Slashdot Mirror


Nine Chip Makers Fined $400M In EU For Price Fixing

eldavojohn writes "In a disturbing case for average consumers, nine DRAM chip manufacturers have been fined more than $400 million for price fixing. The named companies are Samsung, Hynix, Infineon, NEC, Hitachi, Mitsubishi, Toshiba, Elpida, and Nanya. A tenth company, Micron, avoided fines by reporting the other nine to the authorities. Since all companies cooperated with the probe, they received a 10% reduction in fines, so it could have been worse. The US DoJ has had its own history with chip makers and LCD makers in price fixing scandals."

215 comments

  1. Disturbing? by lemur3 · · Score: 1

    Is it the fine that is disturbing?

    1. Re:Disturbing? by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Is it the fine that is disturbing?

      The thing that was disturbing to me is that the consumer lost out here and the government is pulling in $400 million. When will the actual victim (people who made DRAM purchases) receive restitution? Never.

      --
      My work here is dung.
    2. Re:Disturbing? by davester666 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Of course, the gov't will reduce our taxes by the $400 million...

      Hahaha, I knew I couldn't write that with a straight face!

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    3. Re:Disturbing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Certainly everyone in Europe was looking forward to their tax reduction of less than one dollar per person.

    4. Re:Disturbing? by Sensible+Clod · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What I found interesting was the amount: an average of about $44 million per corporation ($400M / 9). Contrast that with the profits each one made on this scheme.

      --

      The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
    5. Re:Disturbing? by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      It's not like you had to pay extra taxes yourself, like salex tax and... oh... right.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    6. Re:Disturbing? by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What I found interesting was the amount: an average of about $44 million per corporation ($400M / 9). Contrast that with the profits each one made on this scheme.

      What annoys me is that a lot of this stuff is so pervasive that I cannot in anyway knowingly boycott any purchases of DRAM from these companies. There's probably DRAM in any piece of electronics you buy whether it be Sony, Nintendo or an actual Samsung product.

      And then what happens to the companies who take a $44 million hit? You think their CEOs just sit down and eat that? They don't take their medicine, they slightly markup their product and again the consumer loses! This sort of price fixing fixed by fining model is just not working.

      What I think should happen is that all the products that were price fixed should be entered into the public domain in the country where the price fixing was conducted and the company was found guilty. Meaning all patents and designs of those products are now owned by the public. The public overpaid for them so force the companies to give something back to the public. The manufacturing processes and techniques can be kept secret but all the chip design and patents should be open for competitors to step in and make a better cheaper product. I know a lot of people will think that's overly harsh but frankly the DRAM manufacturers should have thought of that before they started price fixing. You think times were tough when you tried to turn some illegal profit? Try now when everyone knows everything about your product. Really, that's the only way to 1) make them think twice about price fixing and 2) actually give something valuable to the victim that has a positive result instead of a negative result.

      If that's the way business works in Korea, Taiwan and China then I don't care. But they need to learn that price fixing is not acceptable when they do business in the US and the EU. It blows my mind but it seems to happen everywhere in the world of circuitry and electronics. Since the companies just seem to be taking these fines in step and repeating or continuing with their practices, you have only one option: up the stakes.

      --
      My work here is dung.
    7. Re:Disturbing? by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      Well Micron made even more since they benefited but didn't have to pay the fine. Kind of an interesting cross of chicken and prisoners dilemma.

    8. Re:Disturbing? by YeeHaW_Jelte · · Score: 1

      So? What do you suggest for punishing these companies?

      It's all nice and fine to bitch and whine but I don't hear you proposing a decent solution.

      I, for one, at least am happy that someone is doing someone about breaking these kind of price-fixing sceme's. But please, keep on enjoying you 'free market' over there on the other side of the pond.

      --

      ---
      "The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
    9. Re:Disturbing? by T+Murphy · · Score: 1

      Making the fines big enough to wipe out profits might not deter companies if the execs making the decision have plenty of time to hit the road before the antitrust case comes through. I don't know antitrust law well enough, so maybe there are penalties on the EU books that can be thrown at individuals- given they were complicit in a crime, I should hope so.

    10. Re:Disturbing? by mjwx · · Score: 2, Informative

      The thing that was disturbing to me is that the consumer lost out here and the government is pulling in $400 million. When will the actual victim (people who made DRAM purchases) receive restitution? Never.

      Perhaps because you are looking at it the wrong way. The government isn't fishing for money, the EU is punishing a company for anti-competitive actions. The EU has two acceptable choices to punish a company, 1. put some directors in jail, this is a long drawn out process that will take time whilst the rich fly off to exotic locales with no extradition treaties whilst setting up scapegoats from lower down the corporate food chain to do their time for them 2. Impose a fine, making the company pay the justice department which the company cant weasel out of. If they did it on a case by case basis they wouldnt even give $2 million away as half the people wouldn't claim and half of those who did wouldn't have receipts and they'd only have to pay out to the people in the EU jurisdiction.

      In other words, giving the money back to individual "victims" would result in no punishment at all as most "victims" will never be reached. Without punishment what disincentive is there for a company not to be anti-competitive?

      Further more, this makes it back to the EU citizens in a surplus (or less deficit) which reduces the amount the EU citizens need to pay the EU to keep running. If you ask me, the companies got off light. The fine should have been at least US$800 Million, heck 1.2 billion would even have been appropriate for this level of collusion.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    11. Re:Disturbing? by timmarhy · · Score: 1

      price fixing is not free market, nub.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    12. Re:Disturbing? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm going to put on my cynical hat and just say this. Nations like the US and EU don't want to punish companies too harshly. It's sorta like killing the golden goose. Gotta keep that tax revenue flowing after all.

      Corporations are like gangs, and the Government acts like the mob. They work for and against each other in much the same way.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    13. Re:Disturbing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now if only cell providers would get outed somehow...

    14. Re:Disturbing? by symbolset · · Score: 1

      No, it's that it took this long to resolve the issue. Memory prices had been following Moore's law for a long time (since the last antitrust action) and then for four years they were fairly flat because of prix fixe. The companies made more money in higher prices than they're paying in fines, so for them it's a net win and that's disturbing too.

      Now can we get some 8GB DDR3 RDIMMS that cost less than my car? I've got a few high volume VDI deployments that are stalled for economic feasibility and that's not good for the platform vendor, the network hardware vendor, the server processor vendor, the thin client vendor, the software vendor, or me - the integrator/services vendor.

      And while we're at it, would somebody please slap the shit out of the enterprise flash SSD vendors for me? I could beat their price and performance and capacity metrics all at once if I cared to design/build an add-in card with a lot of these that would fit and some linux-based os onboard to RAID them in a fault-tolerant way. Maybe I should, just to show that there's nothing magical about multiplexing storage for performance, capacity and reliability yet again. How many times must this simple concept be proved?

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    15. Re:Disturbing? by nacturation · · Score: 1

      Kind of an interesting cross of chicken and prisoners dilemma.

      Could you elaborate? I'm not familiar with the chicken dilemma.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    16. Re:Disturbing? by drsmithy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      price fixing is not free market, nub.

      Say what ? Price fixing is *absolutely* "free market". Huge cartels (if not just one big monopoly) is exactly where the "free market" would end up without this sort of regulation.

    17. Re:Disturbing? by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

      And what evidence do you base that on? How would your big monopoly stop competitors from emerging? Care to provide any examples of where such huge monopolies did happen and survived for any length of time? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdLBzfFGFQU

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    18. Re:Disturbing? by LoverOfJoy · · Score: 1

      The version I'm familiar with is of two cars racing toward each other. The first to swerve is the loser (the chicken).

      Wiki description

    19. Re:Disturbing? by drsmithy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And what evidence do you base that on?

      How much it already happens even with regulation in place, plus a reasonable helping of rational thought.

      How would your big monopoly stop competitors from emerging?

      Often they wouldn't need to - the simple costs of market entry would be sufficient. If that was not, then some loss-leader products would hammer the last few nails into the coffin.

      Care to provide any examples of where such huge monopolies did happen and survived for any length of time?

      Monopolies are typically broken up by government intervention. I'm not sure I can think of any examples of them being broken up any other way.

      What would _stop_ a cartel or monopoly from forming ? Once a few companies have gotten together, or a single one has gotten large enough, how is a new competitor going to enter the market when the established ones can either buy it out, or just undercut it until it runs out of cash ?

    20. Re:Disturbing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's true. $400M is a pittance compared to the amount that government spends on things, and they have lots of different settlements going on all the time, so you're not going to see any impact. I mean, there are 500 million people in the European Union, though not all of them pay taxes. The net effect will be to reducing your taxes relative to the services you get from the government by a small amount. It means they won't have to cut something, or they won't have to raise taxes on something, somewhere.

      It's easier than tracking down who exactly bought those chips and issuing them partial refunds. Memory chips just aren't expensive enough to warrant that. If they costed $10,000, you might see individual refunds.

    21. Re:Disturbing? by icebraining · · Score: 1

      And what evidence do you base that on?

      It fucking happened! The market was in effect, they fixed the prices. Only afterwords regulation corrected it. Or are you saying the cause and effect are reversed and it was the fine that cause the price fixing?

      About Friedman: "Oh, let's reduce import tariffs and let external companies to compete and finish those national monopolies"

      That's all nice and dandy, but those monopolies aren't national. In this case, they affect the whole Europe. What do you do when we have a global monopoly?
      "Reducing import tariffs", for what, if these companies are already foreign?

    22. Re:Disturbing? by clarkkent09 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your rational thought is failing you. The reason you can't come up with any examples of natural monopolies is that there aren't any. It's a mostly a theoretical problem because it simply does not happen in practice.

      What would _stop_ a cartel or monopoly from forming ?

      Cartels are inherently unstable and rarely form at all. What is the advantage to the most efficient company in a particular market in joining a cartel with less efficient ones when it can beat them in the competition and take their market share? Even when a cartel does form (say to fix the price to a higher level) a strong incentive is always there for each of its members to undercut the others and take their market share.

      Once a few companies have gotten together, or a single one has gotten large enough, how is a new competitor going to enter the market when the established ones can either buy it out, or just undercut it until it runs out of cash ?

      If the monopoly is setting the price to high (say 30% profit margin) then it is presenting an incentive for every investor, every company in a similar industry which might already have infrastructure in place, and every foreign company in the same industry to enter into the market and set its margin to 20% and steal much it the monopoly's market share while still raking in a large profit. At some point pretty soon the monopoly will not be able to buy them all out. If the monopoly is setting the price very low in order to discourage competition then where is the problem? The free market is working through the possibility of competition if not actual competition.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    23. Re:Disturbing? by purpledinoz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Is this the same price fixing that occurred when Intel tried to shove Rambus, a crappy, expensive, proprietary RAM technology down our throats? And they colluded to LOWER their prices to kill Rambus? In my opinion, they did us all a favour. If Rambus became the "standard", we would be paying a lot more money for memory now.

    24. Re:Disturbing? by purpledinoz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Last time I checked, all companies except Samsung are losing money on each DRAM chip they sell. These companies are competing themselves to death. Qimonda already went bankrupt last year because of such a competitive environment. In fact, I can't think of many other products where companies compete so hard to make.

    25. Re:Disturbing? by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

      The evidence I was asking for is to back up his claim that "Huge cartels (if not just one big monopoly) is exactly where the "free market" would end up without this sort of regulation." I think price fixing is a natural property of a free market in that it will inevitably happen and cannot be generally caught without, as in this case, somebody snitching. However, I don't think that it is nearly as big a problem as he suggested as cartels as inherently unstable and tend to break down quickly. Each of the companies involved is looking out for its own interest and for the best company in the cartel it is advantageous to break from the cartel and undercut the others.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    26. Re:Disturbing? by trenien · · Score: 1

      Nations like the US and EU

      One mistake, there. The EU is not a nation.

      Contrary to what may happen in the US, their rulings in such cases are completely driven by ideology (or personnal benefit which doesn't appear to the case here).

      You can see this mix of the two driving forces: "competition must be upheld at all cost", and "private property is the most sacred right there is"

      End result? The guilty companies are slammed with a penalty which probably amounts to less than what breaking the law allowed to rake in, and the only one who will really be hurt are the one who were screwed in the first place: the final consumer.

    27. Re:Disturbing? by sk11 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Agree - I think price-fixing is acceptable to me if it saves this over-competitive industry.

    28. Re:Disturbing? by BikeHelmet · · Score: 1

      The thing that was disturbing to me is that the consumer lost out here and the government is pulling in $400 million. When will the actual victim (people who made DRAM purchases) receive restitution? Never.

      This slap on the wrist is supposed to discourage them from doing it again.

      Keep in mind if this was a class action lawsuit, you'd have a chance at winning... $0.10? :P

    29. Re:Disturbing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You pay taxes, right ? Well, then consider that the .0001% of taxes you don't pay are thanks to this.

    30. Re:Disturbing? by chrb · · Score: 1

      Nations like the US and EU don't want to punish companies too harshly.

      The stated aim of fines due to EU competition policy is to "deter companies from setting up or continuing cartels". Think of it in the same regards as the FSF and GPL enforcement - the aim is to bring companies into compliance, not to generate funds by way of punishment. Obviously a fine will also act as a form of punishment - the difference is that the policy is to bring companies into compliance with the law, rather than bring companies to the edge of bankruptcy.

    31. Re:Disturbing? by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      The trouble with fines is that they just become another cost of doing business, and will get weighed up against the expected profits from actually doing the illegal activity in the first place. In other words, breaking the law is just business as usual only with a relatively low risk.

      Punishments need to be far more damaging so that companies become unwilling to risk breaking the law, possibly even hold the owners personally responsible and throw them in jail.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    32. Re:Disturbing? by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      You know, as much as I hate cartels and price fixing, in this case I kinda understand it. The prices with competition simply got so low they were basically killing each other. I mean, I remember when "maxing out" a board was a sign you had some serious cash and weren't afraid to spend it. Now my latest PC has 8Gb of DDR2 800 which after rebate I paid a whole $60 for!

      While this is all candy and ice cream for me, when the margins get so damned slim all it takes is a slight dip in sales to slaughter a company I can understand them wanting to do something about it. So while I hate those that try to rig the game I can understand one of the manufacturers calling the others and saying "look, this is stupid. How about we set a minimum of...say cost plus 10%?" or something like that.

      So maybe the way to fix this is to set up some sort of rule, maybe like we have with regards to dumping? Maybe something like nobody shall sell below price plus 3%? Because from the way it looks now if they get into another price war the company with the biggest war chest could simply drive others out of the market by selling at or below cost, then reap the rewards when there is little to no competition left.

      Of course this is why we need regulations in the first place, as it always seems with uncontrolled capitalism you end up with one player crushing the others and becoming a monopoly, ala MSFT crushing the competition in the late 80s/early 90s, or Walmart coming into a town and selling below cost until the competition is crushed.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    33. Re:Disturbing? by purpledinoz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't agree with price fixing, but in this case, it was a winner for consumers. If I remember correctly, they agreed on fixing a price LOWER, to destroy Rambus, which was really bad for consumers.

    34. Re:Disturbing? by Schoenlepel · · Score: 1

      It's not the fine in itself, rather the fact that they have been found guilty. If some consumer organization decides to litigate based on this, those companies could be in for a world of hurt... and nothing they can do about it.

    35. Re:Disturbing? by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1

      If that's the way business works in Korea, Taiwan and China then I don't care. But they need to learn that price fixing is not acceptable when they do business in the US and the EU.

      The companies involved are Samsung, Hynix, Infineon, NEC, Hitachi, Mitsubishi, Toshiba, Elpida and Nanya.

      A 10th chip maker, Micron, was also part of the price-fixing cartel but escaped a fine in return for alerting the competition authorities.

      I've bolded the US and EU companies for you. It's not just an Asian problem.

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    36. Re:Disturbing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Evidence? How about basic economic theory? The free market generates monopolies, cartels, and price fixing. That is why laws and regulations have to be in place. In a truly free market one or two companies will become so large that they can collude and keep any competitors out by creating massive barriers to entry.

    37. Re:Disturbing? by CodePwned · · Score: 1

      Actually that's one of the best ideas I've ever heard. Companies now depend on their IP to make money. Hit them where they get the money from and this type of shit will stop.

      You don't have to worry about companies pulling out of the USA as the important ones have too much vested here.

    38. Re:Disturbing? by daid303 · · Score: 3, Funny

      What's this dollar you mention?

    39. Re:Disturbing? by Smallpond · · Score: 1

      Well Micron made even more since they benefited but didn't have to pay the fine. Kind of an interesting cross of chicken and prisoners dilemma.

      However, they are not getting any more party invitations.

    40. Re:Disturbing? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      With all the patents on DRAM and other memory technologies out there, what makes Rambus more proprietary than the stuff you buy today?

    41. Re:Disturbing? by Smallpond · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure they no longer have public beheadings.

    42. Re:Disturbing? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      The obvious solution is to stop pretending that the abstract corporate entity "engaged in price fixing" and remember that some number of specific individuals(who happen to have offices within that corporate entity) were the ones who actually decided upon and executed that price fixing.

      Fining corporations is a dubiously useful exercise because, if small, the fines are simply a cost of doing business(and, since the rational decision maker will discount the possible fines according to the probability of getting caught, they are an even smaller deterrent than their size would suggest). If ruinous, they are economically disruptive and hit hundreds or thousands of mid and low-level worker drones who had nothing to do with it. Ironically, fines for cartel behavior are probably least effective of all: If X companies are a cartel, and are powerful enough to fix prices, and you fine all of them, they can all pass the fines on in the form of higher prices because(as previously established) those X companies have that level of market power. Since they all have independent reasons to raise prices, it won't even be cartel behavior.

      By contrast, if you punish cartel behavior, and other forms of corporate misbehavior, with fines against the personal assets or prison terms/capital punishments against the persons of the specific corporate officers responsible(and, barring the development of strong-AI ERP systems, anything a corporation 'does' was actually decided upon and executed by one or more humans), you should get greater deterrent effect, less impact on innocent bystanders, and less passing-on of costs to customers(there isn't even a way of passing on "our former CEO is doing 20-to-life" to your customers.

      This is why I like the strategy, occasionally employed, of, instead of relying on the (usually pitifully weak) employee protection/workplace health and safety laws, using the (typically much stiffer) charges of negligent homicide, reckless negligence, and the like, against the particular people responsible for conditions resulting in worker injuries or deaths. The same strategy could be applied to financial crimes.

    43. Re:Disturbing? by Mad+Hamster · · Score: 1

      If that's the way business works in Korea, Taiwan and China then I don't care.

      I believe some of those culprit corps are Japanese, Mitsubishi & Toshiba at least.

      --
      Yandelvayasna grldenwi stravenka
    44. Re:Disturbing? by Smallpond · · Score: 1

      The billion dollar cost of a chip fab line is already a pretty good barrier to entry. DRAM mfgs. have to spend an enormous amount up front and make it back within the few years that the fab is leading edge.

    45. Re:Disturbing? by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      What I think should happen is that all the products that were price fixed should be entered into the public domain in the country where the price fixing was conducted and the company was found guilty. Meaning all patents and designs of those products are now owned by the public. The public overpaid for them so force the companies to give something back to the public. The manufacturing processes and techniques can be kept secret but all the chip design and patents should be open for competitors to step in and make a better cheaper product. I know a lot of people will think that's overly harsh but frankly the DRAM manufacturers should have thought of that before they started price fixing. You think times were tough when you tried to turn some illegal profit? Try now when everyone knows everything about your product. Really, that's the only way to 1) make them think twice about price fixing and 2) actually give something valuable to the victim that has a positive result instead of a negative result. /quote.

      THIS. THIS. Punishments that don't hurt are ineffective. This doesn't just hurt, it slays.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    46. Re:Disturbing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's the currency that just went up in relation to the Euro....

    47. Re:Disturbing? by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      price fixing is not free market, nub.

      Say what ? Price fixing is *absolutely* "free market". Huge cartels (if not just one big monopoly) is exactly where the "free market" would end up without this sort of regulation.

      "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."
        Adam Smith quotes (Scottish philosopher and economist, 1723-1790)

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    48. Re:Disturbing? by ControlsGeek · · Score: 1

      These same companies conspired to put Rambus out of business by stealing patented Rambus technology and using it in their DDRn products while suing Rambus for misleading JEDEC. They have been proven wrong by the courts time and again. DDR5 uses the same tecchniques, Rambus patented techniques, to a chieve its speed while not paying royalties to Mr Farmwald and Mr Horowitz who invented these techniques. Micron Hynix Infineon et al have been using their PR departments for years to create the media impressions that RDRAM had flaws when the only problem with it was that the memory cartel would lose control of the market if Rambus became successful.

    49. Re:Disturbing? by 228e2 · · Score: 1

      Lawl.

      Taxes? What taxes? Check out how much GE paid in taxes this past year. I'll save you the research and tell you here: $0.

      Im not saying each listed company paid zero dollars in taxes to the US, but it would be a safe bet that they softened the blow with overseas loopholes.

      --
      Since when does being a Socialist mean 'someone who has a different opinion than me'?
    50. Re:Disturbing? by ControlsGeek · · Score: 1

      May 20, 2010
      08:44 EDT MU, RMBS
      theflyonthewall.com: Rambus should be bought ahead of legal resolutions, says Capstone
      Capstone recommends owning Rambus ahead of the two legal decisions expected over the next three weeks. The firm notes that on Monday, May 24, Rambus is expected to receive final determination in its case versus Nvidia (NVDA), which Capstone estimates could be worth $6-$8 per share. A Court of Appeals decision in the Hynix/Micron (MU) case could follow that on May 31, which Capstone thinks could be worth $4 per share for Rambus. :

    51. Re:Disturbing? by purpledinoz · · Score: 1

      The patent issue is a whole different can of worms. But there is no amount of PR that could have changed the fact that DDR was faster or equal to RDRAM in terms of overall performance, and at a significantly lower price. Also, the memory makers have not formed a cartel. Almost all are selling their chips at a loss, which is a clear indication of heavy competition.

    52. Re:Disturbing? by kilgortrout · · Score: 1

      At least in the US, governmental fines are just the beginning of a price fixing cartel's troubles. They are also subject to private civil class action lawsuits brought on behalf of consumers. In fact, most price fixing civil class action lawsuits are spinoffs of governmental FTC investigations in the US. For example, there are currently pending several private class action lawsuits for LCD price fixing and the recoveries there will be in addition to the hefty FTC fines already leveled against the members of the LCD cartel.

    53. Re:Disturbing? by ControlsGeek · · Score: 1

      You are correct, because DDR uses the same patented techniques that RDRAM did, it was just as fast. Ask yourself why if these companies colluded to fix prices as they have admitted to doing why did they decide to fix prices so low?

    54. Re:Disturbing? by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Why would they need to cut taxes? If the government gets additional income that means their budget is that much closer to being balanced, which means lesser additional debt which means lower future expenses. I don't need to directly get a slice of the fine in order to profit from it.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    55. Re:Disturbing? by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          That's because she crossed the road at the wrong time. Now no one will ever find out where she was going.

         

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    56. Re:Disturbing? by purpledinoz · · Score: 1

      Using Intel's near monopoly, Intel and Rambus were trying to force proprietary RDRAM technology into the mainstream. If the other memory makers wanted to make RDRAM, they would have had to pay huge royalties to Rambus. If Rambus became standard, it would mean that the memory makers would be slaves to Rambus. Also, I would bet those patents were as ridiculous as the 1-Click patent and no technology was actually stolen, but was obvious enough to be invented independantly.

    57. Re:Disturbing? by skids · · Score: 1

      In any event, if done fairly government prosecution does both A) clean up the marketplace and B) raise government revenues. It's an overlooked funding source many times. Given how most governments are teetering on bankruptcy, one wonders why there isn't a focus on oversight activities -- every little bit helps. Oh right. Because of bribes from private industry. Never mind.

    58. Re:Disturbing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I found interesting was the amount: an average of about $44 million per corporation ($400M / 9). Contrast that with the profits each one made on this scheme.

      What annoys me is that a lot of this stuff is so pervasive that I cannot in anyway knowingly boycott any purchases of DRAM from these companies. There's probably DRAM in any piece of electronics you buy whether it be Sony, Nintendo or an actual Samsung product.

      And then what happens to the companies who take a $44 million hit? You think their CEOs just sit down and eat that? They don't take their medicine, they slightly markup their product and again the consumer loses! This sort of price fixing fixed by fining model is just not working.

      What I think should happen is that all the products that were price fixed should be entered into the public domain in the country where the price fixing was conducted and the company was found guilty. Meaning all patents and designs of those products are now owned by the public. The public overpaid for them so force the companies to give something back to the public. The manufacturing processes and techniques can be kept secret but all the chip design and patents should be open for competitors to step in and make a better cheaper product. I know a lot of people will think that's overly harsh but frankly the DRAM manufacturers should have thought of that before they started price fixing. You think times were tough when you tried to turn some illegal profit? Try now when everyone knows everything about your product. Really, that's the only way to 1) make them think twice about price fixing and 2) actually give something valuable to the victim that has a positive result instead of a negative result.

      If that's the way business works in Korea, Taiwan and China then I don't care. But they need to learn that price fixing is not acceptable when they do business in the US and the EU. It blows my mind but it seems to happen everywhere in the world of circuitry and electronics. Since the companies just seem to be taking these fines in step and repeating or continuing with their practices, you have only one option: up the stakes.

      I have been sitting here thinking "There is really no good way to combat price fixing"

      Then I read this. This would be perfect. An actual punishment that couldnt be offset by raising prices and further damaging the consumer. This would allow more companies to produce the product and thus further reduce prices through competition. Bravo!

    59. Re:Disturbing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cool, thanks for sticking up for the illegal cartel

    60. Re:Disturbing? by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1

      price fixing is not free market, nub.

      Say what ? Price fixing is *absolutely* "free market". Huge cartels (if not just one big monopoly) is exactly where the "free market" would end up without this sort of regulation.

      The "Free Market" people seem to have forgotten that we tried that already, its was called:Laissez-faire. And it crashed and burned leading to things like the Great Depression, Sherman Anti-trust, unions and other intrusive government regulations.

      --
      If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
    61. Re:Disturbing? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Sounds to me like the natural evolution of a market.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    62. Re:Disturbing? by ControlsGeek · · Score: 1

      The U.S. courts have decided otherwise. In the case of Hynix the jury found 37-0 in favor of Rambus that the patents were infringed and Hynix has payed over 300 Million into a bond and put the title to one of their chip fabs on the bond pending appeal.

    63. Re:Disturbing? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I know a lot of people will think that's overly harsh

      Punishments need to be harsh, otherwise they're just part of the cost of doing business. And the less often they're applied, the harsher they need to be.

      If P S I then it's worth cheating, where

      P = probability of getting caught
      S = severity of fines, seizures etc
      I = increased profits from naughtiness

       

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    64. Re:Disturbing? by ControlsGeek · · Score: 1

      Incidently the "crappy expensive proprietary RAM" that you speak of is at the core of the quite successful Sony PS3 game system.

    65. Re:Disturbing? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Grrrorrection:

      If P S > I then it's worth cheating.

      I putted a symbol, but slashot eated it.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    66. Re:Disturbing? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      The reason you can't come up with any examples of natural monopolies is that there aren't any.

      A natural monopoly is a situation where infrastructure is so expensive that to duplicate it would outweigh and benefits from competition. Water, electricity, railways are often cited as examples.

      Not that it's relevant to this discussion anyway.

      What is the advantage to the most efficient company in a particular market in joining a cartel with less efficient ones when it can beat them in the competition and take their market share?

      Because wars, even metaphorical ones, are expensive. If you can win without fighting - consider carefully who the real enemy is - then you've got a good result.

      Even when a cartel does form (say to fix the price to a higher level) a strong incentive is always there for each of its members to undercut the others and take their market share.

      Market share isn't profit. Put it another way: a small slice of a big pie can be more than all of a small one.

      Also it's a lot less stress for the CXOs to sit there and rake in the cash, compared to an ongoing Red Queen situation.

      If the monopoly is setting the price to high (say 30% profit margin) then it is presenting an incentive for every investor, every company in a similar industry which might already have infrastructure in place, and every foreign company in the same industry to enter into the market and set its margin to 20%

      Barriers to entry, of which setup costs are just one.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    67. Re:Disturbing? by Golddess · · Score: 1

      So maybe the way to fix this is to set up some sort of rule, maybe like we have with regards to dumping? Maybe something like nobody shall sell below price plus 3%?

      It's certainly not unheard of. Gas stations are disallowed by law to sell gas for less than they bought it for. At least in Maryland that is.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    68. Re:Disturbing? by dubbreak · · Score: 1

      OH.. you mean the Canadian Dollar.. yes it has gone up in relation to the Euro, UK Pound, the Japanese yen and even that other dollar. Thank you for noticing!

      --
      "If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
    69. Re:Disturbing? by purpledinoz · · Score: 1

      Interesting, I guess parties on both sides were up to shenanigans. I'm curious to see what electrical engineers in the field think of the patents.

    70. Re:Disturbing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what evidence do you base that on?

      Uh, the story? If Micron hadn't run to mommy government to break up the cartel, what evidence do you have that the cartel would have been unable to continue?

      It's hilarious how everyone describes cartel participation as a kind of warped prisoner's dilemma where everyone co-operating makes out like bandits and then someone defects and makes a little bit more money and then everyone cuts their prices and loses. Despite what they claim whenever they're forced to testify under oath, the executives aren't slobbering idiots, and they know that defecting from such a cartel would ultimately cut their profits as they're forced to cut pricing to compete.

    71. Re:Disturbing? by steelfood · · Score: 1

      The reason you can't come up with any examples of natural monopolies is that there aren't any.

      You need to read up on your history.

      Microsoft. AT&T. Standard Oil. US Steel.

      All natural monopolies, each more "natural" than the previous one. All busted by the government for their anti-competitive practices.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    72. Re:Disturbing? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      The cost to administer & process the payments to individuals would exceed the amount involved. Might as well just chuck it in the big pot. Or give it to the Greeks direct.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    73. Re:Disturbing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what evidence do you base that on? How would your big monopoly stop competitors from emerging? Care to provide any examples of where such huge monopolies did happen and survived for any length of time?

      Do you actually want to sell your stuff for the lowest price? No, you want the highest price?

      If you want the highest price and you have the capital to actually compete with the cartel, just pay the entry fee and join the cartel.

    74. Re:Disturbing? by chaotropic+agent · · Score: 1

      How is this not a +5, insightful? He is the only one here that seems to know what he's talking about! Did everyone here forget about the plummeting prices for DRAM and NAND we've been getting for the past couple years? I'm curious, is it different in Europe?

    75. Re:Disturbing? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Let the shareholders who lose sue the execs that made the obviously unprofitable decision.

    76. Re:Disturbing? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Make sure that the fines combined with the rough odds of being caught substantially exceed the extra profit they might make from the crime (literally make sure crime doesn't pay). Or take the number of years an actual person would go to prison for the crime and tax the corporation at 100% for that many years.

    77. Re:Disturbing? by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Your rational thought is failing you. The reason you can't come up with any examples of natural monopolies is that there aren't any. It's a mostly a theoretical problem because it simply does not happen in practice.

      Why do I get the feeling that this would rapidly devolve into a circular definition ?

      Cartels are inherently unstable and rarely form at all.

      Right. That's why they're controlling things like oil supplies, entertainment and memory chips.

      Why would anyone argue a cartel is "inherently unstable and rarely forms". That's like trying to argue a team (or partnership, if you prefer) is "inherently unstable and rarely forms" - it's ridiculous, since we see such things happening all the time, in all aspects of life.

      What is the advantage to the most efficient company in a particular market in joining a cartel with less efficient ones when it can beat them in the competition and take their market share?

      What is the advantage in multiple companies producing the same product *NOT* sharing their resources to improve efficiency and increase profits ?

      Even when a cartel does form (say to fix the price to a higher level) a strong incentive is always there for each of its members to undercut the others and take their market share.

      What incentive is that ? To annoy the other members so they undercut with loss-leaders and drive the misbehaving entity out of business, or start a smear campaign, or any of a number of other destructive moves ?

      If the monopoly is setting the price to high (say 30% profit margin) then it is presenting an incentive for every investor, every company in a similar industry which might already have infrastructure in place, and every foreign company in the same industry to enter into the market and set its margin to 20% and steal much it the monopoly's market share while still raking in a large profit.

      You mean an incentive for them to throw away their initial investment after the monopoly (or cartel) drops its profits to 19% for as long as takes the new player to run out of money ?

      Your theory works when barriers to entry are low. Unfortunately, when barriers to entry are low, profit margins typically are as well, which is a much bigger discouragement to enter the market. (Assuming the market is established, if it's still forming it's a different matter.)

      At some point pretty soon the monopoly will not be able to buy them all out.

      Why not ?

      If the monopoly is setting the price very low in order to discourage competition then where is the problem? The free market is working through the possibility of competition if not actual competition.

      Because as soon as there isn't competition, prices go back up again.

    78. Re:Disturbing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      jesus fucking christ you're dumb.

    79. Re:Disturbing? by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

      But Rambus was (and still is) a patent troll. They deserved it.

    80. Re:Disturbing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this the same price fixing that occurred when Intel tried to shove Rambus, a crappy, expensive, proprietary RAM technology down our throats? And they colluded to LOWER their prices to kill Rambus? In my opinion, they did us all a favour. If Rambus became the "standard", we would be paying a lot more money for memory now.

      You are the only person in this thread who appears to have any clue as to what they are talking about. Well done you.

    81. Re:Disturbing? by BoberFett · · Score: 2, Funny

      $400M CAD... isn't that all of them?

    82. Re:Disturbing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have the company lose the patent to public domain. They forced everyone to overpay, therefore in essence the punishment is that the extra money everyone paid was to buy the license.

    83. Re:Disturbing? by awing0 · · Score: 1

      And explain again how "crappy expensive & proprietary" has any bearing on "successful"? Most of us have a "crappy expensive proprietary" OS on our computers from a successful company. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

      --
      Cthulhu Saves.
    84. Re:Disturbing? by carnalforge · · Score: 1

      Here in Europe, the government is made of filthy people who steal monney, though probably this is the same as everywhere.
      But that same goverment is who gives you healthcare for free, social state and such. Now, you paid more for that peece of sillicon and nobody will give you back what you paid more for that because of the price fixing. And those $400M probably will go for ~70% via strange ways at the bastards that make the government. But what remains would go for the rest of us.
      Here, choose, you paid and you wont gack anything. You paid, EU fined, steald part of the monney but some small ammount got a good use.
      Yes?

      --
      :wq!
    85. Re:Disturbing? by carnalforge · · Score: 1

      Sorry, s/gack/get/g.
      Wine was good :)

      --
      :wq!
    86. Re:Disturbing? by hardwarefreak · · Score: 1

      Meaning all patents and designs of those products are now owned by the public. The public overpaid for them so force the companies to give something back to the public. The manufacturing processes and techniques can be kept secret but all the chip design and patents should be open for competitors to step in and make a better cheaper product.

      You didn't think this through before posting. DRAM is a commodity. It's traded on the markets just like orange juice and wheat. No electronics producers care who makes the DRAM that goes into their products. They buy on price alone, because all the chips are the same--i.e. they're a commodity. No company controls a patent on DRAM today. That's why it's so damn cheap, and that's why these companies engaged in price fixing--BECAUSE none of them has a patent allowing them to control the price INDIVIDUALLY. The only current patent holder that can control any price aspect of DRAM is RAMBUS, because they pulled a sneaky and got JEDEC to adopt their signaling interface for DDR2/3. And, RAMBUS doesn't produce products, only patents. Rambus wasn't involved in the price fixing.

      The reason DRAM is cheap is the LACK of patents. Sprinkle some greed on top of this low profit cut throat market segment, and there you have the price fixing. Thus, your "surrender the patents" suggestion won't gain anyone anything as no "3rd party" will rush in and produce DRAM more cheaply. There is no efficiency in production left to be gained. There's no more profit to be had. DRAM profit was cut to the bone ten years ago, and as a result these producers have been engaging in various levels of price fixing pretty much for the entire decade.

    87. Re:Disturbing? by hardwarefreak · · Score: 1

      I believe some of those culprit corps are Japanese, Mitsubishi & Toshiba at least.

      Germany -----Infineon
      Japan ----------NEC, Hitachi, Mitsubishi, Toshiba, Elpida
      S. Koea -------Samsung, Hynix
      Taiwain --------Nanya
      USA ------------Micron

    88. Re:Disturbing? by hardwarefreak · · Score: 1

      The reason you can't come up with any examples of natural monopolies is that there aren't any.

      You need to read up on your history.

      Microsoft. AT&T. Standard Oil. US Steel.

      All natural monopolies, each more "natural" than the previous one. All busted by the government for their anti-competitive practices.

      The prosecution of U.S. Steel failed, so they weren't proven a monopoly. AT&T was a monopoly created by US law, thus not a 'natural' monopoly. AT&T didn't engage in anti competitive practices as Congress set the rates and profit structure until breaking AT&T up in the early 1980s. Your other 3 examples all engaged in such practices. Standard Oil and Microsoft were both prosecuted under the Sherman antitrust act. Standard Oil was found guilty and broken up. Microsoft settled to avoid breakup.

  2. again? by deisama · · Score: 1

    This sounds familiar. Didn't this exact same thing happen with the DRAM chip makers like 10 or 15 years ago?

    1. Re:again? by Pence128 · · Score: 3, Funny

      RingTFA now. This seems to be the same one, they just finished up the investigation.

      --
      404: sig not found.
  3. Not really that disturbing by DavidRawling · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There are many other cases where pricing appears to be fixed, but it's a deliberate lack of competition (eg in Australia, the weekly fuel price cycles where everyone drops prices at the same time). At least this occurrence will be punished, and yes it will eventually come from the consumer wallet ... but I don't see much else that can be done other than fining (and imprisoning the human culprits if possible).

    1. Re:Not really that disturbing by Pence128 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Fine the shareholders. They'd find the people responsible.

      --
      404: sig not found.
    2. Re:Not really that disturbing by gnud · · Score: 1

      Actually, a more interesting way of fining publically traded companies might be to disallow and/or heavily tax payouts to shareholders for the next few years.
      That would create a _real_ incentive to follow the law.

    3. Re:Not really that disturbing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Force them to issue 10% more stock, to be given to the public.

    4. Re:Not really that disturbing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have the same thing here in DK, there are 2 rules, buy before 10:00 in the morning(at 10:00 they raise the prise) and Monday morning is usually the cheapest day.(because more people seem to be late for work and does not have time to fill up?) it is around 10% of the price in difference which matters since we pay 8-9$ pr gallon.

    5. Re:Not really that disturbing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or issue 10% more stock for the government to immediately sell.

    6. Re:Not really that disturbing by OdinOdin_ · · Score: 1

      The result of being found doing something against the law must have a punishment which negates the additional profit created from the crime.

      Also I agree the possible imprisonment (or better) possible brancrupcy (then shareholders loose which are really pulling the strings).

      Possible ways to deal with these matters are to make the fine the financial amount that not only includes the additional profit created (or some estimation of it) but also the entire costs of bringing the matter to trial (this would include costs that would not otherwise be included). Like investigation costs pre-trial.

      Another factor is to randomly pick on one company (within the consortium) to be forced to pay the majorty of the overall fine (this is the risk of going into bankcrupcy aspect. by making an example of them) and Im sure there is some kind of "Game Theory" to this measure. In that it will forever more create a division between/across those that previously consorted since someone got out lightly, someone got out heavily which will further disrupt the possibility of doing it again. Possible counter measures to this (if it would cause bankrupcy) would be allowing the state to take significant shareholder % in the corporation, so that they had access to fine repayments through future profits, had access to future board level decisions. Being able to pay the fine over time also means there would be an amount of interest and additional costs thrown in but ultimately that company would not go into bancrupcy (a win for shareholders!). Or course this is somewhat difficult cross-international-borders.

  4. 400M goes to who? by DigiShaman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ya, price fixing sucks. But let's be real honest shall we? Who ends up paying the 400M and where does that money go? Consumers around the world will be paying for it.

    When you think about it, it's like a global tax to feed the coffers of a nation, or a union of them in this case. I'm just saying...

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
    1. Re:400M goes to who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Consumers around the world will be paying more for their DRAM chips, but EU citizens will be getting more services or paying less in taxes because the coffers of a nation are fed, so it kinda cancels out for consumers (non-EU nations of course should fine these companies too if they haven't already to be in the same situation).

    2. Re:400M goes to who? by copponex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Fines are supposed to be a punishment so that companies avoid anti-competitive behavior in the future. You're right, however: the companies either have already made enough money from their unethical behavior, or they will roll it into the cost of future products. The punishment is not nearly severe enough.

      Repeat offenders should be fined in the billions of dollars as a warning to other companies. The only thing that will keep shareholders interested in executives who obey the law are a few cases where companies are fined into bankruptcy and then broken up and sold off.

    3. Re:400M goes to who? by bloodhawk · · Score: 0, Troll

      ummm you honestly believe that the EU would reduce its taxing simply because they got some juicy fines in there coffers?

      I have a bridge I would like to offer you at a very competitive price.

    4. Re:400M goes to who? by mirix · · Score: 1

      I can kind of see your point, but what do you suggest? That we don't punish companies for collusion?

      Any of the manufacturers that weren't in on the price fixing should be able to undercut the cheats that have to recoup their $400M fine. - Not that I can think of a RAM manufacturer that isn't in this list, off the top of my head... I suppose collusion works best when everyone is in on it, eh?

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    5. Re:400M goes to who? by value_added · · Score: 1

      I have a bridge I would like to offer you at a very competitive price.

      I, too, have a bridge.

      Note to the OP: my bridge is nicer, despite the price similarity.

    6. Re:400M goes to who? by el+chief · · Score: 1

      don't be such a fucking austrian. hm, if they can collude and price fix, maybe they aren't perfectly competitive. therefore they take rents. therefore a fine will reduce their rents. go read some econ.

    7. Re:400M goes to who? by mjwx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ya, price fixing sucks. But let's be real honest shall we?

      Lets

      Who ends up paying the 400M

      The nine companies mentioned in the fine summary.

      where does that money go?

      Towards the services provided by the EU.

      Consumers around the world will be paying for it.

      CORRECTION: Consumers around the world have already paid for it.

      When you think about it, it's like a global tax to feed the coffers of a nation

      No it isn't, it's a punishment for a group of corporations for breaking the law. You clearly haven't thought about it very much and have just been scared by the "T" word, the alternative to fines is to permit them to get away with collusion, and that will just raise prices, no. BTW I like paying the T word as it provides me with many services, not the least of which is a cheap world class medical system (Shamelessly borrowed from Shutdown -p and slightly altered).

      I'm just saying...

      I'm just saying you're an idiot, OK, that's a bit harsh. Perhaps you are a really intelligent person but you've just had a brain failure during that post.

      Please think a bit more critically. This isn't a "tax" (gasp, shock horror) it's punishment for something they've already done. First this will end up coming out of the companies bottom line because 1. after being convicted of collusion they will be watched like a hawk and 2. now their cartel is being broken up actual competition will ensue (with all the price cutting benefits therein). I'm sick of people assuming this is a zero sum game, that prices will rise because it costs them more in fines. This thinking ignores the fact that the market will only pay for what it will bare and ultimately raising prices to cover a loss from a fine will attract more attention from the authorities as well as reduce the amount of product they can sell. The market will not automatically accept the rise of all RAM prices unless they all raise the price at once and well that's collusion, which what got them into trouble in the first place.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    8. Re:400M goes to who? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      > Repeat offenders should be fined in the billions of dollars as a warning to other companies

      That's silly. As the various financial blow ups show: losing other people's money when you gamble with other people's money is not a big deal. Especially when you get big bonuses if you win big. It does not discourage risky/improper behaviour at all.

      If you want to discourage them, send them to prison.

      If a multimillionaire gets sacked because the company got huge fines, what's that to him? Though a multimillionaire may have 10-20 years more of life expectancy, but 5 years in jail would still hurt him about as much as it would hurt me. In fact it probably would be a bigger drop in lifestyle for him than for me. A multimillionaire would likely be more aware of the term "opportunity cost" than some beggar on the street.

      --
    9. Re:400M goes to who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Payments from EU members towards the EU are reduced by the amount of the fine.
      Given their huge deficits they most probably will not reduce taxes by that amount, but in theory they could.

    10. Re:400M goes to who? by matt4077 · · Score: 1

      The costs of production (in which this fine will be a factor) only set a lower bound on prices. No company just takes costs+10% or something. They try to maximize profits by finding the sweet spot on the demand curve.

      And before the anti-EU argument comes up again, I'd like to point out that Infineon is European. The US does the same btw, i. e. when they fined Daimler $500 million for corruption.

    11. Re:400M goes to who? by sulimma · · Score: 1

      Assuming a state with a fixed budget. Which is the better system to finance that budget? A system where everybody pays the same, or a system where the bad guys pay more then the good guys?

      The EU can use this money to either:
      - spend more (which benefits their citicens in one way or the other)
      - collect less taxes now
      - reduce dept, which means less taxes in the future

      The correct behaviour on the spending side of the budget is very controversial, but it is a problem complete unrelated to the income side of the budget where fines clearly benefical.

    12. Re:400M goes to who? by zoney_ie · · Score: 1

      The 400 million indirectly goes to us taxpayers in the EU in some form or another. Even net contributors to the EU are also recipients of EU money (e.g. third level research).

      Also it means companies even if they continue these kinds of behaviour, are more likely to pursue it outside the EU (we don't have to be sufficiently tough to stop the behaviour, just tougher than elsewhere, e.g. US).

      Finally, even if these fines don't stop this behaviour in the EU, the fines make for headlines that increase public awareness of such business practices, keeping up the pressure for proper regulation and oversight of business, as well as keeping customers wary and vigilent.

      --
      -- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
    13. Re:400M goes to who? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Consumers around the world who are stupid enough to buy stuff from known criminals will be paying for it, and will deserve it.

      There, fixed that for ya.

      You know, natural selection, survival of the fittest, and stuff...

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    14. Re:400M goes to who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Am I the only one who finds this way of parsing someone's message by one line at a time offending?

    15. Re:400M goes to who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an employee who works for a company that has been found to be part of a price fixing cartel (in a totally different industry), I think there is alot that the government can and has done to restrict a company that is involved in this.

      Other than fines (which were larger than in the case stated above) my company has to run "compliance" courses twice a year for every employee (>100,000 employees), and we are heavily monitored by the goverment in all areas that we operate (especially difficult in countries where bribery is very common). Due to these compliance issues we have had to put aside almost $1 billion to deal with it.

    16. Re:400M goes to who? by ZwJGR · · Score: 1

      Ya, price fixing sucks. But let's be real honest shall we?

      Lets

      Sorry, but "let's" is correct, "lets" is not.
      It is an abbreviation of "let us".

      I think concluding that this ruling will cause prices to fall due to increased competitiveness is being a bit optimistic. It simply isn't in their best interest to be competitive or seek to outprice each other, seeing as they are essentially all selling the same thing and profit margins need to be maintained.

      --
      There is no psychiatrist in the world like a puppy licking your face - Ben Williams
    17. Re:400M goes to who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, if fines are ineffective, repeat offender companies (three strikes!) should lose their rights to protect trade secrets and hold intellectual property, and have their existing intellectual property shifted to the public domain.

    18. Re:400M goes to who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So a cartel is being broken up by a monopoly. And the cartel is the one in the wrong. Odd logic.

      Tbh, I think I'd prefer a cartel than a monopoly. Also, the monopoly in question has the power to tax etc whereas the cartel only has the option to sell someone a good or service. It's not like the cartel will put you in jail if you don't pay for their lame services even if you don't want them (they are only world class because there isn't any competition.)

    19. Re:400M goes to who? by tralflamadore · · Score: 1

      Just buy Micron!

    20. Re:400M goes to who? by niteshifter · · Score: 1

      ... the market will only pay for what it will bare ...

      Speaking of thinking and being critical ... just what kind of market are you referring to? The red light district? We were discussing DRAM ...

      PS: Your thinking in the last paragraph is a bit naive. Given:
      1. A minuscule fine in proportion to profits.
      2. Increasing the fine will take forever to implement: Evil Mega Corp. Inc. has a cadre of lawyers and lobbyists to make this so.
      3. Corporations - while enjoying many of the perks of being human - are not, in fact human. It has no soul, no empathy no "feelings" at all. What they do have are software, accountants, and driven-to-succeed(-at-any-cost) types all over the upper middle and senior ranks.

      These lead to (pick one)
      4a. The fine gets folded into the cost of doing business at location X by automation. Since the cost to operate just went up the price to sell adjusts up as well.
      4b. Busted here? Well, shoot, how about that market over yonder? Wonder how long we'll have to wait (answer for the US: about a decade for a two-term administration, 5 years for a one-shot) before we can game this market again?

    21. Re:400M goes to who? by WillDraven · · Score: 1

      More importantly I think is the only thing that will keep executives interested in being executives who follow the law is seeing those who don't PERSONALLY fined into bankruptcy and/or sent to prison for appreciable periods of time.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    22. Re:400M goes to who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Towards the services provided by the EU.

      All Hail the Bureaucracy and its Glorious Services!!

      CORRECTION: Consumers around the world have already paid for it.

      Yes and now they'll pay a SECOND time because of the fine.
      The money is not going to the consumers who were ripped off in the first place.
      It's going to be pissed away by the various governments.

      I'm just saying you're an idiot

      Wow another great point! You smart!

    23. Re:400M goes to who? by c · · Score: 1

      > Repeat offenders should be fined in the billions of
      > dollars as a warning to other companies.

      Why? Bigger fines are either going to be shrugged off, or are going to basically wreck the company and seriously hurt shareholders, customers and employees and NOT the assholes responsible for the problem in the first place.

      Fuck fines. PUT PEOPLE IN JAIL. I'm pretty confident that if they put the CEO's and CFO's from those nine companies in jail for three years you'd never again see a DRAM price fixing scheme of that scale anytime in the next decade or two.

      c.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    24. Re:400M goes to who? by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      Logically, since they lowered prices to push Rambus out of the market, the money should go to Rambus. But... nobody would want that. yuck. This is simply a lose-lose situation for the entire planet Earth.

  5. Position is everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It must have been nice to be the last one contacted about this:

    "Hey, all 9 of us are gonna fix prices on our chips."

    "lol"

  6. Capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Looks like those fine capitalist companies don't like the competition part of capitalism either. They want protected profits too and screw the free market if that's what it takes.

    1. Re:Capitalism by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 1

      Looks like those fine capitalist companies don't like the competition part of capitalism either. They want protected profits too and screw the free market if that's what it takes.

      Perhaps (sometimes) a company may not so much want 'their share of the pie', but rather a more predictable, constant production flow. Keep initial estimates modest & design a hit product, and your production can't keep up (=you're missing profit opportunities). Scale up too early, and you have big / expensive / unused production capacity. It's probably a fine art to walk that line, and I can't help to feel at least some sympathy if a company X tries to smooth out those fluctuations.

      Competition increases the risk factor here, and price fixing could be seen as a way to spread that risk over all the competitors in a market. Which isn't that bad by itself, IMHO. It's just that it hurts consumers long-term by enabling weaker competitors to survive, slow innovation (because the incentive to be first-to-market is reduced), and artificially raising prices.

      The free market is good for a lot of things, but providing a constant operating environment for the businesses in it, isn't one of them.

    2. Re:Capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well said, and what's more, micron weren't charging as much. Did the consumer even notice enough to shop around? How many times in the last few years have you said "Man, memory is soooo expensive". It's not. It's cheap... as chips (ba doom tish!).

      A company may charge what they like under capitalism, and a smart competitor will come along and undercut them if they're gouging consumers. If micron had been smart they'd have used this as an opportunity to gain market share.

    3. Re:Capitalism by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Looks like those fine capitalist companies don't like the competition part of capitalism either. They want protected profits too and screw the free market if that's what it takes.

      Where is competition mandated in capitalism?

      In true, unrestricted laissez faire capitalism there is no requirement for competition, one company may become ruler of all if they choose to squash all competition and fix prices?

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    4. Re:Capitalism by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Under true unrestricted free market capitalism things like patents and copyrights would not exist, so long as there were people out there with the resources to copy then there would be competition. It would mean software and other trivially copied goods would be completely unprofitable, and would either be community developed or developed as a loss leader to sell other product (eg hardware to run it on)... Hardware obviously couldn't be distributed for free because of the unavoidable costs of manufacturing it, so likely it would be priced at a point that it wouldnt be profitable for someone else to invest the up front costs to start producing it.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    5. Re:Capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this case, what would probably happen without patents, and other artificial barriers to entry is (something like free market), someone would see a profit to be made, and enter the market with lower prices.

    6. Re:Capitalism by sjames · · Score: 1

      Competition is the one and only thing that makes capitalism workable at all. If it doesn't exist, the people would be quite wise to either make it exist or switch to another economic model. Capitalism without competition quickly becomes feudalism and then the people become serfs unless they kill whoever might be in charge.

  7. Yo Micron! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Snitches git stitches!

  8. So what? by Mark19960 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So they were all fined a combined 402 million.
    They made that, and then some so it's a cost of doing business.
    Corporate fines are laughable... they factor it in these days.

    1. Re:So what? by Pence128 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This. The fine should be their profits from the affected products from the time they started price fixing to the time they stopped.

      --
      404: sig not found.
    2. Re:So what? by red_blue_yellow · · Score: 1

      This. The fine should be their profits from the affected products from the time they started price fixing to the time they stopped.

      Even that is not enough. Even if they are caught 50% of the time, that's still a good deal for them. You have to make the expected profit (in probability terms) negative for price-fixing. In other words, (fine * probability_of_being_caught) > profits.

      --
      A neutral communications medium is essential. It is the basis of science, by which humankind should decide what is true.
    3. Re:So what? by Tapewolf · · Score: 1

      I seem to recall from the Microsoft case that the EU is not generally amused if they check later and find it's still happening. That is, they cartel will start to get a series of considerably larger fines unless they actually stop.

    4. Re:So what? by hankwang · · Score: 1

      So they were all fined a combined 402 million.

      As far as I understand, the EU sets fines proportional to the sales over the duration of the sales, with a proportionality constant dependent on how much the infringement hurt the market. Although not many details are published on the EU website so far (EU case on DRAM), the EU has published the guidelines for the fine calculation (Guidelines on the method of setting fines). More details on the settlement decision will follow.

      Unless there are clear indications of the opposite, I would assume that the 330m euro was in proportion with the amount of extra profit that the companies made thanks to the cartel; without the cartel, the profits or losses of the companies would probably have been similar.

    5. Re:So what? by Xelios · · Score: 1

      But that's not really a fine then, is it? If I steal $100 out of someone's wallet and then get "fined" $100 then I really wasn't fined anything, I just gave back the money I stole. If that's the only punishment I receive then why not steal money all the time? If I get caught I'm out something I shouldn't have had in the first place, if I don't get caught I get free money.

      They should have to give back the extra profit that they made illegally and then be fined an extra amount for doing something illegal in the first place.

      Not that it really matters, either way the expense will just be factored into pricing and the consumer ends up paying for it.

      --
      Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
    6. Re:So what? by chrb · · Score: 1

      So they were all fined a combined 402 million. They made that,

      Did they? What were the profits of the respective DRAM divisions of these companies in the period that the cartel operated (1998-2002)?

      I'm not disputing your claim - just asking for evidence. Hynix lost $4 billion in 2008; the DRAM market has traditionally been highly competitive and not the huge source of profits that some people think it is.

    7. Re:So what? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      And then some...

      No, actually, there is just one morally valid punishment: Separation.
      Or in other words: Hey you, chip maker! We don’t allow price fixers in this country! You have one week to leave. If you or any sub-part of you are seen here again, you will be personally assassinated! Now GTFO!
      Of course, as we are nice people, we will forgive them after a couple of years. If they still exist by then. (Considering how pretty much every other country would also throw them out.) But they will definitely never ever try that again. Ever.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    8. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      yep. look what one of the fuckers had to say:

      "Since the fine is within the range of a reserve already fixed for such issue in FY 2008, the company believes that the fine will not have a material impact on its current year (FY 2010) consolidated financial results."

      "for such issue" - gotta love the Japanese.

    9. Re:So what? by arielCo · · Score: 1

      Yes, that'd might hit them hard enough to get them to care, but we'd have the threat of job loss and thus the "too big to fail" argument (again). Could be a good thing in the long run, but very unpopular.

      --
      This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
    10. Re:So what? by hankwang · · Score: 1

      But that's not really a fine then, is it? If I steal $100 out of someone's wallet and then get "fined" $100 then I really wasn't fined anything,

      Well, the proportionality constant may be larger than 1. The upper limit is 30% of the sales value, which is usually much more than the profit.

    11. Re:So what? by jameson · · Score: 1

      That's insufficient. Let's say that the probability of getting caught is p. p is = 1. Now, the average cost for unethical behaviour is the same as the profits of this unethical behaviour times p. Hence, it is rational to remain unethical: you can only win.

      Ideally, the penalties for such behaviour would be in a different category than profits, i.e., not money: jail time for executives who made this decision, forced donation of part of their company to a randomly selected competitor, forced public-domain-making of all of their patents. None of these are things that they can easily pass on to the consumer as cost, and they may in fact all be beneficial for the market.

    12. Re:So what? by jameson · · Score: 1

      Sorry, forgot about the HTML. p is <= 1, I meant.

      Also, the downside of this approach is that the government doesn't benefit from attacking these practices directly, which decreases the motivation from enacting it.

    13. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fine should be on top of forefeiting the profits as well as prison terms for the CEO and board of directors. How come these corporations can get away with the criminal activity but not when committed by common citizens?

    14. Re:So what? by steelfood · · Score: 1

      FOrget their profits. Go for the revenue.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    15. Re:So what? by Pence128 · · Score: 1

      They're mostly foreign companies, so I don't think that's an issue. Also, I think "Too big to fail" is sort of like "All your eggs in one basket". The solution is to put the eggs in more baskets.

      --
      404: sig not found.
  9. Mixed feelings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am somewhat conflicted with these sort of things, on one hand it completely sucks that the end consumer is being screwed over in order for large businesses to maintain there profit margins. On the other hand with so much competition in the market and relatively low margins on the goods I think we will see some serious consolidation in the manufacturing of these things as the industry just can't support that many players and that in turn will end up pushing prices back up naturally anyway.

  10. ban one company at random by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I say rather than fines, we ban one of those companies from the US market forever. We repeat this process ever time there is price fixing incident. Shareholders of those companies will not tolerate the risk and management will be too scared to pull this shit again.

    1. Re:ban one company at random by mirix · · Score: 1

      How would you plan on enforcing that? Customs officials opening every stick of RAM, prebuilt computer, cell phone, router, set top box, et al, and determining if the device in question has Brand X DRAM?

      Seems entirely impossible to me, with the majority of electronics being manufactured outside the US.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    2. Re:ban one company at random by NNKK · · Score: 1

      Informants and random inspections. When violations are found, nail the purchasers to the wall. Soon enough there won't be many US businesses buying their chips.

    3. Re:ban one company at random by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It'd give us all a warm feeling, but it would only make things worse. The problem is that lack of competition is precisely what leads to these sorts of things.

      My personal idea would be to start confiscating shares, especially those that the board get as part of their pay. That'll (probably) scare them straight in short order.

    4. Re:ban one company at random by DrScotsman · · Score: 1

      I say rather than fines, we ban one of those companies from the US market forever.

      That would be a very interesting punishment for the European Union to give.

    5. Re:ban one company at random by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Or, you'd eventually grant a monopoly to the one company that doesn't get caught.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    6. Re:ban one company at random by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easier and more appropriate approach.

      The fines are not paid by the company but come DIRECTLY from the CEO's wallet along with all the executives and shareholders who knew about it who are then also put in prison and not the minimum security stuff either as they stole millions upon millions of dollars.

      Also bar them from ANY financial contributions or any positions of executive or higher power from anyone for life with fines and jail time to anyone who attempts to do so.

      Who would want to risk stuff like this if it costs them money directly out of their own pockets, guarantees them jail time in something at least medium security and makes sure that after this bankrupts them and they can't get bailouts from friends and conspirators.

      These guys are bigger problems to this nation and this planet as a whole than any person who downloads music or sales drugs and should be punished much harsher than them due to that fact.

    7. Re:ban one company at random by sjames · · Score: 1

      They're more than willing to do that for cocaine, why not RAM?

  11. Wut about Price breaking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would price breaking be better?

    1. Re:Wut about Price breaking? by ControlsGeek · · Score: 1

      Actually this same group of companies has conspired in the same way to keep prices for superior technologies higher than would naturally be the case in a free market in order to keep a competitor OUT of the business and to try to put a small company out of buisiness. I am referring to Mr Farmwald and Mr Horowitz who created RDRAM and tried to patent it. Intel licensed their patent and used it in some server systems. But the memory maker Cartel conspired to keep its production costs high in order to ensure that Rambus would be unsuccessful in the marketplace whilst at the same time using the patented technical advances without royalty in their products.

          The companies also sued Rambus for a conspiracy to commit fraud on JEDEC which was using the design improvements patented by Rambus in DDR DDR2 DDR3 etc. without paying any royalty to Rambus and using their well established PR departments spread false information to besmirch Rambus in the media. All of this is only now coming to light several years after the original RDRAM has been overtaken by further improvements.

      These companies are currently in a lawsuit in California to bring these issues to light.

  12. They even got a discount on the fines... by VinylRecords · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All the fines were reduced by 10% because the companies co-operated with the probe.
    The crime was done in the name of money, profits. But the punishment, monetary, was reduced for cooperation. So basically what companies can learn from this is: price fix as much as possible, once caught cooperate as much as possible, then keep more of the profits from the price fixed products.

    A 10th chip maker, Micron, was also part of the price-fixing cartel but escaped a fine in return for alerting the competition authorities.
    And if you blow in the competition you get to keep ALL of your price fixed profits. What kind of a system is this? Am I missing something here? How exactly are these companies being punished so that they won't do this again? Hell they are probably already learning from their mistakes and looking to secure another price fixing scam for the immediate future.

    1. Re:They even got a discount on the fines... by Arker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It actually does make sense to reduce fines if they cooperate. If they didnt it would take more money to convict them. But if the fines, after cooperation discount, are not more than the profit raised by the crime, multiplied by a factor based on a good estimate of the percentage of the time companies do this and get away with it, then it is no deterrent. Sadly, in the western world today, this is exactly the situation with pretty much all regulation of industry. No deterrent. Just a cost of doing business, paying off the state occasionally when you get caught.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    2. Re:They even got a discount on the fines... by Renraku · · Score: 1

      Kind of like game theory.

      Suppose there are several companies. They can either price fix or not price fix. If they're price fixing, they can alert the authorities and keep their 'winnings' while the other price fixers lose a certain amount of money. Whether or not they price fix will be determined by the fine they receive. If extra revenue > fine, then price fix. If extra revenue fine, don't price fix.

      But all of the price fixers should rat each other out. In theory, they'd all get to keep their profits. In practice, they'd end up disgusting the investigators and get bitchslapped with an even bigger fine. Kind of like how criminals are often tripping over each other to point fingers as soon as they're behind bars.

      --
      Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    3. Re:They even got a discount on the fines... by Aceticon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And if you blow in the competition you get to keep ALL of your price fixed profits. What kind of a system is this? Am I missing something here? How exactly are these companies being punished so that they won't do this again?

      That's how they catch them. It creates a nice Prisioner's Dilema where the first to break ranks get's away with it.

      Countries that have laws for this experience much higher rates of catching price-fixing cartels than those who don't.

      Hell they are probably already learning from their mistakes and looking to secure another price fixing scam for the immediate future.

      After they have proven themselves as snitches, who exactly would trust them and get in a price fixing cartel with them?

    4. Re:They even got a discount on the fines... by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      And lawmakers and judge goals is to just make that not profitable.
      IMHO they should make even very small jail time for that. That would be something a bit harder to factor in.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    5. Re:They even got a discount on the fines... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you know what happens when they get caught again?
      Newsflash: Fines raised. By pretty big factors.

    6. Re:They even got a discount on the fines... by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      By encouraging breaking the conspiracy you make it more short-lived. A price-fixing conspiracy is based on mutual trust shared between all the partners. If you violate the trust, the conspiracy can't exist. If you provide a good incentive to destroy the trust, you fight it efficiently.
      Actually providing the "traitor" with long-term market benefits (say, a tax relief) that give them an upper hand above competition would be even better, breaking up the conspiracies even earlier.

      Also, by setting the fine above the profits, you fight it efficiently.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    7. Re:They even got a discount on the fines... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      The real problem is the amount of the fine is *nothing* in comparison to what they got from it. They froze out competition, practically killed off competing products and standards, and have to pay $44M each.

      Oh no! Not $44M! That's like... two days of revenue! That's just unfair punishment for a scam that went on for YEARS.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    8. Re:They even got a discount on the fines... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sweet jesus, you think this is the first time they've been fined for price fixing?

  13. EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    That damn Marxist, communist, fascist EU fines perfectly good companies for no reason.

    Luckily good ole US of A well let companies do their business without intervention. The market will sort out the price fixing.

    1. Re:EU by TouchAndGo · · Score: 1

      Or the price fixing will sort out the market. Either way.

    2. Re:EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry but I don't get tard/sperg humor. Is the joke supposed to be that the US already fined these companies hundreds of millions years ago?

    3. Re:EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go back to SHSC you idiot.

  14. Time to develop open source nanoassemblers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The development of nanoassemblers will make it possible to do away with most manufacturing and bring about a revolution in DIY computers (and everything)....plus the advantages of a really powerfull medical nanotech so we can eliminate aging and make it possible to customize ourselves etc. Goodby all these joker companies that dole out tiny, espensive "objects of expensive latest tech" to consumers at whatever exorbadent prices that are the norm of the day. The fact that this whole model of doing things is the ultimate open source application, just provide the raw materials...what could be better than that? Sure, if you want to buy something, go ahead, but the possibillities are pretty good.

  15. Could have been worse? by NewsWatcher · · Score: 1

    Since all companies cooperated with the probe, they received a 10% reduction in fines, so it could have been worse.

    Surely you mean, it could have been better. Reducing the fines is a negative from where I am sitting.

    --
    If the pattern goes 9am, 10am, 11am, why isn't noon 12am?
  16. There was hardly a loss for the consumer. by Bender_ · · Score: 1

    You know what the most disturbing thing is?

    Most DRAM companies have operated at a net loss when taking into account the accumulated earnings of the last decade. There is incredibly fierce price competition within the industry.

    Do you really feel ripped off when you buy a product that is composed of billions of transistors, has tens of billions of R&D costs behind at at a price of $1 ? (That was the price of a 1Gbit chip not long ago) I don't want to sound like an industry advocate here, but I find this pretty staggering.
    Is the consumer really ripped off if he has to buy a product that is priced a few months behind Moores law?

    1. Re:There was hardly a loss for the consumer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So this excuses collusion in the industry to rip off the consumer?

    2. Re:There was hardly a loss for the consumer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what the most disturbing thing is?

      Most DRAM companies have operated at a net loss when taking into account the accumulated earnings of the last decade. There is incredibly fierce price competition within the industry.

      That would be good, but it seems it wasn't that fierce if they were fixing prices...

      Do you really feel ripped off when you buy a product that is composed of billions of transistors, has tens of billions of R&D costs behind at at a price of $1 ? (That was the price of a 1Gbit chip not long ago)

      If the price has been arranged, yes, I feel ripped.

      I don't want to sound like an industry advocate here, but I find this pretty staggering.
      Is the consumer really ripped off if he has to buy a product that is priced a few months behind Moores law?

      Yes, that is why is called price fixing and is illegal.

    3. Re:There was hardly a loss for the consumer. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Most DRAM companies have operated at a net loss when taking into account the accumulated earnings of the last decade. There is incredibly fierce price competition within the industry.

      And yet, without price fixing, that competition would allow the incompetent companies to drop out of the market and the players capable of making a profit to operate the market. Instead, what we've got is protectionism for the failures.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:There was hardly a loss for the consumer. by sjames · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. Why would they willingly operate at a loss? And if the natural market price would be $0.5 rather than $1, then yes, I feel ripped off for paying double the fair market price.

  17. The whistle-blower by cfriedt · · Score: 1

    Although nobody likes a rat (nobody who is ratted-out, in any case), Micron should actually get some respect for being the whistle-blower in this situation. A little honesty can really go a long way - especially if that is the way toward 400 million in, e.g. deficit-reductions.

  18. That's a start... by dargaud · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...but when are they gonna fine the various cell phone carriers who are so obviously price fixing that it's laughable. 30c SMS in most of Europe _unless_ you pay an extra 15E a month, etc... They are all the same crooks with an already paid infrastructure of antenna most always financed directly by the states.

    --
    Non-Linux Penguins ?
    1. Re:That's a start... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Say what? 30c-ish/SMS is what I pay when roaming in Europe.
      My normal SMS cost was (before I was on flat rate ~45 Euro) around 0.08c.

    2. Re:That's a start... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The tariff indeed indicates price fixing.

      By the EU. The EU set a maximum tariff. Guess what? That was equivalent to setting the actual tariff.

      However, you're entirely wrong on the state-paid infrastructure. Reality is reversed; the EU member states made billions auctioning spectrum. In Germany, it almost topped DM 100 billion! (50 billion euro). So, the cost of SMS isn't really in the antennas but in the spectrum.

    3. Re:That's a start... by data2 · · Score: 1

      I pay 13 cents, even when roaming. And that is with no monthly fee. In fact, with O2, you pay more for a minute/SMS when you have a monthly fee.

    4. Re:That's a start... by AltairDusk · · Score: 1

      You think the cell phone carriers are bad over there try dealing with them in the US. I would love to see some of the European practices for cell phone and cell plan buying put in place over here.

    5. Re:That's a start... by Pence128 · · Score: 1

      that's still E500.00 per MB.

      --
      404: sig not found.
  19. Mod parent -1 SPAM by mjwx · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Who ends up paying the 400M and where does that money go? Consumers around the world will be paying for it

    Ummm.... You do know that consumers around the world have already paid for it don't you. Now it's the colluding companies turn.

    Unless you are proposing we let them get away with Collusion, because that will lower prices for sure. You're clearly OK with spamming your crappy business on /. (which I'll put good money on the fact you're not paying Geeknet.inc for).

    Prices will actually lower out of this and the paltry US $400 million will come out of the companies bottom line because they have to compete with Micron, the company who wasn't fined so Micron can charge lower prices while having a higher profit margin. If RAM prices were to rise out of this mess then it could only happen if the companies got together and decided they would all raise prices at once. Hang on, isn't that what got them into trouble in the first place.

    This is not a zero sum game, if they raise prices they will either lose business to competitors who didn't raise prices or lower demand. That's how the free market works.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    1. Re:Mod parent -1 SPAM by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      "Ummm.... You do know that consumers around the world have already paid for it don't you. Now it's the colluding companies turn."

      Because they would never fold this new expense into higher prices on future products. Nope, no for-profit entity would EVER do that.

      You don't seem to get it. We (customers) paid for it before, and we (customers) will pay for this now too. The cartel won't pay a cent in the long term that they don't pass on to us.

      "This is not a zero sum game, if they raise prices they will either lose business to competitors who didn't raise prices or lower demand. That's how the free market works."

      Unless the market has a bunch of proven price fixers that produce 98% of the market's goods...

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  20. Definition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sorry, but you are mistaken.

    The meaning of "free market" is defined by economists, not by what big bussiness wants it to mean.

    To be precise, it means a market with so many buyers and sellers that none of them are able to influence the price -- they must all accept market price (determined by supply and demand).

    To answer the rest of your post, only some markets are natural monopolies. That includes such things as electricity generation, or anything else where there are huge scale benefits, including markets with severe patent restrictions.

    1. Re:Definition by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Patent restrictions are an artificial construct that is inherently incompatible with a free market. They are a form of government regulation which takes away freedom from the market.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    2. Re:Definition by Smallpond · · Score: 1

      Electricity generation is not a natural monopoly. Electricity distribution is the monopoly because each consumer only wants one set of wires to attach to their house. In Massachusetts the two are separate and I can choose who to but my electricity from.

    3. Re:Definition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I apologise, as it seems I did not make it obvious what I meant.

      In economics, it is seen that products which are not special in any way and can easily be substituted for one another operate in a single market.

      If I design a new chair and patent it, I still compete against many other chair-makers in a vaguely free market. (Perfectly free markets never exist.) They just can't use my particular design. A monopoly does not result, except for the small number of people who are so stupid as to think that they cannot live without *that* chair.

      But if I have a portfolio of vague and obvious patents with which I can sue anyone producing any chairs, I have a monopoly. This is precisely what happens with the absurd patent systems of the 21st century. (Well, it's usually a cartel instead, but the effect is basically the same.)

    4. Re:Definition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every market has an optimum size for producers. (After that, the negative effects of scale begin to outweigh the positive. Things like unmanageable paperwork, etc.) If the optimum size for a single producer is larger than the size of the market, you have a natural monopoly. It is then a "natural monopoly" because it tends to a monopoly in the absence of government intervention. Even if it isn't a actual monopoly at present.

      I strongly suspect that you have multiple power companies due to government intervention. If your market in the US is so enormous that it is not a natural monopoly there, I can only tell you that electricity generation is one for much of the world.

  21. What's so wrong about it? Everyone does it. by sk11 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Call me cynical, but semiconductor is one of the few industries where heavy competition happens and prices fall down quickly. I dont mind price-fixing if it saves an industry (and I am talking as someone currently unemployed and having difficulties making a semiconductor start-up mainly due to the current state of the industry). Compared to other professions, when will Lawyers be fined for price fixing??? When will hospitals and medical insurance companies be?? This is mainly the case because it's easier to get into Engineering than it is to get into Law or Medicine. People at the top in Law and Medicine make sure to limit the number of professionals getting into their ecosystem each year so they can justify their high salaries. Then you keep hearing (at least here in the UK) from all of these people/government official the old cliche of: "We need more doctors to solve the health issue!" - and all I see around me is an abundance of people wanting to be medical doctors but not being able to become one.

  22. Backwards by andersh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You have it backwards. The European markets are "golden geese" to the chip makers! There will always be yet another competitor that would happily sell and profit in the European market(s) should the competition die off. This is basic economics, but I don't expect more on Slashdot.

    And what tax revenue are you referring to? These companies sell their products in Europe, but the profits are sent back home. The majority of the companies mentioned are not European. The only tax revenue Europe sees in this case is sales tax on the items and a limited tax on the profits, after deductions, of the European branches.

    The real issue is abusing the markets you operate in, if you want do business in Europe or the US you have to follow the local rules. I really hate the way ignorant Slashdotters rant when they talk about the EU and fines! Never mind that the US does exactly the same thing, however when Europe and the EU decides to act according to our identical laws "you" dare criticize and pass judgment on matters you have no understanding of!

    The EU is acting to regulate markets in accordance with law, the motive is clearly to keep markets healthy for producers and buyers alike. The guilty parties are the chip makers!

    I don't think most Americans understand how fervently nationalist they sound on the web.

    1. Re:Backwards by stygianguest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There will always be yet another competitor that would happily sell and profit in the European market(s) should the competition die off. This is basic economics, but I don't expect more on Slashdot.

      Actually, it is one of the assumptions of quite a few economic theories. One that, if you ask me, is stretched all too often. For example chip markets are far from ideal, lots of government involvement (subsidies), institutionalized cartels (patents), and sky-high entry barriers.

      Go ahead, 'just' start another competitor. After all, if the others are fixing the prices it shouldn't be too hard to compete.

    2. Re:Backwards by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The only tax revenue Europe sees in this case is sales tax on the items and a limited tax on the profits, after deductions, of the European branches.

      Given that VAT is 15% or more in pretty much all of the EU (over 20% in some places), and the typical margin for memory chip makers is under 10%, the various governments probably make more per sale than the chip makers.

      The EU is acting to regulate markets in accordance with law, the motive is clearly to keep markets healthy for producers and buyers alike. The guilty parties are the chip makers!

      As a parent poster pointed out, a fine of $44m per company is probably significantly less than the profits that the company made from participating in the scheme. That means that it's not going to deter this kind of behaviour significantly, it's just going to reduce the total profits by a little bit. This looks more like the EU taking its cut from the scam than actually trying to prevent it. If they really want to prevent price fixing, they should take the fine and invest it in a new competitor for these companies. $400m is enough to build a chip fab, and I'm sure some companies like Intel and IBM would be interested in licensing them the required designs...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:Backwards by asukasoryu · · Score: 1
      --
      There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
    4. Re:Backwards by metaforest · · Score: 1

      You gotta be kidding. $400M would not quite be a 10% down payment on a Fab. Go look up what it really costs to build a fab. Here is a good starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor_fabrication_plant

      You can do the math, but just equipment alone can cost well over $400M for a boutique fab.

      Then you have to house it, and staff it. Class 100 cleanrooms don't grow on trees. A recent TSMC fab start cost over $4Bln.

  23. Free Markets by andersh · · Score: 1

    This is where "free markets" are supposed to regulate the prices keeping any one company from raising their prices above the rest. If you raise your prices, you become uncompetitive.

    This fine is not going to raise prices at all, they know perfectly well that the buyers won't accept any increases. I'm not talking about consumers here, the biggest purchasers are likely the PC makers.

    There will be a dip in their profits for this or last financial year.

    Do you consider the US fines to be a tax to fill your empty American coffers? Or are you just attacking European actions?

    In case you didn't notice the chip makers committed the crime, the EU is acting to punish them in accordance with law. What's your excuse? I'm just saying... [that you're wrong]

  24. Well by WinstonWolfIT · · Score: 1

    Companies are always going to try to collude and/or corner markets. It's been happening since the beginning of the mercantile age. But I would like to give credit to the EU for making companies play fair. Companies are changing their business practices in exchange for entry into the European market.

  25. Maxed out? by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    Since when is 8gb of DDR2 maxed out these days? Sorry mate, but maxed out at the moment is something like 32gb of ddr3. And that would cost you more then a thousand still.

    And if you can't compete on price, then compete on quality or go bust.

    THAT is the free market. Companies SURE love the free market, except when it bites them in the ass. Understandable perhaps, but it is also understandable that since I am poor and you are rich and I cut your throat and take your cash. There is always an excuse to break the law but you can't run a country with excuses.

    And I wouldn't put to much stock in those claimed small margins. Margins are what is between sale price and costs, but what makes up the costs? Huge bonusses? Well, then if small margins are the problem, cut the bonusses. odd that all these struggling chip makers don't seem to go bankrupt eh? Deal with farmers sometime. "it rained: we are in trouble". "the sun is shining: we are in trouble". "The wind is blowing: we are in trouble". Farmers are always in trouble and always need tax relieve. Odd that, no matter what the weather, farmers are in trouble and need lower taxes. It must be hard to be a farmer. Or MAYBE just MAYBE, they are lying scum bags who are rolling in cash. Here is a hint, next time you claim to be on the edge of bankruptcy, park your mercs OUT of view of the camera!

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Maxed out? by afidel · · Score: 1

      Maxed out is 144GB for my servers and it costs ~$14k, but it's worth it since one host with 144GB can replace 35 servers from just 4 years ago =)

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  26. Punish the Board of Directors or CEO/CIO. by foolish_to_be_here · · Score: 1

    do{ Punish the corporation? Fine them a pittance. {until hell_freezes_over} The people making the decisions should be the target. Giving a Corporation a small fine that is passed on to stockholders and consumers does not take the incentive away from the CEO/CIO.

    --
    Please mod me 1 or troll. It's where the truth is these days, even on Slashdot. Beware the power of moderators everywh
  27. The story is simply not true. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are lucky to only get scammed for 400 mil from the Bankrupt EU.

    South Korea's antitrust agency last year ended an investigation of the flash memory industry, saying there was no evidence of a price-fixing cartel. Samsung and Toshiba have said U.S. authorities also ended investigations last August.

    Nanya, which was fined EUR1.8 million, said it settled with the commission to avoid further proceedings. "After almost eight years of litigation and investigative activity, we believe it is time to move forward and refocus on the growth of our business," Nanya spokesman Pei Lin Pai said in a statement.

    1. Re:The story is simply not true. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the flash memory market. DRAM isn't flash you fucking retard. If there wasn't any price fixing going on what did Micron blow the whistle over?

  28. Doping Chips by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder how many of these CRIMINALS make electronic vote tabulation device parts?

  29. WTF? by P0ltergeist333 · · Score: 1

    The GOVERNMENT is the problem? Really?! This was free market capitalism at it's finest. Oh wait... collusion and price fixing never happen, at least if you believe the free market advocates. And it is the government haters who are usually the largest opponent of any regulations with teeth, so all they CAN do is fine companies. Meanwhile, you decry the government getting any money, yet you certainly enjoy the internet, roads, bridges, police, fire departments, clean tap water, disease-free food, the military's protection, etc... And you think it cost nothing to create and prosecute this case and others like it? If people put half the energy they spend complaining about the government into making the government better, (even if only educating themselves about the government) we would all be much better off.

    --
    One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces. - PF
  30. 400M ? by revlayle · · Score: 1

    Big deal... they already probably made a hojillion in profit. Consumers already paid the price, now the govt gets it

    Consumer: 0 - Big Business: 1987328783

  31. Economic non sense by misterbozo · · Score: 1

    This story doesn't add up. That one company that reported the other ones could simply have set its prices slightly below the competition's fixed prices and grabbed all market share, hence making huge profits and destroying the cartel.

    The economig logic behind collusion laws is completely bogus, it's really just a simple political racket.

    Most likely these 9 "guilty" companies didn't play the political game well enough. This game was won by Micron's political team and by european bureaucrats. Well played.

  32. Not even close to reality are you. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You are correct, because DDR uses the same patented techniques that RDRAM did, it was just as fast.

    What? Are you insane? Same techniques? Just as fast?!

    The only thing DDR and RDRAM have is that they transfer data on both edges of the clock signal like a thousand other technologies that already existed at the time, on chips and on PCBs. Rambus did not invent double pumping data busses; it was already a standard technique for reducing signal integrity issues on the clock signal. See a variety of FSBs that were out at the time.

    Other than that, the two memories couldn't be more different. RDRAM is a serial, in-line, packet-based, wave-pipelined memory technology with differential signaling and resistor termination. DDR is a parallel, multi-drop, bus-mastering, logically pipelined, non-terminated and non-differential technology.

    They two memories are nothing alike except in the most superficial way, and unsurprisingly to those with a clue have completely different performance characteristics. RDRAM had higher clock rates and higher sustained memory bandwidth despite having a much narrower interface, but had substantially higher latency especially as you increased capacity. DDR on the other had much better latency, but due to the multi-drop nature of the bus had issues with increasing the clock speed and so was bandwidth limited. Nevertheless, DDR outperformed RDRAM in most applications, even in architectures like the Pentium 4 which were designed around high latency and high bandwidth.

    The PS3's use of RDRAM that you mention in another post is an interesting case. RDRAM works here because it gets relatively high performance for a small number of motherboard traces, and fewer traces translates into a cheaper motherboard, which is a good tradeoff for a home console.

    Ask yourself why if these companies colluded to fix prices as they have admitted to doing why did they decide to fix prices so low?

    That's obvious. They did it to ensure that despite the huge push by Intel, RDRAM would fail to become the dominant memory type. It wasn't enough that DDR performed better, it had to cost customers less otherwise they'd just go along with what Intel said. They did this to avoid having to pay Rambus royalties on RDRAM.

    If you've actually been following the case, then you know that the patented technologies the DRAM makers have been accused of violating are not technologies implemented in RDRAM. They are patents that specifically cover DDR (and not RDRAM) filed by Rambus and specifically modified while JEDEC meetings were going on to cover what JEDEC was discussing for their new, supposedly patent-free memory standard. Rambus did not disclose these patents despite the JEDEC rules requiring it. Rambus deliberately created a patent minefield in the DDR spec that had nothing to do with RDRAM.

    The courts have repeatedly found that this is what happened, that Rambus violated the JEDEC rules and operated in bad faith. The only question has been whether the JEDEC rules are legally binding, and whether their actions constituted legally actionable "bad faith", which the appeals court ruled they did not.

    The DRAM makers price fixing, however, is certainly actionable, and I'm certainly glad they were fined for it. They're giant assholes too. But they did not steal Rambus technology. Rambus stole from JEDEC and manipulated the system so they came out with ownership of the technology that had nothing to do with what they had actually invented.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  33. Two Jokes by gf1605 · · Score: 0

    "First joke is that there are three prisoners in the gulag in the former Soviet Union. The three find out why each of them is there. The first said that he came late to work and was accused of cheating the State out of labor. The second guy said that he came early and was accused of trying to out-compete his comrades. The third guy said that he came to work everyday and exactly on time, and the KGB accused him of owning a Western wristwatch."

    "Second joke is that there are three prisoners in the U.S. They were all in jail for economic crimes of violating monopoly laws. First guy said that he charged higher prices than anyone else and the government then accused him of price gouging and profiteering. Second guy charged lower prices than anyone else and they accused him of predatory and cutthroat pricing. And the third guy said that he charged the same prices as everyone else and they accused him of collusion and price fixing."