What law has Intel objectively broken before the fact? None! Antitrust law is all subjective rulings after the fact. By its nature it is bad law, and does far far more to limit competition from new upstart companies than it does to beat down old established monopolies.
Exactly. These douchebag "real free market" people (socialists) like to harp about the law. But laws are clear. I can look at a law before I do something and know if it's legal or not. These "laws" being enforced by the EU equate to selective interpretation after the fact.
The problem with your "logic" is that there was no law. It's a bunch of loose language open to interpretation. You'll find Intel did not sell below or at cost. You'll also find that whatever "laws" the EU are using are not specific like real laws. E.g. killing someone, stealing something, etc... are clear. "Don't abuse monopoly power" is meaningless and entirely open to abuse by the EU.
I'm all for absolutes in enforcement when there are clearly defined laws. These "laws" are just bullshit guidelines the EU can interpret as they like. Unless they can prove Intel sold below (or even at) cost, they are just making it up as they go.
That's OK. We'll see how you Europeans whine when your economic system collapses because of, well, 'math'. It's amusing how you all start rioting and storming banks and shit at the drop of a hat, too. It'll be fun to watch on TV.
There was no law broken. It's like me making a law "you shall not screw over your neighbour". What the hell does that even mean? Laws should dictate exactly what is and is not permitted. This is all about bullshit socialist anti-corporation laws being intentionally broadened to bring in money and benefit companies in the EU.
I'm going to propose here in the US we pass a new speeding law. The new law is "You shall not drive too fast". Oh, how about instead of those pesky tax regulations we just change it to "you shall pay an appropriate amount of taxes or go to prison"?
I give your post a 3/5. You didn't use the word "corporations" in a pejorative sentence. You didn't say "fat cats". You failed to mention Evil Monsanto.
As an American I'd say I'll be laughing when the failed economic policies of the EU and its member states become apparent and they begin to collapse. Then I can ask, while laughing, how that whole enlightened socialism thing worked out for you guys.
You're all like California - you think you can just provide all the services in the world and there'll always be somebody to pay for it. Yeah - California not doing so well now.
There is no law. There are effectively "guidelines" left entirely up to interpretation. That's the problem with soft laws, they can be abused and selectively interpreted.
Let's say there's a law "thou shalt not abuse thine monopoly!". What the FUCK does that even mean?? It's retarded.
Your post is retarded because it begs the question and assumes this is a "sleazy practice". Why is it sleazy? Say I know you need 500,000 processors a year. I offer you 200,000 processors at $10 a piece or 500,000 processors at $5 a piece. That's exactly what you just described, and only a fucking socialist thinks there's anything wrong with it.
Yes, misapplication of antitrust at its worst. This is just protectionism. Know the difference? In this case, AMD benefits, customers pay higher prices. In fact, say Intel raises its prices 0.5%. AMD can then raise their prices 0.4% and come out ahead. Who loses: Customer.
Please, spare me the "but in the future there's more competition, it's better in the long run" argument. I'm tired of reading stupid things today.
It cracks me up when socialists and big government types pull out the "but _I'm_ the real free market advocate!" card. Yeah, we get it. You think a free market is a "fair" market. Unfortunately, free market has a real meaning and it just makes you look like a jackass to pretend to be the Free Market Champion of the World.
He's not trolling. First, the math doesn't add up and they are lying about the percentage from enforcement revenue. Just add MS's and Intels (possible) fines together. Add in all the other companies they go after and it comes up to wayt more than 1.3B Euro. Second, 1% isn't an insignificant amount.
Retarded point. In the long run it makes us more resistant to _this_ disease. So say 3 million people die from it, then never die from it again. Whoohoo! What a net win for the species! Oh, wait, until the next one that's slightly different.
But poverty is not itself a spawning pool for criminal behavior.
Huh? Of course it is. I don't even know what to say to argue, what you're saying is like saying a circle is 276 degrees.
This is not to say that every or even most poor people is a criminal, but the odds of a poor person becoming a criminal are of course higher than those of a non-poor person.
Yeah. There's your problem. Capitalism doesn't necessitate competition. Maybe you're using the New Age definition of capitalism.
Maybe you can make up a new word for your concept like competitionalism or something.
I'm not even saying your 100% wrong per se in the reasoning, it's just that capitalism doesn't mean what you think it means. Or more accurately, what you think disqualifies us as a capitalist society...most definitely does not.
It's also easier to stand up a strawman and knock it down than it is to converse.
Where did I say it was a grand conspiracy? It's more just deterioration, massive growth of the country, and chaos at work. There's no grand cabal slowly destroying the Constitution. It's just plain old apathy and small actors abrading it over time.
Slashdot Mirror
What law has Intel objectively broken before the fact? None! Antitrust law is all subjective rulings after the fact. By its nature it is bad law, and does far far more to limit competition from new upstart companies than it does to beat down old established monopolies.
Exactly. These douchebag "real free market" people (socialists) like to harp about the law. But laws are clear. I can look at a law before I do something and know if it's legal or not. These "laws" being enforced by the EU equate to selective interpretation after the fact.
The problem with your "logic" is that there was no law. It's a bunch of loose language open to interpretation. You'll find Intel did not sell below or at cost. You'll also find that whatever "laws" the EU are using are not specific like real laws. E.g. killing someone, stealing something, etc... are clear. "Don't abuse monopoly power" is meaningless and entirely open to abuse by the EU.
I'm all for absolutes in enforcement when there are clearly defined laws. These "laws" are just bullshit guidelines the EU can interpret as they like. Unless they can prove Intel sold below (or even at) cost, they are just making it up as they go.
What moral turpitude? Please cite evidence of Intel selling products at or below cost. Fucking socialist.
You're a liar. Please produce evidence of Intel selling at or below cost. Yeah - didn't think so.
You're lying. Please find evidence that Intel sold anything below cost. Trust me - I won't hold my breath.
That's OK. We'll see how you Europeans whine when your economic system collapses because of, well, 'math'. It's amusing how you all start rioting and storming banks and shit at the drop of a hat, too. It'll be fun to watch on TV.
There was no law broken. It's like me making a law "you shall not screw over your neighbour". What the hell does that even mean? Laws should dictate exactly what is and is not permitted. This is all about bullshit socialist anti-corporation laws being intentionally broadened to bring in money and benefit companies in the EU.
I'm going to propose here in the US we pass a new speeding law. The new law is "You shall not drive too fast". Oh, how about instead of those pesky tax regulations we just change it to "you shall pay an appropriate amount of taxes or go to prison"?
The problem is it wasn't DUMPING. The EU is lying if they claim anything was sold below cost. Sold below AMD's cost? Maybe, but that's not the point.
I give your post a 3/5. You didn't use the word "corporations" in a pejorative sentence. You didn't say "fat cats". You failed to mention Evil Monsanto.
As an American I'd say I'll be laughing when the failed economic policies of the EU and its member states become apparent and they begin to collapse. Then I can ask, while laughing, how that whole enlightened socialism thing worked out for you guys.
You're all like California - you think you can just provide all the services in the world and there'll always be somebody to pay for it. Yeah - California not doing so well now.
There is no law. There are effectively "guidelines" left entirely up to interpretation. That's the problem with soft laws, they can be abused and selectively interpreted.
Let's say there's a law "thou shalt not abuse thine monopoly!". What the FUCK does that even mean?? It's retarded.
Your post is retarded because it begs the question and assumes this is a "sleazy practice". Why is it sleazy? Say I know you need 500,000 processors a year. I offer you 200,000 processors at $10 a piece or 500,000 processors at $5 a piece. That's exactly what you just described, and only a fucking socialist thinks there's anything wrong with it.
Yes, misapplication of antitrust at its worst. This is just protectionism. Know the difference? In this case, AMD benefits, customers pay higher prices. In fact, say Intel raises its prices 0.5%. AMD can then raise their prices 0.4% and come out ahead. Who loses: Customer.
Please, spare me the "but in the future there's more competition, it's better in the long run" argument. I'm tired of reading stupid things today.
You're a retard. The last thing in the world Intel wants to do is push AMD out of business. It would be disastrous for Intel.
I think you misspelled "believers free economies"
It cracks me up when socialists and big government types pull out the "but _I'm_ the real free market advocate!" card. Yeah, we get it. You think a free market is a "fair" market. Unfortunately, free market has a real meaning and it just makes you look like a jackass to pretend to be the Free Market Champion of the World.
That's called abuse of percentage as a concept.
A fine of 980 million Euro would add... 980 million Euro. That's a lot of money.
He's not trolling. First, the math doesn't add up and they are lying about the percentage from enforcement revenue. Just add MS's and Intels (possible) fines together. Add in all the other companies they go after and it comes up to wayt more than 1.3B Euro. Second, 1% isn't an insignificant amount.
Come on. You can't just pick arbitrary letters from a phrase and pretend its a well known initialization.
Boy, I hope my GFS gets installed soon! (Gas Fired Stove, didn't you know that?
My cousin caught a SCH in a Mexican whorehouse! (Scorching Case of Herpies, of course).
Yeah, I don't know how Glassfish got lumped in with the "pet projects" moniker. I think whoever wrote the summary doesn't know what it is.
Retarded point. In the long run it makes us more resistant to _this_ disease. So say 3 million people die from it, then never die from it again. Whoohoo! What a net win for the species! Oh, wait, until the next one that's slightly different.
But poverty is not itself a spawning pool for criminal behavior.
Huh? Of course it is. I don't even know what to say to argue, what you're saying is like saying a circle is 276 degrees.
This is not to say that every or even most poor people is a criminal, but the odds of a poor person becoming a criminal are of course higher than those of a non-poor person.
That granting in itself would probably disqualify it. If after that, however, everyone traded goods and services for work it would qualify.
Yeah. There's your problem. Capitalism doesn't necessitate competition. Maybe you're using the New Age definition of capitalism.
Maybe you can make up a new word for your concept like competitionalism or something.
I'm not even saying your 100% wrong per se in the reasoning, it's just that capitalism doesn't mean what you think it means. Or more accurately, what you think disqualifies us as a capitalist society...most definitely does not.
It's also easier to stand up a strawman and knock it down than it is to converse.
Where did I say it was a grand conspiracy? It's more just deterioration, massive growth of the country, and chaos at work. There's no grand cabal slowly destroying the Constitution. It's just plain old apathy and small actors abrading it over time.