Slashdot Mirror


$860 Million In Fines Handed Out For LCD Price-Fixing

eldavojohn writes "Six companies have pleaded guilty to worldwide price fixing of Thin-Film Transistor Liquid Crystal Displays from Sept. 14, 2001, to Dec. 1, 2006. For violating the Sherman Act, the companies have agreed to pay criminal fines of over $860 Million. In addition, nine executives have been charged in the scandal. The pricing scam affected some of the largest companies at the time, including Apple, HP and Dell. (If you bought a TFT-LCD from them in that time frame, you may be one of the victimized consumers.) From the DOJ release, 'According to the charge, Chi Mei carried out the conspiracy by agreeing during meetings, conversations and communications to charge prices of TFT-LCD panels at certain pre-determined levels and issuing price quotations in accordance with the agreements reached. As a part of the conspiracy, Chi Mei exchanged information on sales of TFT-LCD panels for the purpose of monitoring and enforcing adherence to the agreed-upon prices.'"

151 comments

  1. ok what? by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

    so what exactly happened? the article is long on confusion and short on explanations.

    --
    I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    1. Re:ok what? by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Informative

      so what exactly happened? the article is long on confusion and short on explanations.

      Someone got really greedy. Someone else caught them and is now going to use that fact to advance their political career. Some stockholders will suffer and a handful of executives will spend a few years in white collar resort prison.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:ok what? by Dyinobal · · Score: 1

      860mill fine for how many millions in profits? Guess everything is fine so long as big brother gets a cut.

    3. Re:ok what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      You forgot the part where the wronged consumers get justice in the form of a $2 class action settlement check.

    4. Re:ok what? by zmaragdus · · Score: 5, Informative

      A little addendum: the final fine may vary from the stated amount. According to the document, the maximum fine may be increased to twice the amount illegally gained by the company or twice the amount of loss suffered by the victims. While 860 million USD seems a bit low, I expect the final number to be higher. (Or the given number could be a sort of "plea bargain" amount. I'm not sure.)

      --
      (((dB)))
    5. Re:ok what? by kpainter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You forgot the part where the wronged consumers get justice in the form of a $2 class action settlement check.

      YOU forgot the part where the wronged consumers get a coupon worth $2 off on their next purchase as their settlement.

    6. Re:ok what? by eihab · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well let's see. The Taiwanese LCD producer Chi Mei Optoelectronics (CMO) agreed to pay $220 million for violations over 5 years (2001-2006) which comes up to $44 million per year of violations.

      CMO is a publicly traded company, for 2009 their net sales up to November has been almost $30 billion dollars.

      CMO's market cap is $150 billion dollars.

      I think it's safe to say that $44 million dollars a year is a drop in the bucket for them.

      The other $640 million is divided across 5 other companies so far, which sets them about $128 million dollars each, or $25.6 million dollars a year.

      Justice is served!

      --
      If you can't mod them join them.
    7. Re:ok what? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      What's even worse are the cases where they get a free pass by paying the class action settlement, like the Google book deal. At least in a slightly less world you'd get your two dollar coupon but at least they'd have to stop any further infringements, not carry on breaking the law with the court's blessing. Current copyright laws are awful but one private company essentially ceasing it is even more awful.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    8. Re:ok what? by RandomUsername99 · · Score: 5, Informative

      This article is of course for the criminal action and not any civil suits. Naturally, there is a proposed class action in the US for those who were victimized:

      http://www.lieffcabraser.com/antitrust/lcd-antitrust.htm

      The suit is for:
      All persons and entities who, between January 1, 1996 and December 11, 2006, directly purchased a TFT-LCD Product in the United States from any defendant or any subsidiary or affiliate thereof, or any co-conspirator. Excluded from the Class are defendants, their parent companies, subsidiaries and affiliates, any co-conspirators, all governmental entities, and any judges or justices assigned to hear any aspect of this action.

      From what it says the motion to dismiss based on lack of evidence has been thrown out. Will they settle? Will their lawyers eventually be able to squish it like a little bug? What will the payout be? That's anybody's guess. Might be worth getting on board if you were a firm that bought a ton of LCDs in that time though... I would imagine that if there was a payout, it would be per infraction rather than per customer, right? I admit that this is well outside my area of expertise.

    9. Re:ok what? by fractoid · · Score: 1

      Someone got really greedy. Someone else caught them and is now going to use that fact to advance their political career. Some stockholders will suffer and a handful of executives will spend a few years in white collar resort prison.

      You mean one with conjugal visits?

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    10. Re:ok what? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      Justice is served!

      And the price is right. For some at least.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    11. Re:ok what? by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      something about being held at gun point to buy an LCD monitor against your will or something like that.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    12. Re:ok what? by Straterra · · Score: 5, Funny

      You mean one with conjugal visits?

      Conjugal visits? Mmmm. Not that I know of. Y'know, minimum-security prison is no picnic. I have a client in there right now. He says the trick is: kick someone's ass the first day, or become someone's bitch. Then everything will be all right. W-Why do you ask, anyway?

    13. Re:ok what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      *150 billion new Taiwan dollards equals about 4 billion dollars
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Taiwan_dollar

    14. Re:ok what? by fyngyrz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      YOU forgot the part where the wronged consumers get a coupon worth $2 off on their next purchase as their settlement.

      Yeah, and you forgot the part where the manufacturer tacks $2.20 onto the price to cover the $2 coupon.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    15. Re:ok what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh on Reuters that market cap is NT$, which a quick google shows as New Taiwan Dollars which are approximately 32 to 1 US dollar, making the company's market cap around $4.5b US. I'm guessing all your other numbers need to be revised downwards as well.

    16. Re:ok what? by shentino · · Score: 1

      Which makes me think that they ought to rework how they figure the damages.

      I think that 2 bucks is quite a bit less than the damages suffered per person.

    17. Re:ok what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Honestly I'm not sure I like this ruling. If the entire market can collude to get it done, then there's probably more than just a little reason for it to happen. IE, ALL producers of panels had sunk capital costs with the hope of recouping them, but weren't going to be able to.

      Please, Mr Corporation, rape me in the ass, please, I really really want you to!

      Seriously, WTF are you smoking. Companies don't sell anything at a loss unless they're deliberately trying to undercut each other. It isn't sustainable as they'll go bankrupt obviously. I suppose you also think that the MAFIAA are only colluding because otherwise they can't recoup their costs in finding "talent" as well?

    18. Re:ok what? by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Shhh. Modzilla the fifteen point mod may be nearby.

    19. Re:ok what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *150 billion new Taiwan dollards equals about 4 billion dollars
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Taiwan_dollar

      Australian dollars? Canadian? Panamanian? Ecuadorian?

    20. Re:ok what? by b4upoo · · Score: 1

      Did the companies that cheated still benefit from the cheating after the fines are paid? I'll bet that they did. Usually fines against corporations are actually a signal to keep right on doing wrong. Think Microsoft. How many huge fines have they paid? Yet it obviously has always paid off for them to violate the law.

    21. Re:ok what? by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      You're all forgetting that the $860 million dollar fine will likely get paid to the same companies in the form of government contracts.

      --
      I hate printers.
    22. Re:ok what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *150 billion new Taiwan dollards equals about 4 billion dollars

      Not for long.

    23. Re:ok what? by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      The coupon with an expiration date far before I'm interested in buying a new monitor.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    24. Re:ok what? by weirdcrashingnoises · · Score: 1

      You're forgetting that paying yourself money (which is the net effect for what you just proposed) to do work doesn't mean you are making a profit.

      --
      sigs... don't talk to me about sigs....
    25. Re:ok what? by altern1ty · · Score: 1

      And we could ALL do with slightly less world...

  2. Apple's Price Fixing by ireallylovelinux · · Score: 0, Troll

    We are just going to sell displays at a higher price than everyone else.

    1. Re:Apple's Price Fixing by ExploHD · · Score: 0

      We are just going to sell displays at a higher price than everyone else.

      By being involved with the price fixing, they were making that much more in profits above what the markets should of naturally been.

    2. Re:Apple's Price Fixing by AdmiralXyz · · Score: 3, Informative

      You're misreading the summary. They weren't involved in the price fixing, they were affected by it. Apple has to pay component manufacturers just like everyone else.

      --
      Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
    3. Re:Apple's Price Fixing by John+Hasler · · Score: 3, Informative

      > By being involved with the price fixing...

      Apple was one of the _victims_. The conspirators were some (all?) of the manufacurers who supply displays to Apple, Dell, and HP.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    4. Re:Apple's Price Fixing by ImYourVirus · · Score: 1

      If they were 'victims' as you claim then why do they have to pay? I call bullshit, they were involved and 25 million a year? That's pennies for any of those companies, and that sort of 'fine' is just a slap on the wrist and they will just continue to do their part to fuck over their customers anyway they can. When they can get a fine that's in the billions for each company, they we'll talk about them learning a lesson, until then, no dice.

      Onto what ksemlerK said below me, that sounds fair as well, they should have to pay a 'fine' to their customers as well, fair is fair, right?

      --
      Why is common sense called that if it's not common?
    5. Re:Apple's Price Fixing by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > If they were 'victims' as you claim then why do they have to pay?

      Where does the article say anything about them having to pay?

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    6. Re:Apple's Price Fixing by AHuxley · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Need a cartel to make this work. So the computer firms had to know or accept this. From a wink, nudge limited good quality supply, dont rock the boat to something more direct and personal.
      Are docs floating around the computer firms stating to just sign, we need the parts now, as the tech matures we can escape this BS, or was in more an inner clique that kept it going as they where the only ones who saw the docs?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    7. Re:Apple's Price Fixing by Ian+Alexander · · Score: 1

      Um, do they have to pay? I don't see that anywhere. Just that Apple was affected by the scam. And I would be surprised if Apple was in on it, since it seems like Apple would have a vested interest in keeping LCD prices low, not high, what with it not being an LCD manufacturer.

    8. Re:Apple's Price Fixing by ImYourVirus · · Score: 1

      I guess I read it wrong, my bad.

      --
      Why is common sense called that if it's not common?
    9. Re:Apple's Price Fixing by dtremit · · Score: 1

      The cartel was among LCD manufacturers. Chi Mei is the sixth company to plead guilty; the other five were LG, Sharp, Chunghwa, Seiko Epson, and Hitachi.

      If you're a manufacturer who sends out a bid for LCD panels, and they all come back at something close to $X, you pay up. You need the parts, they have them, you pay what they're asking.

      --
      "It is absurd to divide people into good or bad. People are either charming or tedious." --Oscar Wilde
  3. Mod parent up. by John+Hasler · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Mod parent up.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  4. Cut a deal by ksemlerK · · Score: 2, Funny

    and sell me a $50 24" wide screen monitor with a 5ms response time, and then we'll talk.

    1. Re:Cut a deal by MadnessASAP · · Score: 1

      Deal! A resolution of 2x4 is fine right?

      --
      I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
    2. Re:Cut a deal by Sechr+Nibw · · Score: 1

      2x4 isn't a wide resolution monitor, that's a tall resolution monitor! Sheesh, bait and switch...

    3. Re:Cut a deal by ksemlerK · · Score: 1

      I'll give you a 2x4, right your your ass. :D

    4. Re:Cut a deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget color fidelity. Good response time is easy. Decent colors, now that is hard.

    5. Re:Cut a deal by Spatial · · Score: 1

      Good response time is easy.

      Yes, it's simply a matter of lying about it on the specification list. 5ms my ass.

    6. Re:Cut a deal by springbox · · Score: 1

      I would rather see the prices on the nicer non-TN panels drop sometime

  5. Say it ain't so by future+assassin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Corporations doing shyster deals to gain profits for share holders while braking laws and shafting the consumers? Good god whats next, corporation changing laws to punish consumers for using products in ways there were not designed to be used?

    Hey hey there kid. That baseball is designed to be hit with our authorized bats. Using any unauthorized bat is prohibited and will be enforced by our "Good Consumer Police"

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re:Say it ain't so by zmaragdus · · Score: 1

      Well, Congress is moving towards banning the production of incandescent light bulbs in favor of compact flourescent bulbs (and LED bulbs, but they're a bit further away from practicality). Indeed, whatever will be next?

      --
      (((dB)))
    2. Re:Say it ain't so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple would never shaft their customers. Their customers would demand to be ovecharged for the smug satisfaction it gave them.

  6. Victimized consumers may contact the DOJ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...if they wish to receive a tiny American flag pin*

    *shipping and handling charges may apply.

  7. I just wonder by crazybit · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Which other products might have their prices controlled the same way right now?

    --
    - Human knowledge belongs to the world
    1. Re:I just wonder by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      Oil. But of course there the conspirators are governments, so it's ok.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:I just wonder by benjamindees · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, let's see, in the US, officially-government-sanctioned price-fixing oligopolies include oranges, almonds, cranberries, and raisins. Then of course there is anything covered by a patent. Or any resource that is mined from government leases. And then there's other industries that supply the military, such as airplanes, car companies, steel and weapons manufacturers, which are all protected and subsidized. Then you have licensed trades, electricians, plumbers, construction workers, truck-drivers and hair-stylists. And of course finally there are licensed professionals such as doctors, lawyers, nurses, and engineers. I probably missed somebody.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    3. Re:I just wonder by mysidia · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Going out on a limb... DRAM chips, SSDs, Flash memory.

      I for one find it odd that old 1gb PC2700 modules are still over $30. And the price seems to be the same no matter which manufacturer you look at.

      Meanwhile 8gb compact flash cards, which are oh so more expensive to manufacture than SDRAM, are $30, that is unless you want "true" compact flash which faithfully implements the true IDE standard (I.E. to use them with an IDE-CF adapter, instead of in a digital camera)... those got rebadged as "Industrial CF" and cost like $200.

    4. Re:I just wonder by benjamindees · · Score: 2, Informative

      unless you want "true" compact flash which faithfully implements the true IDE standard (I.E. to use them with an IDE-CF adapter, instead of in a digital camera)... those got rebadged as "Industrial CF" and cost like $200.

      I use the $20 CF cards I find on e-bay with an IDE adapter. You might have to manually set the BIOS to recognize them, but other than that they seem to work fine.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    5. Re:I just wonder by ArsonSmith · · Score: 0

      It's all political spin.

      If all prices are the same then it's collusion and price fixing
      If one company has a higher price then they're gouging
      If one company lowers their price then they're undercutting

      You really can't win.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    6. Re:I just wonder by shentino · · Score: 1

      Actually, you can...if you're a politician.

    7. Re:I just wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yay for ridiculous over simplification of the economics.

      This is painfully simple to understand yet you seem to believe they're just magical terms to take away corporations' god given right to fleece every penny out of the community.

      Undercutting: A company spends $200 on parts and labor, sells the product for $150; or they can employ people for minimum wage and sacrifice quality standards to actually make that price sustainable. If all the other competitors can't beat that price without sacrificing quality or features then they have been undercut. [This term is somewhat nebulous as it can be abused as an emotive response]

      Gouging: Company spends $200 on parts and labor, sells at $400+. Obviously, no one in their right mind, who understands the specifications, is going to pay that so you just drown out the competition or trick customers using marketing (eg. DVDs will only look 'right' on an official Apple Cinema Display with panorama vision[TM]). In electronics, special plugs that are only available on other products that you sell are also a good way to do this, same with cars.

      Price Fixing: Two or more companies spend $200 on parts and labor, they compete on price until they only sell the product at, say, $205 which isn't very profitable so they join forces to simultaneously raise their prices to $250 so you can't get out of paying the inflated price unless you just go without. It's also a great way to terminate competition since you are no longer competing with someone who operates on your terms, the MAFIAA are very big on this with the price of CDs for example.

    8. Re:I just wonder by MrMr · · Score: 1
    9. Re:I just wonder by maxume · · Score: 1

      I don't think any of those are the same, LCD prices still dropped over the period, prices for those other things either stayed pretty flat or increased.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    10. Re:I just wonder by ihavnoid · · Score: 1

      I for one find it odd that old 1gb PC2700 modules are still over $30. And the price seems to be the same no matter which manufacturer you look at.

      That probably would be because nobody manufactures 1GB PC2700 modules anymore.
      Low demand -> lower supply -> even higher cost.

    11. Re:I just wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I probably missed somebody

      Politicians?

    12. Re:I just wonder by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Undercutting: A company spends $200 on parts and labor, sells the product for $150; or they can employ people for minimum wage and sacrifice quality standards to actually make that price sustainable. If all the other competitors can't beat that price without sacrificing quality or features then they have been undercut. [This term is somewhat nebulous as it can be abused as an emotive response]

      We're losing $50 on each sell but we'll make up for it in volume!!! good plan. Don't think that company is going to be around much longer.

      Gouging: Company spends $200 on parts and labor, sells at $400+. Obviously, no one in their right mind, who understands the specifications, is going to pay that so you just drown out the competition or trick customers using marketing (eg. DVDs will only look 'right' on an official Apple Cinema Display with panorama vision[TM]). In electronics, special plugs that are only available on other products that you sell are also a good way to do this, same with cars.

      If $400 is the market price then more power to them. If you don't like the price don't buy it. Especially in this case you really don't need an LCD.

      Price Fixing: Two or more companies spend $200 on parts and labor, they compete on price until they only sell the product at, say, $205 which isn't very profitable so they join forces to simultaneously raise their prices to $250 so you can't get out of paying the inflated price unless you just go without. It's also a great way to terminate competition since you are no longer competing with someone who operates on your terms, the MAFIAA are very big on this with the price of CDs for example."

      Again if they aren't selling them at a price you're willing to pay then why are you buying them? Unless the MAFIAA comes to your house and says you're going to have to buy this product at the price we tell you whether you want to or not then nothing that should be illegal is going on. (although emotionally driven legislation makes in illegal)

      Sorry if freemarket doesn't give you warm and fuzzies all the time.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    13. Re:I just wonder by mysidia · · Score: 1

      No, and companies are still manufacturing them. And With the release of Windows Vista, there's still demand for these modules.

      There are nearly as many computers in the real world using SDRAM and DDR SDRAM as there are using computers using DDR2 or DDR3.

      In much the same way as there are more computers running Windows XP than anything else.

    14. Re:I just wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, there isn't a mod option for +1 dripping sarcasm, right?

    15. Re:I just wonder by ymgve · · Score: 1

      There are nearly as many computers in the real world using SDRAM and DDR SDRAM as there are using computers using DDR2 or DDR3.

      They are also owned by people/companies that would rather buy a new system instead of adding more RAM.

  8. Apple selling same LCDs FOREVER. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this at all related to Apple selling the same model Cinema Displays since April, 2007? 982 days without a refresh, following an average of 230. What's going on there?

    1. Re:Apple selling same LCDs FOREVER. by onefriedrice · · Score: 2, Informative

      Is this at all related to Apple selling the same model Cinema Displays since April, 2007? 982 days without a refresh, following an average of 230.

      Maybe, only because Apple is only able to sell displays based on demand but were paying prices on the supply side that were artificially higher than demand. If the price-fixing stops (and this is a good sign that it has or will), presumably there will be more profits for Apple, Dell, HP, etc in LCD displays and we may therefore look forward to refreshed product lines. Price fixing can have far-reaching consequences in a global market.

      --
      This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
    2. Re:Apple selling same LCDs FOREVER. by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      it makes sense for the LCD market to stagnate a bit now. first there was the inrush as people did a lateral move from CRTs to LCD's that actually didn't look as good as the CRT, then LCD's got bigger and sharper, then after that their speed got high enough for gaming and other fast paced things to be unaffected. After that there hasn't been much to do to them so what's the need to turn out new models as often as before?

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    3. Re:Apple selling same LCDs FOREVER. by Zero_DgZ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How about turning out some new models that are a bleeding 4:3 aspect ratio, instead of 16:9? Nowadays it seems every LCD panel in the world is a repurposed HDTV unit. Those of us who lots of coding and document work tend to prefer monitors without a squished vertical aspect and a bunch of wasted horizontal space (especially considering 100% of the universe uses 8.5x11 or A4 paper that's taller than it is wide, and document design reflects this format).

    4. Re:Apple selling same LCDs FOREVER. by HungWeiLo · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Dell LCDs at my work can rotate to a long vertical orientation.

      --
      There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
    5. Re:Apple selling same LCDs FOREVER. by PhrstBrn · · Score: 1

      Buy a nice monitor and flip it 90 degrees. I agree, widescreen monitors are not any better for coding. However, a good sized widesceen monitor flipped 90 degree IS very nice for that purpose.. Most decent monitors come with a VESA compliant mount, so if they don't come with a rotatable stand, you can at least get an after-market stand.... or buy one that's height adjustable/rotatable.

    6. Re:Apple selling same LCDs FOREVER. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why you can rotate the LCD panel to the "portrait" orientation.
      Like this:
      http://www.technologybestpractices.com/images/willsmonoitors.jpg

    7. Re:Apple selling same LCDs FOREVER. by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      I still don't know what it is with this fixation of super wide ratios such as 16:9.

      Supposedly, our field of view fits it better. But in reality, a square display would far better suit our visual system, where details can be discerned equally according to the distance from the direct line of view. For example, try reading a word while looking not directly at the word, but 2 or 5cm away. The text is just as hard to read whether you look 5cm below/above the word, or 5cm to the *left/right* of the word.

      When I look at a wide screen, I see gaping missing blocks at the top and bottom.

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    8. Re:Apple selling same LCDs FOREVER. by profplump · · Score: 1

      Dell 2007FP. Decent (not great, but decent) monitor. 4x3 -- 1600x1200. Pivots to 1200x1600. Nice stand. Refurbished for $200 on Amazon.

      / Pivoted to portrait mode they also fit nicely at the of a 2560x1600 display

    9. Re:Apple selling same LCDs FOREVER. by toddestan · · Score: 1

      The problem with that is that the TN panels (which almost every single one of the 16:9 panels are) have a terrible vertical viewing angle. When you rotate the screen then you end up with a very noticeable poor horizontal viewing angle.

    10. Re:Apple selling same LCDs FOREVER. by jecowa · · Score: 1

      Wide screen is so you get a nice square of content in the middle with lots of ads running down both sides.

      --
      my opportunity to freely express myself with the potential persecution and hangings and such
    11. Re:Apple selling same LCDs FOREVER. by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      Lol, that's classic :)

      I now see their evil plan ;)

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
  9. let me guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    As someone who bought a Dell flat panel (for well over $100 IIRC) during that time period, all I need to do is submit my name and address, email address, two phone numbers, and other identifying information, to be entered in a database administered by only-God-knows so I'll eventually receive a check for my share of the proceeds which works out to $13.62 USD. Meanwhile plaintiff attorneys Dewey Cheatem and Howe LLP will receive 40 percent of the settlement, or $90 million. Apple, HP, Dell, and the others neither admit nor deny guilt or responsibility in the matter.

    No thanks.

    1. Re:let me guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bought two Dell 20" LCD monitors in 2004 at a cost of over $1400. Where's my money bitches?!

    2. Re:let me guess by dotfile · · Score: 2, Insightful

      $13.62? You've never actually been on the consumer end of one of these things, have you?

      No, the lawyers will get 100% of the actual cash that changes hands. The "victimized consumer class" will get some bullshit "settlement" like a voucher for $50 off the list price of the next monitor they buy from the companies that did this in the first place. Of course that will work out to a much higher price than you could buy it for without said voucher... so, in effect, you get dick.

      Again.

    3. Re:let me guess by Trepidity · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've gotten cash before, though usually small amounts. Back in 2004 I got a check for $9 out of some sort of music-CD price-fixing settlement.

      This particular case appears not to be a class-action suit at all, though; it's a criminal investigation that imposed a fine. So there is no settlement to distribute, since it's not a civil suit with plaintiffs.

    4. Re:let me guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is what the headline says "FINES" not settlement.

    5. Re:let me guess by RandomUsername99 · · Score: 1

      This is a criminal case, not a class action settlement.

  10. Ugh by benjamindees · · Score: 1

    Summary worthless as usual. A conspiracy usually requires more than one conspirator. The company mentioned in the linked press release doesn't even seem to produce LCD screens. What are the real companies involved that I might actually care about?

    In fact, that's an interesting topic of criminal law. "Conspiracy" by itself is a "group" crime (price-fixing especially). Multiple people must work together for a crime to have even occurred. One party cannot conspire by itself. We would call that "thought crime". I know the press release says otherwise, but if only one company pleads guilty to conspiracy, is it really a conspiracy? Wouldn't a judge have to reject the plea unless or until more companies were found guilty as well?

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    1. Re:Ugh by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      a company is made of n individuals and if n>1 conspiracy is possible wholly within the company.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    2. Re:Ugh by mysidia · · Score: 3, Informative

      However, you can definitely be charged and found guilty of conspiring, even if 'other alleged parties' to the conspiracy have not yet been charged, or are still under investigation.

      The companies involved will most likely all be overseas companies you don't care much about. Most of the manufacturers of the TFT screens are overseas.

      The companies the average US person has heard of (such as Dell, HP, etc) who sell monitors, are OEMs. That is, the manufacturers (such as the ones who do the price fixing) supply the screen. OEMs design and build an actual monitor using the OEM'd TFT, other OEM'd parts (and parts designed by the OEM), and ship the final product.

      The TFT is just one of many components required to build an LCD monitor. Another manufacturer (very possibly) makes the backlight. And yet another company might make the plastic body.

      From TFA, however:

      Including today's charges, as a result of this investigation, six companies have pleaded guilty or have agreed to plead guilty and have been sentenced to pay or have agreed to pay criminal fines totaling more than $860 million. Additionally, nine executives have been charged to date in the department's ongoing investigation.

    3. Re:Ugh by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      You think a single company can fix industry prices acting by itself?

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    4. Re:Ugh by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      However, you can definitely be charged and found guilty of conspiring, even if 'other alleged parties' to the conspiracy have not yet been charged, or are still under investigation.

      So, even though the crime of conspiracy requires multiple people working together by definition, your assertion is that a single person can be convicted of conspiracy alone. The fact that others participated is just a foregone conclusion, without them having been charged and tried? Once you've convicted a single person of conspiracy, all the other alleged conspirators could just be summarily rounded up and incarcerated? Do the other alleged conspirators have the right to defend themselves against the charge of being involved, in your opinion?

      Or are you under the impression that it is possible to have a conspiracy of one? You did basically say it's possible for a single person to be convicted without even so much as an allegation that anyone else is involved. Is that really what you think?

      Would you like to back up this assertion? What are you basing it on? Slashdot lawyering?

      (FYI I'm perfectly aware of what goes into producing an LCD screen. I'd just like to know who the other five companies are.)

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    5. Re:Ugh by Denjiro · · Score: 1

      They can if they hold a monopoly or near monopoly on their service or good, hence why we have protections in place against monopolies abusing their position.

    6. Re:Ugh by mysidia · · Score: 1

      So, even though the crime of conspiracy requires multiple people working together by definition, your assertion is that a single person can be convicted of conspiracy alone.

      That's right. In fact, one can be convicted of conspiracy, even when the identity of the other conspirators is unknown to prosecutors, and even when the identity is unknown to the person charged.

      You could be convicted of conspiracy if you reached an agreement to commit a crime with an Anonymous coward on slashdot. Also, no overt act is required.. you don't even have to make any action towards committing the crime (necessarily) to be convicted.

      Whether or not to indict or lay charges against other conspirators, so they get a trial too, is completely a matter of prosecutor discretion.

      For example, if a mayor or other elected official is accused of conspiracy, prosecutors may choose to file charges against only the official.

      Each conspirator charged is entitled to their own trial. Each case will go before a court at a time, and the accused will have a chance to defend themselves against the charges of conspiracy.

      This is a right protected by the US constitution. You cannot be automatically convicted of a crime based on the proceeding that occured, when someone else was on trial.

      The prosecution will show evidence that the person agreed with someone else to commit a crime.

      The court will find them guilty or not.

      It's quite possible that one person alleged to be conspiring could be acquitted of the charges, and the person they were charged with conspiring against, found guilty.

      An alleged conspirator being acquitted also does not necessarily absolve the accused of any charge of guilt.

    7. Re:Ugh by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

      Chi Mei Optoelectronics is owned by Foxconn, who owns a ton of other stuff. They control a ton of manufacturing business and a lot of the electronic subassembly business.

      --
      http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
  11. Oh great by ArchieBunker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Guess who is going to pay the $860 million. Don't look forward to cheaper LCD prices anytime soon.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:Oh great by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Clearly they misplaced the zeros when determining the fine. $860 million is a small fraction of their ill-gotten gains.

      The fine should be $860 billion. And the government can earmark the money to help pay for the bank bailout and stimulus plan in the recent past.

    2. Re:Oh great by KonoWatakushi · · Score: 1

      Exactly. There is no use in fining corporations, as it only hurts their customers. The fines are nothing but a cash grab by the government, and the settlements benefit no one but the lawyers.

      There need to be serious consequences for this type of thing. They should tear the responsible people limb from limb, literally.

    3. Re:Oh great by Moskit · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      This is one point that people often miss in "company has to pay" announcements.
      When it a company is fined, money ultimately comes out of customers' pockets, so this does not benefit customers who are paying the second time for the same mistake! Now guess who collects the fine? Governement, as a form of a hidden tax.

      It is not companies who have conspired, it is actual people working in these companies! These people (probably executive level) should pay that fine, otherwise they would not care - "company" gets all the blame, not them. Good that in that case these people are prosecuted, too.

    4. Re:Oh great by cffrost · · Score: 1

      They should tear the responsible people limb from limb, literally.

      No, they should not. That's barbaric, and takes away from the civilization of humankind.

      However, I think executives would have a difficult time valuating prison time when calculating the profitability of premeditated crime.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    5. Re:Oh great by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>The fines are nothing but a cash grab by the government, and the settlements benefit no one but the lawyers.

      Pshaw. I'm sure the government will use its $800m or so to locate all the people that bought LCD screens during this time period and give them all $50 refunds.

    6. Re:Oh great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is one point that people often miss in "company has to pay" announcements.
      When it a company is fined, money ultimately comes out of customers' pockets

      That's not necessarily true. The burden of a deadweight loss depends on the price elasticity of demand. If demand is inelastic, the consumer pays most of the burden. If the demand is unit elastic, they split it equally. If the demand is elastic, the supplier pays most of the burden.

      And seeing how LCD monitors are luxuries with a relatively high elasticity of demand, you will find that you are wrong.

  12. Note to conspiracy theorists... by onyxruby · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is what real conspiracies look like. Note the distinct lack of "CIA", "Masons", "NSA" or other such favorites.

    1. Re:Note to conspiracy theorists... by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      Big acrylic?

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    2. Re:Note to conspiracy theorists... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Price fixing would be great for the CIA. All that ongoing tech/price chatter would open many to long term blackmail. The NSA could then compromise other digital products by the same firms for sale around the world.
      The masons would just spike the plastics to slowly give off a cancer trigger and a nice electronic hum to keep the bottom 90% of the world in their place.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:Note to conspiracy theorists... by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      "Wikipedia, the concept that persistent opinions represent facts"

      Can you prove that idea wrong? There is no fact, just expected consistent observation (persistent opinion)

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    4. Re:Note to conspiracy theorists... by RobVB · · Score: 4, Funny

      The CIA is only successful if you don't know they're involved. This was a pretty successful conspiracy, and therefore you can be sure that the CIA was indeed involved!

      Clearly, you have a lot to learn about conspiracies.

      --
      I'd rather you rationally disagree than irrationally agree.
    5. Re:Note to conspiracy theorists... by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      This is what real conspiracies look like. Note the distinct lack of "CIA", "Masons", "NSA" or other such favorites.

      That's only because the illuminati killed their contacts in those organizations to hide the truth.

    6. Re:Note to conspiracy theorists... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh shut the fuck up you moron! Your mama got a conspiracy to put it in your butt.

  13. They are always doing this. Better way is to by zymano · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The better way to handle this is to drop the stupid ineffective fines and threaten that their products wont be allowed to sell in the USA.

    Then they wouldn't even dare try to fix prices.

    5 year ban.

  14. Re:They are always doing this. Better way is to by selven · · Score: 1

    1) Subsidiaries

    If you're smart enough to close that loophole,

    2) Indirect sales (A sells to B who sells into the US)

    Your only choices are to prevent the company from doing anything (impossible due to jurisdiction issues) and to block all imports (the economy can survive that for about a week).

  15. Savings by jecowa · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So how much should LCDs really cost? I want some savings on my next purchase.

    --
    my opportunity to freely express myself with the potential persecution and hangings and such
    1. Re:Savings by Torodung · · Score: 1

      LCDs actually cost a buck oh-five.

      --
      Toro

    2. Re:Savings by Straterra · · Score: 1

      Interesting. LCDs and freedom must be made from the same materials...

    3. Re:Savings by jecowa · · Score: 1

      Excellent. I'm so excited. I think I'll get twenty of them just because. It's going to be so awesome.

      --
      my opportunity to freely express myself with the potential persecution and hangings and such
  16. Re:They are always doing this. Better way is to by mysidia · · Score: 1

    Can you imagine what would happen to prices if they did that?

    First of all, in a conspiracy like this... the TFT part might no longer be available.. that would mean nobody could manufacture new monitors.

    How do you feel about paying $10000 to get a 12" LCD display, due to all the main manufacturers' TFT screen material being banned?

  17. Other co-conspirators will pay more? by nsushkin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's interesting who Chi-Mei conspired WITH. Chi-Mei is not the best LCD manufacturer and they agreed to cooperate with DOJ. There must be other companies who Chi-Mei will bust and who will pay more. Certain Koreans, perhaps?

  18. Victimized? by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

    Yes, price fixing is bad, but seriously "victimized" consumers? Yeah, they overpaid for an LCD, but they -chose- to pay that amount for an LCD. No one made them choose an LCD monitor/TV, its possible to watch TV/use a computer without an LCD display (CRT, Plasma, etc) and such. Once patents expired (or if hopefully patents are either abolished or weakened) theres nothing stopping a full-on price war where the people price fixing will lose big time.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    1. Re:Victimized? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes they did, I absolutely had to have a monitor for work. It was a condition of my employment to have a home computer, as I work remotely. I was unable to find a better deal than the one I got, and this may have been a result of price fixing. I was a victim. My monitor wasn't a luxury item I decided was worth it. It was an item I needed to make a living, and I had no choice but to pay the amount the company demanded.

    2. Re:Victimized? by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      Because we all know there aren't such a thing as CRT monitors? Seriously, I bought the one I'm using for $7 bucks many years ago, and have had others simply donated to me over the years. Monitors are dirt cheap now and there isn't anything work related (assuming a normal job) that you can't do on a CRT monitor that you can on an LCD.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    3. Re:Victimized? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those come with an increased power bill too.

    4. Re:Victimized? by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      yes, cellphone price fixing is bad. but consumers -chose- to pay sky high cellphone rates. no one made them... It's easier to see the crime in relation to products you think about as over priced.

    5. Re:Victimized? by bzipitidoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, we were victimized. There's the cost of continuing to use CRTs, which was considerable. I bought my first LCD, a 1280x1024, several years ago, for $99 after a $70 rebate. And I waited for prices to go down like they do with every other consumer electronic item, and they didn't. I was baffled, but I kept waiting, knowing it had to give some time. That there was price fixing explains much. Was 2 years before I begin to see deals equivalent to the one I got.

      Meantime, I paid for owning CRTs. They use more power. They took way more room in my car, forcing me to ship more of my possessions whenever I moved. I regret having paid UPS $85 to ship a 17" CRT back in 2003. I've learned a few things about moving. Best to sell your bulky possessions cheap if you can, or even abandon them if you can't. CRTs are definitely bulky. Had there been cheap LCDs in 2003, I could have saved quite a bit of money.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    6. Re:Victimized? by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      There's a reason you can get old CRT monitors so cheap. No one wants those big clunky things.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    7. Re:Victimized? by selven · · Score: 1

      They were denied the ability to get a cheaper one.

    8. Re:Victimized? by David+Jao · · Score: 1

      Yes, price fixing is bad, but seriously "victimized" consumers? Yeah, they overpaid for an LCD, but they -chose- to pay that amount for an LCD.

      You're missing some basic knowledge of economics here. The victims are not the consumers who actually overpaid for an LCD. The victims are the potential consumers who would have bought an LCD had they been fairly priced, but who couldn't afford to pay the inflated price. This category of "lost potential purchases" is known as "deadweight loss" in economics.

      Unfortunately, our legal system provides no way for the true victimized class to receive compensation.

    9. Re:Victimized? by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1

      I read you and I can't keep to think: Why didn't you calculate this shit? I was room strapped in 2001 (I still am)... I bough a 1024x786 LCD screen for over 2000€ back then. My main concern was space... Just think of the power I saved over those years. To this day, that screen works and is just fine and functional.

    10. Re:Victimized? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The victims are not the consumers who actually overpaid for an LCD. The victims are the potential consumers who would have bought an LCD had they been fairly priced, but who couldn't afford to pay the inflated price.

      I don't disagree. You make a good point about deadweight loss. But you might be wrong about the deadweight loss being the only consumers who missed out. It depends on how well the oligopoly managed to position itself as a strategic monopoly.

      Let's not forget that every consumer can potentially pay for deadweight loss. Potentially, deadweight loss can affect anybody. It all depends on the elasticity of demand. Although computers are in some sense luxury items, they are also as practical as their user. Businesses see a very real need for computers, and LCD monitors, etc., and that need is reflected in the demand curves.

      Put another way, the guys who paid too much paid too much. Specifically because they are paying for deadweight loss.

    11. Re:Victimized? by m85476585 · · Score: 1

      If an LCD saves 60 watts over a CRT and is used 40 hours a week where electricity costs $.10/KWh, you would save $96 over 8 years. Except in winter, where the extra 60 watts offsets a fraction of your heating bill, though it is not as cost-effective as gas heat or a heat pump.

  19. "price fixing" on an optional item? by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

    pfft.

    There's a sucker born every minute, and a lawyer willing to take a fee for anything.

    Seriously, how can you fix the price of something nobody has to buy? Sooner or later the price will come down to where it is a fair deal for the buyer.

    I remember the first laptop I "wanted" was $4K USD. I didn't buy it, I didn't "need" it. The last laptop I bought was 10X better and only $400 USD, not even counting inflation. It was cheap enough to buy as a "toy".

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:"price fixing" on an optional item? by jamonterrell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you're confused on what the price fixing law is about. The item does not have to be a necessity in order for them to illegally fix the price of it.

      Unless of course you understand it, and you just don't agree with it... in which case you should probably make that more clear.

      --
      I can count to 1023 on my hands. Ask me about #132.
    2. Re:"price fixing" on an optional item? by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

      Sorry for the late retort. The latter would apply to me. I understand, but don't agree. If someone is selling something at an artificially high price, but I don't have to buy it, there is nothing wrong with that. I won't buy it. If someone makes me buy something I don't want? There is real injustice.

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    3. Re:"price fixing" on an optional item? by jamonterrell · · Score: 1

      Ah... Well maybe I can convince you that it's not all bad. It doesn't seek to limit what you as a manufacturer, or retailer want to sell your items for. You are free to act independently and price it at whatever point you'd like. The only time the law comes into play is to thwart anti-competitive behavior--where all of the vendors get together and agree on a minimum price for an item... thereby defeating open market competition and acting in the same vein as a monopoly.

      While you may not agree with the fact that it is government meddling in what seems it as though it should be the rights of the companies to do what they want with their prices; if it weren't for these laws, EVERY industry would do this, and the net effect would be very harmful to the economy as a whole, and would devastate the quality of living for all but the upper class.

      It has nothing to do with the pricing of the item, and everything to do with the back-room dealing to defeat the competitive benefits of capitalism.

      --
      I can count to 1023 on my hands. Ask me about #132.
  20. Cheaper than what? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    LCDs are already dirt cheap. Displays now are cheaper than I've ever seen them with any technology. I remember getting a 17" CRT monitor in 1999, and not even a high grade one, for about $200. Now that gets you a 24" LCD. That's not inflation adjusted either, tack on another $50 if you want to look at it in terms of buying power.

    I fail to see what you are complaining about here. They got nailed for doing something against the law, but it isn't as though we are all sitting here desperately needing lower display prices. You can get a cheap screen, no problem.

    1. Re:Cheaper than what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But where these screens so cheap in 2001? Or even in 2006? Sure, they are *now*, but where they cheap *back then*?

    2. Re:Cheaper than what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what a stupid comment, just because they're cheaper than buying a big screen years ago doesn't mean they shouldn't be cheaper still. why would you be happy paying $200 for a good display when it should have been, say, $150 for the same thing, or $200 still but for something a lot better.

  21. hows the math work? by joocemann · · Score: 1

    is 860M more or less than the excess profits taken by collusion on a worldwide sales scale, for 6 years.

    I have a feeling they think it was worth it. This is why business will always risk it. We don't take whats really due. All of it.

  22. Re:They are always doing this. Better way is to by zymano · · Score: 1

    that wouldn't happen. Too many other players.

    the penalty would be immense that they wouldn't do it again.

  23. You'd not believe how CHEAP it is... by MindPrison · · Score: 1

    Manufacturing a flat-screen, be it Plasma or LCD is so cheap - you probably wouldn't believe me if I told you.
    But picture this:

    Rewind a few years, remember when you paid 1000-3000 dollars for your 28 inch Sony Vega television set?

    Today, you can grab a tv - 50 inches, way better than any projection screen or projector ever could be, for less than 800 dollars!
    Back in the days, I couldn't even get a decent 26" incher for that price, why is even that possible today? Simple...look at the materials.

    Your tv - is essentially not much more than 2 glass plates with small cells with either gases or liquid crystals in them, and 2 plastic plates to cover it all,
    and then one graphics chip cpu-fpu-memory and all in one, plus a chip for digital tv-decoding and a tuner. These SMD components cost so little
    that you could buy a burger for what it actually cost to manufacture.

    The temptation to earn HEAPS of money comes from your old "hard-dying-habits" of paying a fortune for a technology that was relatively
    expensive to manufacture, they where weighty, big glass screen using a lot of glass (Crt), old-school DIP/DIL discretes that takes up a lot of space.

    Look at the inside of your latest flatscreen, there's a small mainboard that fills up 10 percent of the tv's size, and perhaps a PSU that fills up the next 10 percent, and the
    rest is a glass surface, that's it - really. These TVs could cost 100 bucks, but they won't - as long as YOU the consumer - are used to paying 1000's of dollars, it's a no-brainer that - THAT kind of money could just land in someones pocket anyway, because - you will pay anyway.

    But lets not kid ourselves - we're buying screens cheaper than ever. I'm enjoying my 800 dollar 50" incher, and 200 dollar 24" inch 1920x1200 computer screen, wow...I remember paying 1000 bucks for a screen back in the days...22 inches and "only" 1280x1024 crt...and THAT was considered discount.

    --
    What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
    1. Re:You'd not believe how CHEAP it is... by Tapewolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your tv - is essentially not much more than 2 glass plates with small cells with either gases or liquid crystals in them, and 2 plastic plates to cover it all, and then one graphics chip cpu-fpu-memory and all in one, plus a chip for digital tv-decoding and a tuner. These SMD components cost so little that you could buy a burger for what it actually cost to manufacture.

      I imagine the machinery needed to assemble those small cells correctly and accurately is pretty expensive. However, I'd agree that the price isn't likely to drop once the capital costs of the manufacturing plant have been amortized.

  24. Timing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone else notice this started just 3 days after 9/11? Makes me wonder if evil (read: morally challenged) people tend to think "Hey, here's a great idea for a scam... now... if only there were a perfect time for a diversion to cover my tracks..."

  25. When paid in file downloads... by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 1

    How many files should they download to get the same fine?

    --
    Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
  26. id bet that 860million... by trum4n · · Score: 1

    that they claim it as an operating expense, so then its LEGAL to keep the prices high, to pay it off.

  27. Yeah, but the reject rate you know by smchris · · Score: 1

    Like CDs. They are _so_ much more expensive to produce than vinyl.

    Which is to say, bad luck for the LCD manufacturers. The music industry did and does continue to get away with that scam.

  28. Free market! by Goaway · · Score: 1

    Good old free market, always making things better for the consumer!

  29. Dirty Industry by shaymon · · Score: 1

    These are the same people who decided to completely cease the production of 4:3 lcd panels so that they could instead make 16:9 panels with the same diagonal size but LESS PIXELS so they could drop their production costs and make consumers think they're still getting the same thing. It's too bad I can't sue them for that; widescreen laptops are a plague.

  30. AGAIN? by Neuroelectronic · · Score: 0

    This is becoming a yearly tradition for LCD companies. Perhaps the fines are low enough that it's still financially viable even if you get caught.

  31. Jail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Send them all to Jail

  32. Real reason for wide screens by marciot · · Score: 1

    The unused horizontal space isn't wasted. It's obviously there to show you parts of your pretty scenic background (otherwise what would be the point of a background if it were covered with windows all the time?).

    For example, as I compose this message on the middle third of my wide screen, I have a pretty ocean scene on the margins. Windows 7 makes it even better by changing it periodically. Ahhhh, so peaceful...

  33. Re:They are always doing this. Better way is to by TheSync · · Score: 1

    The better way to handle this is to drop the stupid ineffective fines and threaten that their products wont be allowed to sell in the USA.

    Or maybe another company should have started up and underpriced them.

  34. The problem by TheSync · · Score: 1

    I have personally seen threats of anti-competitive lawsuits used to limit competition.

    Several companies come together to try to set a file standard for interoperation. A vendor to some of these companies threatens an anti-competitive lawsuit, after all they are meeting in a room discussing how to work together. The vendor was trying to maintain lock-in to its proprietary file format for its customers. The standard is stuck in limbo for years until the companies working on the standard can form a corporation with enough legal support to fend off a potential lawsuit.

    If you think patents reduce innovation by creating IP mine fields, anti-competitive laws are just like that.

     

  35. Bad idea by Cyberax · · Score: 1

    Bad idea. Fonts and antialiasing systems are designed for RGB subpixel orientation. Vertical RGB plays hell with text rendering.

  36. Re:ok -- so where's my rebate? by lpq · · Score: 1

    Screw the what and whyfor -- where do we who bought monitors during that period get our refunds...I assume the DOJ will be distributing the fines to those in in the affected class, I mean they are our government and they were representing us, right?

    -;