I always thought it was complete bull when the GOVERNMENT gets the fine money. Shouldn't it go to... oh, I don't know, AMD??? And probably some to the consumers and then a little to the government just because they're greedy bastards.
I have never purchased an Intel product. Before, it was simply because AMD outperformed their processors clock for clock (weird that I could only really find them on e-tailers and rarely in pre-built machines from OEMs). Clearly, I haven't done a build since before the advent of Core2. However, until they can convince me beyond the shadow of a doubt that they no longer break anti-trust laws, I will continue this practice.
Lately there is talk about "too big to fail". Intel's leadership has for the longest of times ignored these rules and regulation around the world. Where the US should have portrayed leadership, the EU was fed up and not only with Intel or Microsoft. I have been very unhappy about the price structure of Intel and availability of alternatives. I can't say I was unhappy about the EC's fine. The arrogance and hubris was a thorn in my side. Nobody likes a company promoting innovation actually looking to prevent others to innovate. On multiple occasions I ran into Intel's creative prices. Or remember the 486 pricing.
Very inciteful comments from both sides of the fence.
BALANCE is the key both in the business world and in the realm of government.
It is important for the individual involved in either business or government to often evaluate his/her motives. When many individuals with wise and healthy motives come together for a common purpose, together they can impact the world for the betterment of all.
Americans seem to be some of the most FUCKED UP idealogical people on planet earth, that give the sensible americans a bad name.
Take a breather from that capitalist ideology hoved so far up you ass you can't think straight.
Barberica, land of the stupid, home of the knave. The free market fairy didn't rescue us from the banking crisis. Good ol american capitalist greed caused that.
Right, because it makes total sense to fine a company for illegal activities that blocked competition and stifled progress in a competing company and then give them the money back saying, "Now go be innovative!"
I admit I'm slightly surprised by the nature of the reactions to this court decision. I guess I just didn't realize hwo much anti EU feelings this could generate or how skeptic some people seem to be concerning a justice descision given by a european body concerning an american company.
First, for all those that seem to believe the EU is biased against Intel because it is a US compagny. I think that it's important to point out that Intel is also facing charges for the very same illegal activities in Japan, South Korea, and, incidently, the US.
Second, as some people seem to be surprised that antitrust law exist at all or that business practices are regulated things, I would just like to point this quote :
“This isn’t some radical interventionist approach,” said Andrew I. Gavil, a professor of law at Howard University. “It’s more that the Bush Department of Justice were radical noninterventionists.” (from NYT)
Moreover it seems like the Obama administration will set new guidelines for anti trust commissions, so you should expect to see new investigations for such cases appearing in the US soon.
What right does EU have to keep that money? If they're going to fine Intel because it hurt AMD's sale, they should give all of it to AMD. If they don't, it's just EU's tactic to extract money for itself in recession.
I guess, formally it is because Intel not only hurt AMD, but in doing so, they are also hurting the people by preventing competition and tecnological advancements as it would be a good guess that amd would have spent more on RnD, if they had earned more. Therefore the money goes to the EU as (more or less) representatives for the people.
AMD, with Intel prooven guilty, can start a civil lawsuit in order to get their bucks...
The fine was punitive for breaking EU law, it has nothing to do with compensating AMD. If AMD wanted compensation they'd have to sue Intel for damages inflicted by Intel illegal actions.
However, now that an EU court have found Intel broke EU monopoly laws it would be alot easier for AMD to win such a suit in the EU - AMD would no longer have to prove Intel broke EU law, after this ruling (and assuming it isn't appealled and overruled...) Intel's violation of competetion EU laws would be an indisputable legal fact. So if AMD sued Intel, the suit would now be limited to determining how much (if any) damage Intel did to AMD, and thus how much money Intel owed AMD.
This is akin to US criminal and civil courts. A murder victim's family do not automatically recieve compensation when the murder is convicted by a criminal court. However, the family can sue for wrongful death in a civil court, and the murder conviction will obviously help their civil case.
That's not how it works in the US either. If a company is fined for illegal monopolistic practices, then the fees don't necessarily go to the people who were damaged by the fees. I think that the justification is that the ones that were hurt by this was "the market in general", including "the public" as a result. So the money goes to "the people" which means "the government".
They're fining because Intel used illegal means to hurt AMD's sales. Winning because you're better marketed (within legal means) or better performing is certainly not illegal. Just because you appear to be a monopoly doesn't mean you are guilty of monopolistic practices. That's why Microsoft is still in business. Clearly, they have the vast majority of the market in certain segments (90%+), but they aren't considered a monopoly (under the law) if they don't use illegal means to keep themselves at the top by unfairly killing competition. Note that having a better product (technically superior) or better marketing (fair marketing, that is) is an example of a fair way of killing the competition :)
So that means as long as you're not doing something wrong, you can have the majority of the market share? This is a bit off-topic, but then why is the EU forcing MS to ship other browsers with its product? While I hate IE (I use FF and Chrome), I don't think what MS is doing is illegal. Apple also ship Safari with their OS and normally all the OS's have commonly used software (paint, media player, ...).
Correct. As long as you're not doing anything wrong, you can have a majority market share. In fact, as long as you're not doing anything wrong, you can have the entire market. I.e., it is not, in the US, illegal to be a monopoly. What's illegal, rather, is the act of "monopolizing," which is my pithy way of saying various anticompetitive practices. This is an important distinction, because if you happen to find the one mine in the world for an extremely rare element--you're good. But if you set up business practices that aren't designed for your profits, but rather to destroy your competition deliberately--you're going to get into trouble.
Part of the difficulty with making this later point clear is that business is obviously competitive, and in the US, it also tends to be RUTHLESS. So diagnosing that illegal bit of ruthlessness can be a bit... tricky.
Well, as you said Microsoft has a gigantic OS market share, and... I'm pretty certain the guy who sits opposite me at work with 2 Macs accounts for about 10% of Apple's userbase (you know the guys that think there are things you can't do on PC, you can do on a Mac - apart from looking 'trendy' in Starbucks).
Isn't that a bit of a conflict of interest? The very organization that adjudicates the decision is the direct beneficiary of any fines that may be imposed? It'd be like a police officer receiving the fine for a speeding ticket instead of the city/borough/state.
Here is how I see it, may be that's how the judge see it also. Intel past action may have harm AMD, but in the end, it harm consumer as the market would lack competition & innovation, even if it seem like customer did get discount early on. So when the fine was imposed, EU get paid, thus the money get use on EU public.
The court that imposed the fine and "the EU" are not one and the same thing. It is just a matter of terminology that is seen often, especially on US sites - everything that has something to do with the EU is simply abreviated to "EU".
Regarding the fine itself, I don't see anything wrong with it. All big players play dirty, Intel just got busted this time.
Do people not realize that the European Commission is by no means a court? Its analogue in the US government is the executive branch...
This ruling is merely the opinion of a political body, and now that it's made it will have to undergo actual legal scrutiny in the Court of First Instance.
As a friend of capitalism i think Adam Smith cries in his coffin, when modern companies does everything it can to brake the golden rules he wrote down many years ago. Intel is trying to be a pro-active monopoly player, it is right to punish them to not play fair in the market.
Well said, Jim. Just another case of Frederick Bastiat's legal plunder and a system where "Everyone plunders everyone." No doubt politics of raw emotion and very little common sense will reign unfortunately.
I thought it was a company's job to do all they could to edge out their competitor to become the top brand. If AMD had been the one paying companies to not sell intel cpus would there still have been a court case?
Does it matter? Fact is: Intel is guilty and has been fined...
according to some statements in the german financial times, it was sometimes more of a blackmail than simply giving rebates.
It is a company's job to do all they can to become the top brand (in fact, a company's job is to become more and more valuable for its shareholders).
However, they should respect the laws of the place where they do business or face the consequences. And as they are not under EU command, they can only be fined (companies based in EU can be dismantled, and some were dismantled due to concerns of monopolistic abuse or even monopolistic position)
I thought Intel had contracts with those companies to be exclusive intel customers. Thats what the story was here when AMD pulled this same type of thing in the US. Back then it was AMD complaining of the retailers I think that they didnt carry any systems with their chips in them. So this is slightly different but I would imagine the outcome would be about the same. AMD has always been an enthusiast chip and has thus pigeon holed themselves into a niche market and now they are complaining because they are losing money.
Uh? AMD pigeon holed themselves? AMD paid people not to use Intel chips? Where did you get your info, I've never heard of AMD doing this kind of thing, and as far as 'pigeon holing' themselves, that's only in your mind. AMD has been a competitor across the board for low-cost to high-end desktop systems ever since the first Athlons came out.
What Intel did was illegal, immoral, and bottom line bad for this country and the world. This kind of thing is anti-capitalism, it stifles legitimate competition, the core of free enterprise. They should be slapped down hard, and it's too bad we aren't doing it here as the Europeans are doing it there.
Intel is a fine company producing great products, it doesn't need this kind of chicanery to stay healthy.
AMD didn't pull the same thing. What Intel did was a crime. Just because they had a "contract" doesn't make it legal. It's illegal to force a company to use your product over another. That is what Intel did. They told vendors if they used AMD they wouldn't get the latest chips making the vendors uncompetitive in their markets. AMD complained because Intel used unfair marketing practices in shutting them out. The market must be open to all with the end consumer making the choice, not Intel. Intel gambled they could minimize AMD's market share and with the profits, leap ahead technologically as they have, further minimizing AMD in the market place. Remember this started at a time, 2000, when AMD was putting out a very competitive product but had yet to take a large share of the market. It took several years for Intel to significantly hurt AMD with this tactic and with a severe recession it amplified AMD's woes. Intel's tactics are nothing new. 1.4B to take your competitor out at the knees. How much have they made in profit from doing this? It was cheap if that is all they have to pay.
"It's illegal to force a company to use your product over another. That is what Intel did."
Force? At gunpoint? Yes. Offer a contract with mutual benefits, predicated on exclusivity? No. It's only illegal for a monopoly company to do this. Or for a company to do so, in an attempt to become a monopoly. This is pretty clearly what was happening here, at least in my mind. Be that as it may, these are the basic facts. At least under US law.
Intel did have contracts with some firms with exclusivity in them. What was outside the contract is the interesting part tho. The "marketing money" would only be paid out if the firm in question did not use any competitors kit.
Also what i missed in the article was that the EU council fond evidence that Intel even paid firms to delay / postpone introduction of competitor products and even in som case paid to have the product abandoned.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
40 Comments
Back to Article
Hrel - Wednesday, May 27, 2009 - link
I always thought it was complete bull when the GOVERNMENT gets the fine money. Shouldn't it go to... oh, I don't know, AMD??? And probably some to the consumers and then a little to the government just because they're greedy bastards.suppliesidejesus - Wednesday, May 20, 2009 - link
I have never purchased an Intel product. Before, it was simply because AMD outperformed their processors clock for clock (weird that I could only really find them on e-tailers and rarely in pre-built machines from OEMs). Clearly, I haven't done a build since before the advent of Core2. However, until they can convince me beyond the shadow of a doubt that they no longer break anti-trust laws, I will continue this practice.hoelder - Wednesday, May 20, 2009 - link
Lately there is talk about "too big to fail". Intel's leadership has for the longest of times ignored these rules and regulation around the world. Where the US should have portrayed leadership, the EU was fed up and not only with Intel or Microsoft. I have been very unhappy about the price structure of Intel and availability of alternatives. I can't say I was unhappy about the EC's fine. The arrogance and hubris was a thorn in my side. Nobody likes a company promoting innovation actually looking to prevent others to innovate. On multiple occasions I ran into Intel's creative prices. Or remember the 486 pricing.Beeb - Friday, May 15, 2009 - link
Very inciteful comments from both sides of the fence.BALANCE is the key both in the business world and in the realm of government.
It is important for the individual involved in either business or government to often evaluate his/her motives. When many individuals with wise and healthy motives come together for a common purpose, together they can impact the world for the betterment of all.
Gannon - Thursday, May 14, 2009 - link
Americans seem to be some of the most FUCKED UP idealogical people on planet earth, that give the sensible americans a bad name.Take a breather from that capitalist ideology hoved so far up you ass you can't think straight.
Barberica, land of the stupid, home of the knave. The free market fairy didn't rescue us from the banking crisis. Good ol american capitalist greed caused that.
Hacp - Thursday, May 14, 2009 - link
SO rather than having intel invest the money to further technology and create jobs, the EU decided to steal it and give it to high school dropouts.suppliesidejesus - Thursday, May 14, 2009 - link
Right, because it makes total sense to fine a company for illegal activities that blocked competition and stifled progress in a competing company and then give them the money back saying, "Now go be innovative!"baba264 - Thursday, May 14, 2009 - link
I admit I'm slightly surprised by the nature of the reactions to this court decision. I guess I just didn't realize hwo much anti EU feelings this could generate or how skeptic some people seem to be concerning a justice descision given by a european body concerning an american company.First, for all those that seem to believe the EU is biased against Intel because it is a US compagny. I think that it's important to point out that Intel is also facing charges for the very same illegal activities in Japan, South Korea, and, incidently, the US.
Second, as some people seem to be surprised that antitrust law exist at all or that business practices are regulated things, I would just like to point this quote :
“This isn’t some radical interventionist approach,” said Andrew I. Gavil, a professor of law at Howard University. “It’s more that the Bush Department of Justice were radical noninterventionists.” (from NYT)
Moreover it seems like the Obama administration will set new guidelines for anti trust commissions, so you should expect to see new investigations for such cases appearing in the US soon.
michal1980 - Thursday, May 14, 2009 - link
^EU hates america. Their socialist goverments are going broke and produce even less then america. They need cash, so they go to the cow.Obama 'The One' Barack, is just trying to import the only thing the EU has, socialism.
JonB - Friday, May 15, 2009 - link
your third entry of the same limbaugh'ish comment still deserves a "bite me."The odd thing is, my comment is just as worthwhile as yours. How sad.
kuraegomon - Friday, May 15, 2009 - link
But at least you have the self-awareness to acknowledge that fact. This puts you a long leg up on the parent.michal1980 - Thursday, May 14, 2009 - link
^EU hates america. Their socialist goverments are going broke and produce even less then america. They need cash, so they go to the cow.Obama 'The One' Barack, is just trying to import the only thing the EU has, socialism.
michal1980 - Thursday, May 14, 2009 - link
^EU hates america. Their socialist goverments are going broke and produce even less then america. They need cash, so they go to the cow.Obama 'The One' Barack, is just trying to import the only thing the EU has, socialism.
Hyperion1400 - Thursday, May 14, 2009 - link
Which is why the EU's GDP is 30 percent higher than the US's?B3an - Thursday, May 14, 2009 - link
Congratulations on the most retarded comment of the week.ssj4Gogeta - Wednesday, May 13, 2009 - link
What right does EU have to keep that money? If they're going to fine Intel because it hurt AMD's sale, they should give all of it to AMD. If they don't, it's just EU's tactic to extract money for itself in recession.BRDiger - Thursday, May 14, 2009 - link
I guess, formally it is because Intel not only hurt AMD, but in doing so, they are also hurting the people by preventing competition and tecnological advancements as it would be a good guess that amd would have spent more on RnD, if they had earned more. Therefore the money goes to the EU as (more or less) representatives for the people.AMD, with Intel prooven guilty, can start a civil lawsuit in order to get their bucks...
RagingDragon - Wednesday, May 13, 2009 - link
The fine was punitive for breaking EU law, it has nothing to do with compensating AMD. If AMD wanted compensation they'd have to sue Intel for damages inflicted by Intel illegal actions.However, now that an EU court have found Intel broke EU monopoly laws it would be alot easier for AMD to win such a suit in the EU - AMD would no longer have to prove Intel broke EU law, after this ruling (and assuming it isn't appealled and overruled...) Intel's violation of competetion EU laws would be an indisputable legal fact. So if AMD sued Intel, the suit would now be limited to determining how much (if any) damage Intel did to AMD, and thus how much money Intel owed AMD.
This is akin to US criminal and civil courts. A murder victim's family do not automatically recieve compensation when the murder is convicted by a criminal court. However, the family can sue for wrongful death in a civil court, and the murder conviction will obviously help their civil case.
Khato - Wednesday, May 13, 2009 - link
So, which court exactly was it that has now found Intel in breach of European Union law?erple2 - Wednesday, May 13, 2009 - link
That's not how it works in the US either. If a company is fined for illegal monopolistic practices, then the fees don't necessarily go to the people who were damaged by the fees. I think that the justification is that the ones that were hurt by this was "the market in general", including "the public" as a result. So the money goes to "the people" which means "the government".They're fining because Intel used illegal means to hurt AMD's sales. Winning because you're better marketed (within legal means) or better performing is certainly not illegal. Just because you appear to be a monopoly doesn't mean you are guilty of monopolistic practices. That's why Microsoft is still in business. Clearly, they have the vast majority of the market in certain segments (90%+), but they aren't considered a monopoly (under the law) if they don't use illegal means to keep themselves at the top by unfairly killing competition. Note that having a better product (technically superior) or better marketing (fair marketing, that is) is an example of a fair way of killing the competition :)
ssj4Gogeta - Wednesday, May 13, 2009 - link
So that means as long as you're not doing something wrong, you can have the majority of the market share? This is a bit off-topic, but then why is the EU forcing MS to ship other browsers with its product? While I hate IE (I use FF and Chrome), I don't think what MS is doing is illegal. Apple also ship Safari with their OS and normally all the OS's have commonly used software (paint, media player, ...).joekraska - Monday, May 18, 2009 - link
Correct. As long as you're not doing anything wrong, you can have a majority market share. In fact, as long as you're not doing anything wrong, you can have the entire market. I.e., it is not, in the US, illegal to be a monopoly. What's illegal, rather, is the act of "monopolizing," which is my pithy way of saying various anticompetitive practices. This is an important distinction, because if you happen to find the one mine in the world for an extremely rare element--you're good. But if you set up business practices that aren't designed for your profits, but rather to destroy your competition deliberately--you're going to get into trouble.Part of the difficulty with making this later point clear is that business is obviously competitive, and in the US, it also tends to be RUTHLESS. So diagnosing that illegal bit of ruthlessness can be a bit... tricky.
Joe.
erple2 - Thursday, May 14, 2009 - link
I think that the complaint in that instance was that Microsoft was using it's gigantic O/S market share to push Netscape out of the browser market.I don't know how Apple gets away with it.
plewis00 - Thursday, May 14, 2009 - link
Well, as you said Microsoft has a gigantic OS market share, and... I'm pretty certain the guy who sits opposite me at work with 2 Macs accounts for about 10% of Apple's userbase (you know the guys that think there are things you can't do on PC, you can do on a Mac - apart from looking 'trendy' in Starbucks).mjcutri - Wednesday, May 13, 2009 - link
The fine goes directly to the EUIsn't that a bit of a conflict of interest? The very organization that adjudicates the decision is the direct beneficiary of any fines that may be imposed? It'd be like a police officer receiving the fine for a speeding ticket instead of the city/borough/state.
someone0 - Wednesday, May 13, 2009 - link
Here is how I see it, may be that's how the judge see it also. Intel past action may have harm AMD, but in the end, it harm consumer as the market would lack competition & innovation, even if it seem like customer did get discount early on. So when the fine was imposed, EU get paid, thus the money get use on EU public.Rhino2 - Wednesday, May 13, 2009 - link
No different than when a US federal court levies a fine, and the money goes directly to "the US".npp - Wednesday, May 13, 2009 - link
The court that imposed the fine and "the EU" are not one and the same thing. It is just a matter of terminology that is seen often, especially on US sites - everything that has something to do with the EU is simply abreviated to "EU".Regarding the fine itself, I don't see anything wrong with it. All big players play dirty, Intel just got busted this time.
Khato - Wednesday, May 13, 2009 - link
Do people not realize that the European Commission is by no means a court? Its analogue in the US government is the executive branch...This ruling is merely the opinion of a political body, and now that it's made it will have to undergo actual legal scrutiny in the Court of First Instance.
MrJim - Wednesday, May 13, 2009 - link
As a friend of capitalism i think Adam Smith cries in his coffin, when modern companies does everything it can to brake the golden rules he wrote down many years ago. Intel is trying to be a pro-active monopoly player, it is right to punish them to not play fair in the market.TheeVagabond - Thursday, May 14, 2009 - link
Well said, Jim. Just another case of Frederick Bastiat's legal plunder and a system where "Everyone plunders everyone." No doubt politics of raw emotion and very little common sense will reign unfortunately.shin0bi272 - Wednesday, May 13, 2009 - link
I thought it was a company's job to do all they could to edge out their competitor to become the top brand. If AMD had been the one paying companies to not sell intel cpus would there still have been a court case?BRDiger - Wednesday, May 13, 2009 - link
Does it matter? Fact is: Intel is guilty and has been fined...according to some statements in the german financial times, it was sometimes more of a blackmail than simply giving rebates.
Calin - Wednesday, May 13, 2009 - link
It is a company's job to do all they can to become the top brand (in fact, a company's job is to become more and more valuable for its shareholders).However, they should respect the laws of the place where they do business or face the consequences. And as they are not under EU command, they can only be fined (companies based in EU can be dismantled, and some were dismantled due to concerns of monopolistic abuse or even monopolistic position)
shin0bi272 - Wednesday, May 13, 2009 - link
I thought Intel had contracts with those companies to be exclusive intel customers. Thats what the story was here when AMD pulled this same type of thing in the US. Back then it was AMD complaining of the retailers I think that they didnt carry any systems with their chips in them. So this is slightly different but I would imagine the outcome would be about the same. AMD has always been an enthusiast chip and has thus pigeon holed themselves into a niche market and now they are complaining because they are losing money.Sabresiberian - Friday, May 15, 2009 - link
Uh? AMD pigeon holed themselves? AMD paid people not to use Intel chips? Where did you get your info, I've never heard of AMD doing this kind of thing, and as far as 'pigeon holing' themselves, that's only in your mind. AMD has been a competitor across the board for low-cost to high-end desktop systems ever since the first Athlons came out.What Intel did was illegal, immoral, and bottom line bad for this country and the world. This kind of thing is anti-capitalism, it stifles legitimate competition, the core of free enterprise. They should be slapped down hard, and it's too bad we aren't doing it here as the Europeans are doing it there.
Intel is a fine company producing great products, it doesn't need this kind of chicanery to stay healthy.
knutjb - Thursday, May 14, 2009 - link
AMD didn't pull the same thing. What Intel did was a crime. Just because they had a "contract" doesn't make it legal. It's illegal to force a company to use your product over another. That is what Intel did. They told vendors if they used AMD they wouldn't get the latest chips making the vendors uncompetitive in their markets. AMD complained because Intel used unfair marketing practices in shutting them out. The market must be open to all with the end consumer making the choice, not Intel. Intel gambled they could minimize AMD's market share and with the profits, leap ahead technologically as they have, further minimizing AMD in the market place. Remember this started at a time, 2000, when AMD was putting out a very competitive product but had yet to take a large share of the market. It took several years for Intel to significantly hurt AMD with this tactic and with a severe recession it amplified AMD's woes. Intel's tactics are nothing new. 1.4B to take your competitor out at the knees. How much have they made in profit from doing this? It was cheap if that is all they have to pay.joekraska - Sunday, May 17, 2009 - link
"It's illegal to force a company to use your product over another. That is what Intel did."Force? At gunpoint? Yes. Offer a contract with mutual benefits, predicated on exclusivity? No. It's only illegal for a monopoly company to do this. Or for a company to do so, in an attempt to become a monopoly. This is pretty clearly what was happening here, at least in my mind. Be that as it may, these are the basic facts. At least under US law.
--Joe.
Frallan - Wednesday, May 13, 2009 - link
Intel did have contracts with some firms with exclusivity in them. What was outside the contract is the interesting part tho. The "marketing money" would only be paid out if the firm in question did not use any competitors kit.
Also what i missed in the article was that the EU council fond evidence that Intel even paid firms to delay / postpone introduction of competitor products and even in som case paid to have the product abandoned.
Erica7 - Wednesday, June 20, 2012 - link
Thanks so much for sharing the article, it's really interesting.I really like the content of your site, great job.http://paydayloanswithnocreditchecks.blogspot.com/