 3200 IGP to an intel 945 something. No contest here.

Re:I don't buy Intel anyway.

[Joce640k]

he said the chipset isn't ... made by AMD.

Business plan

[jamesh]

paying retailers not to sell AMD-based computer systems

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!

Re:Business plan

[mgblst]

Sorry, this process has been patented by American and European farmers.

Re:Business plan

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure about this. Couldn't intel just cut out the middleman (and your business model) and just pay AMD directly to not sell their products?

Fixed!

[justinlee37]

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.

Re:Fixed!

[Burkin]

The only thing you did was to completely miss the GP's joke.

Re:Fixed!

[justinlee37]

Oh, I got the joke. He was trying to be ironic. I thought maybe I could help it be a little funnier with a juxtaposition.

Of course I was only half-joking myself.

Re:Fixed!

[Burkin]

I thought maybe I could help it be a little funnier with a juxtaposition.

And you failed miserably. Good job!

Re:Fixed!

[justinlee37]

Hey, at least somebody gets to be the transhuman master of the universe.

Alternatives

[Anonymous Coward]

How about Intel stops selling its chips to EU nations? They can all run OpenOffice under *nix with AMD chips.

/. moderation are little ugly TROLLS

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Give the Fine to AMD

[fast turtle]

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,

Re:Give the Fine to AMD

[ceoyoyo]

Hi, I'm Cyrus and I'd like some money too. Yeah, me too, make the check out to VIA. Hey, DEC here, don't forget me! Yo, dudes, it's Joe Blow; I had a great idea for a chip but I couldn't get VC funding because Intel was in such a dominant position; where's mine?

For a real world example of why this is a bad idea see any music industry initiative to levy recordable media.

Re:Give the Fine to AMD

[Spatial]

I don't think ATI needs much help right now. Their current lineup is better value than most of Nvidia's, offer similar medium-high end performance (HD4850 and 4870) and they're ahead in process technology as well. They recently released a 40nm GPU and it's pretty damn good (the HD4770). I don't think Nvidia have anything to match it actually.

I've always bought Nvidia cards for the sake of familiarity. I was going to switch over last time I upgraded but there was a sale on the GTX 260. Better luck next time ATI!

Re:Give the Fine to AMD

[RightSaidFred99]

You miss the part about, well, "money". Like those bureaucrats are going to give up that much money.

This is all about "laws" which are subjectively interpreted and the money from said subjective interpretation goes to the organization doing the interpretation. Nice gig if you can get it.

US to strengthen anti-trust enforcement also

[mspohr]

From today's NY Times:

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."

Again?

[xjlm]

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.

Hit them where it hurts

[I'm not really here]

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.

Re:Hit them where it hurts

[Alex Belits]

Don't fine them for abusing their dominant position--take away the dominant position.

That's crazy talk -- the primary purpose of people's lives is to support and defend deserved privileges of their lords and masters!!!

Seriously, what kind of idiot would care about being nice to people who make their life goal to take from society more than they give back?

Unfettered capitalism can't survive

[Anonymous Coward]

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/