View Full Version : Intel fined €1.1bn by the EC for anti-competitive practices
Intel fined €1.1bn by the EC for anti-competitive practices (http://icrontic.com/news/intel-fined-e11bn-by-the-ec-for-anti-competitive-practices)
Love the picture in this article :D
Cliff_Forster
13 May 2009, 3:51pm
I for one, can say this is absolutely no surprise to me at all.
Intel started to realize AMD was a dynamic company and threatening to their practical monopoly about ten years ago. AMD made a few successful marketing pushes starting with the original slot A Athlon, onto the Athlon XP, then to the very sucessful Athlon 64, AMD had gained market share, and more importantly recognition as a major player in chip innovation.
Its funny today, you walk into a retail store where alot of Joe Consumer's buying decisions are made, and you can't seem to find nearly as marketing material on AMD products as you do on Intel's.
I noticed in a BJ's last week, that every AMD based laptop had a line card with minimal specs listed, but every Intel based one told you everything about the system, and these were not line cards produced by AMD or Intel, they were typed up from BJ's system description. Makes one wonder why that is??
How long before our homeland figures out whats going on here?
After the South Korea ruling, I was a little specious of the claim. Circa 2005, AMD was just beginning to lose its grip on their market climb, and it felt like they were thrashing to keep the limelight on the firm.
Fast-forward to today and three rulings later, I'm not so resolved in that belief.
MiracleManS
13 May 2009, 4:52pm
From what I've heard (if its on the intertubes, its true right!?), even if Intel appeals, they have to pay up anyway. Is this correct?
Cliff_Forster
13 May 2009, 5:54pm
I have read that they have already secured a bond to hold pending an appeal in 60 days. Sounds like they are not too confident of holding onto that money.
PatrickMoorhead
13 May 2009, 9:08pm
From what I've heard (if its on the intertubes, its true right!?), even if Intel appeals, they have to pay up anyway. Is this correct? The decision is "operative" now, so while Intel said it will appeal, they must comply immediately with the remedies and continue to do so through the appeal process. So no conditional exclusivity deals, no corecion, no threats or intimidation.
PatrickMoorhead
13 May 2009, 11:33pm
After the South Korea ruling, I was a little specious of the claim. Circa 2005, AMD was just beginning to lose its grip on their market climb, and it felt like they were thrashing to keep the limelight on the firm.
Fast-forward to today and three rulings later, I'm not so resolved in that belief. This makes 0-3, the third straight ruling of its kind against Intel. The Japan FTC ruled against Intel for "abuse of dominant position" in 2005, and the Korea FTC did so in 2008.
Do 3 points make a trend?
Thrax
13 May 2009, 11:36pm
I believe it does. ;)
Leonardo
14 May 2009, 12:21am
How long before our homeland figures out whats going on here? Cliff, AMD filed a US anti-trust civil suit against Intel with essentially the same allegations five years ago. It goes to trial February 2010. The EU action was eight years in the making, starting with complaints in 2001 followedby formal charges in 2007.you walk into a retail store where alot of Joe Consumer's buying decisions are made, and you can't seem to find nearly as marketing material on AMD products as you do on Intel'sFor the most part, Intel cleaned up its anti-competitive practices after AMD filed suit, understanding that they were then under intense scrutiny. What you just described is not attributable to Intel's previous behavior.
If you read carefully Intel's denials, they seem to be present tense. It would seem that Intel is trying to deflect attention from the crux of the litigation - charges for anti-competitive behavior several years ago.
I am sure Intel will be slammed in US court as well, and so deservedly.
mirage
14 May 2009, 3:26pm
So, who is going to pay the billion dollar fine of Intel? I guess Intel will raise the CPU prices and the consumer will pay. I can see that AMD will be extremely happy to follow Intel with increasing the prices. Is this helping the competition for the benefit of consumer? But it will help AMD floating its boat for sure. If you do see Intel ads everywhere, it is because Intel is paying for it. Since when rebates and incentives are illegal practice?
When the fine is paid to EU, EU will not care about the higher CPU prices since they are compensated from our pockets anyway. This is just politics; EU is passing the bill of AMD bailout to consumers.
Consumers care about competition for better prices and better products. People want AMD's success for this reason. But, I simply do not see the benefit of this fine helping the consumers. We will paying the price of keeping competition alive. I guess competition will not mean better prices anymore. But I hope it still means better products.
Your interpretation of the events is a little bizarre.
mirage
14 May 2009, 3:49pm
Your interpretation of the events is a little bizarre.
Cool, I am fine with that. ;)
Cliff_Forster
14 May 2009, 6:26pm
I have said it before, I will say it again.
Love them or not, without AMD in the market toughing it out from the underdog position, you would be paying much more for computer chips than you currently are, and there would have been a heck of allot less innovation.
Nothing would please Intel more than to crush AMD so they can go back to over inflating their margins on product. Trust me, the EU, and AMD have done consumers a favor by pressing this issue. As the banks and insurance companies have shown us over the last year, no big business can be left to police its own ethics. It takes a combination of consumer pressure and government intervention to hold them accountable.
This ruling is going to result in better pricing if it does anything to strengthen AMD's position. Not just from AMD, but from Intel as well, because they will have no option but to compete on a level playing field.
mirage
14 May 2009, 7:50pm
How is AMD going to keep the prices low? They can not make any profit with the current price level and it would be suicidal for them not to aim higher. If AMD can not start 32nm production in full capacity tomorrow, leveling the playing field for AMD with its current technology requires higher prices. I think, the fine is so huge to serve for that purpose, to guarantee that it will affect the bottomline of Intel. Just my 2c without any love/hate relationship with either company.
Nomad
14 May 2009, 10:09pm
How is AMD going to keep the prices low? They can not make any profit with the current price level and it would be suicidal for them not to aim higher. If AMD can not start 32nm production in full capacity tomorrow, leveling the playing field for AMD with its current technology requires higher prices. I think, the fine is so huge to serve for that purpose, to guarantee that it will affect the bottomline of Intel. Just my 2c without any love/hate relationship with either company.
lolwut
Basic microecon. More competition in the market will drive prices lower, as companies compete off one another.
mirage
14 May 2009, 11:02pm
lolwut
Basic microecon. More competition in the market will drive prices lower, as companies compete off one another.
Oh okay then! :D
mirage
14 May 2009, 11:06pm
Check the links below about "healthy" competition.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/23/technology/23chip.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/20070528202724.html
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.