Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

3 Firms Confess To Fixing LCD Prices, Agree To Pay $585M Fine

Posted by timothy on Wed Nov 12, 2008 04:37 PM
from the win-friends-and-influence-people dept.
Oldyeller89 writes "LG, Sharp, and Chunghwa Picture Tubes pleaded guilty to charges of price fixing in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. They fixed the prices on LCD screens used not only in their products but also in other products such as Apple's iPods. The three companies agreed to pay $585 million in fines. Perhaps this will cause the price of our TVs to drop?" The New York Times also has a story on the outcome of this case.
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Plasma? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by riceboy50 (631755) on Wednesday November 12 2008, @04:39PM (#25739061)
    I wonder if the price to produce a plasma television is just inherently much higher than LCD if the already generally lower prices on those were being fixed in many cases.
        • Re:Plasma? (Score:4, Informative)

          by johny42 (1087173) on Wednesday November 12 2008, @05:54PM (#25740149)
          5:4 screen will always have more pixels than 16:10 with the same diagonal, as the aspect ratio is closer to square. It has nothing to do with LCD/CRT monitors.
          • Re:Plasma? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by LearnToSpell (694184) on Wednesday November 12 2008, @06:52PM (#25740795) Homepage
            CRTs are inferior technology that have been surpassed.

            Heh. Somebody's obviously not doing any graphics work.
            • Re:Plasma? (Score:4, Informative)

              by theheadlessrabbit (1022587) on Wednesday November 12 2008, @07:34PM (#25741243) Homepage Journal

              agreed.

              you get much better colour and contrast on a CRT.

              But, most people don't do graphics work for a living, and they won't care about getting accurate colours, they just care that they look good enough. LCD's use less power, look nice, and save desk space, these are things most people care about.
              Also, LCD's don't flicker, and are much better for long jobs, as they cause less eye strain. I get headaches if i spend more than 4 hours in front of a CRT.

              personally, I've been using both kinds of monitors, so i can get the best of both worlds. 90% of my work is done on a cheap LDC screen, then for the final 'touching up', before i send something off to be printed, i switch to a CRT to tweak the image.

              • Re:Plasma? (Score:4, Interesting)

                by rtb61 (674572) on Thursday November 13 2008, @02:29AM (#25743897) Homepage
                The biggest advantage for LCD's is shipping. You can simply deliver a whole lot more LCD's in the same shipping space as CRT, in fact four or more times as many. Check the cost of international deliveries of bulky items and that saves the bulk of the money. Obviously the price fixing on LCDs was simply to keep the plasma screen production plants running for as long as possible. Looks like plasma screens will follow CRT's into history in the not too distant future.
              • by zQuo (1050152) on Wednesday November 12 2008, @09:56PM (#25742279)
                The main reason graphics people prefer CRT's is color invariance. The color is consistent across view angles.

                An LCD screen shows different colors depending upon your view angle. This is not good for graphics professionals.

          • CRTs for gaming? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Aereus (1042228) on Wednesday November 12 2008, @07:22PM (#25741107)

            What about for gaming though? You're essentially capped at 60fps due to needing Vsync on LCD monitors to avoid massive shearing issues. Whereas a HQ CRT supports 100+hz.

            The naked eye may not see more than 60fps, but there are definite fluidity gains still up to the 100-120fps range which LCDs can't match currently.

          • Re:Plasma? (Score:4, Informative)

            by s4m7 (519684) on Thursday November 13 2008, @03:07AM (#25744091) Homepage
            agreed. CRT burn-in and plasma burn-in are two entirely different animals. Even if it were to be solved at some point in the future, it doesn't help the plasma TV you spend $4000 on today.
        • Re:Plasma? (Score:5, Informative)

          by kimvette (919543) on Wednesday November 12 2008, @07:27PM (#25741169) Homepage

          It's not burn-in; it is image persistance and the display is not permanently damaged. How to fix it? Play a high-contrast full motion video for a few hours, or better yet, an animated image which turns all red pixels on then off (red then black), blue on then off (blue then black), then white (all pixels on) then black (all pixels off). Let each image display for at least a few seconds per.

          My first iPAQ (a Pocket PC) exhibited this from the start menu, and running a slide show resolved the issue.

          It's not burn-in. Burn-in is an actual evaporation (well, sublimation really) and/or burning of phosphors and cannot be corrected. Burn in "correction" on a plasma screen actually wears out the screen because those utilities are designed to burn in the rest of the screen to make the whole display more consistent.

  • by revlayle (964221) on Wednesday November 12 2008, @04:39PM (#25739067) Homepage
    $585M in fines... so, how much did they profit before that?
    • by Rinisari (521266) * on Wednesday November 12 2008, @04:44PM (#25739131) Homepage Journal

      ...and how much are we the public going to see?

      • by Daimanta (1140543) on Wednesday November 12 2008, @04:49PM (#25739205) Journal

        Probably a gift coupon for a $8 mouse. And a lollypop if you are lucky.

      • by mabhatter654 (561290) on Wednesday November 12 2008, @05:06PM (#25739451)

        actually their customers are Apple, and other product makers that paid a few bucks too much per panel and missed sales, not "consumers". So the public really doesn't see any of it as they paid the manufacturer and retailer of the product they bought a market price for the device.

        • by spun (1352) <.moc.oohay. .ta. .yranoituloverevol.> on Wednesday November 12 2008, @05:11PM (#25739553) Journal

          It's nice how the free market automagically corrects any abuses of the free market. I mean here were a bunch of companies colluding to overcharge for a product, and yet, magically, no consumers were harmed. Yay magical free market, thy invisible hand protects and looks after us all.

          • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 12 2008, @05:25PM (#25739765)

            Except we're not in a free market. Republicans claim to be for a free market, but being pro established businesses does not a free market make. The patent system is also a big anti-free market force.

            Also, free markets don't magically remove all price fixing. It only removes price fixing if the barriers of entry are lower then the opportunities presented by the price fixing.

            And nobody has claimed free markets are perfect, just better then the alternatives.

          • by xstonedogx (814876) <xstonedogx@gmail.com> on Wednesday November 12 2008, @05:42PM (#25739963)

            Yes, because the GP's lame argument means ipso facto that he is accurately representing free market economics.

            Have you alerted the authorities to your blinding insight that oligarchies can temporarily fix prices even in a free market? No one has ever thought of that before.

            Please, keep beating that strawman. You almost have me convinced.

              • by PitaBred (632671) <slashdot&pitabred,dyndns,org> on Wednesday November 12 2008, @05:50PM (#25740083) Homepage

                The free market works perfectly with perfect information. As long as there's not perfect information, there's no perfect market, and a "free" market needs watching from time to time.

                • by spun (1352) <.moc.oohay. .ta. .yranoituloverevol.> on Wednesday November 12 2008, @05:54PM (#25740155) Journal

                  Imbalance of information is only one of the three major failure modes of the free market. Externalities both positive and negative, and natural monopolies are the other two.

                  • The Invisible Hand (Score:5, Insightful)

                    by copponex (13876) on Wednesday November 12 2008, @07:16PM (#25741043) Homepage

                    Another magic trick of modern totalitarianism, passing as democracy through massive propaganda, is that you believe in things that simply don't exist - like the Invisible Hand of Adam Smith's imagining meaning something it does not. Here's the quote:

                    By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was not part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.

                    So the invisible hand was Adam Smith's belief that an Englishman would buy English products produced in England, or start a manufacturing company in England for English consumers.

                    However, this loyalty to one's country simply isn't implicit anymore, if it was, ever. Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel economist, states:

                    Whenever there are "externalities" - where the actions of an individual have impacts on others for which they do not pay or for which they are not compensated - markets will not work well. Some of the important instances have been long understood - environmental externalities. Markets, by themselves, will produce too much pollution. Markets, by themselves, will also produce too little basic research. (Remember, the government was responsible for financing most of the important scientific breakthroughs, including the internet and the first telegraph line, and most of the advances in bio-tech.)

                    But recent research has shown that these externalities are pervasive, whenever there is imperfect information or imperfect risk markets - that is always.

                    So, if you believe in a free market, globalization is very, very bad. GM is not failing because of the UAW (though they have many, many problems due to the UAW). GM is failing because it's being forced to compete with subsidized Japanese auto industry, and not receiving investment because of the inevitability of competing with Chinese automakers, which are a lot cheaper. Why? They can wreck their environment, exploit workers, and make unsafe products because China in many ways has a freer market than the US, if not a freer government. Why people are surprised that competition with third world countries wipes out entire manufacturing industries here at home, I'll never understand.

                    Repeat after me: I do not want a free market. I want a well regulated and competitive market that gives me the benefits of capitalist elements without wrecking the world in the process. I believe in liberty and equality and raising living standards for Americans, and trading with other nations so that they have the freedom to choose what they want to produce, not the "freedom" to sign up for another round of exploitation by Fortune 500 companies.

                    Anyway. There's good information on the Invisible Hand at the quite decent Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org], where I got my quotes from.

        • by Rary (566291) on Wednesday November 12 2008, @05:14PM (#25739585)

          actually their customers are Apple, and other product makers that paid a few bucks too much per panel and missed sales, not "consumers". So the public really doesn't see any of it as they paid the manufacturer and retailer of the product they bought a market price for the device.

          A market price that was based, in part, on the cost of the materials which, it turns out, were overpriced due to illegal price fixing.

  • Ya Know... (Score:5, Funny)

    by kellyb9 (954229) on Wednesday November 12 2008, @04:40PM (#25739077)
    ... I'd expect this kind of BS from Sharp and LG but not from Chunghwa Picture Tubes.
    • by gEvil (beta) (945888) on Wednesday November 12 2008, @04:41PM (#25739095)
      Good thing I held off on buying that Chunghwa set I was eyeing.
      • Re:Ya Know... (Score:5, Informative)

        by randyest (589159) on Wednesday November 12 2008, @04:44PM (#25739135) Homepage
        Chunghwa makes panels for Vizio, Syntax, and even Samsung [hardforum.com] and many others you would expect to have their own panels inside. Even Sony and Sharp have shipped products with Chunghwa panels inside, simply because they're cheaper.
    • by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Wednesday November 12 2008, @04:54PM (#25739289)

      ... I'd expect this kind of BS from Sharp and LG but not from Chunghwa Picture Tubes.

      It's almost to be expected. After the success of "Tubthumping", they were desperate for another avenue. Sadly, they had nowhere to go but down.

    • by mfh (56) on Wednesday November 12 2008, @04:56PM (#25739315) Journal

      I was just about to buy a new monitor for WotLK so I could quest easier (having quest info from wowhead on monitor A while gaming in windowed mode on monitor B).

      Now I'm gonna definitely go with Samsung [futureshop.ca], because they are not involved in this lawsuit and therefore they must be rewarded for not getting caught. Anyone can tell that Samsung also does not pad their contrast ratios like LG obviously does. Who could believe a 10000:1 contrast ratio [futureshop.ca]? That's ridiculous! Samsung has decided to only push their padding to 8000:1 which respectfully identifies with the company's obvious higher level of integrity.

      The Samsung even looks nicer!

    • by snspdaarf (1314399) on Wednesday November 12 2008, @05:42PM (#25739959)
      Everybody have fun tonight! (Everybody have fun tonight) Everybody Chunghwa tonight! (Everybody Chunghwa tonight)
  • Price drop (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Gavin Scott (15916) * on Wednesday November 12 2008, @04:41PM (#25739087)

    "Perhaps this will cause the price of our TVs to drop?"

    Um, except that they just added $585,000,000.00 to their cost of production, sure.

    G.

  • Hmmmm (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CannonballHead (842625) on Wednesday November 12 2008, @04:41PM (#25739089)
    So since I paid them more money than I should have, do I get $30x#numberScreensBought out of this $585M fine? Who gets the fine money?
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Since its a fine imposed by the Justice Department, I would imagine the government gets the money (in part to defray the expense of filing and prosecuting the case).

      Irony of irony, the advert displayed below the story was for the new Samsung HD TVs. :)

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      The attorneys.

    • Re:Hmmmm (Score:5, Funny)

      by greg_barton (5551) <greg_barton@@@yahoo...com> on Wednesday November 12 2008, @05:13PM (#25739567) Homepage Journal

      Who gets the fine money?

      AIG.

      • That's why you shouldn't steal. The government hates competition!

        • Re:Hmmmm (Score:5, Insightful)

          by spun (1352) <.moc.oohay. .ta. .yranoituloverevol.> on Wednesday November 12 2008, @05:17PM (#25739607) Journal

          I like paying taxes. My tax money buys me civilization. I just hate freeloaders who want civilization without paying for it. If you don't like civilization, don't live in it. There is plenty of unclaimed land all over the world where you can live without paying taxes to anyone. Have fun!

            • Re:Hmmmm (Score:4, Insightful)

              by spun (1352) <.moc.oohay. .ta. .yranoituloverevol.> on Wednesday November 12 2008, @06:33PM (#25740593) Journal

              I was responding to this quote, "That's why you shouldn't steal. The government hates competition!" which implies that taxation is equivalent to stealing. That is ludicrous, selfish, and anti-social. Taxation is equivalent to getting food in a restaurant, and paying for it afterwords. The 'Taxes are theft!' whiners want to dine and dash, they have already reaped the benefits of civilization but don't feel like they should pay.

              I certainly don't always agree with what the government does with my money, but that still doesn't make taxation coercive. There are methods to change things that I don't like in government, and again, if you don't like the system you can drop out and not take part. Taxation is only coercive in libertarian fantasy land.

      • Re:Hmmmm (Score:5, Funny)

        by gfxguy (98788) on Wednesday November 12 2008, @04:51PM (#25739229)

        U.S. Department of Justice is levying the fines, so the money goes to the US Government. The Government will use the money to help bail out banks. ... that have no liquidity because of all the people who ran up their credit cards buying LCD televisions on credit and can't pay it back.

  • by colourmyeyes (1028804) on Wednesday November 12 2008, @04:44PM (#25739123) Homepage
    The LCD's in question were not sold directly to consumers, they were in devices like cell phones and ipods. The cost was absorbed by the manufacturers of these devices, and if it drops, good for them... but do you really think they'll pass that directly on to consumers? The illegal markup per unit probably isn't all that big. This will amount to a small increase in the profit margins of the device manufacturers, if it amounts to anything at all.
  • Lol... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ZekoMal (1404259) on Wednesday November 12 2008, @04:45PM (#25739139)
    And so, now that we have found out they have fixed prices, we can all feel free to sit with thumbs up our asses about the jacked prices we had to pay to feed companies that agree to pay a fine that is higher than the average amount of money 5 families make in a lifetime.

    And $50 says the CEO's won't be taking a dip in their salaries to compensate for the fine; nope, chances are they'll lay off some people and give pay cuts out to everyone that just does their job without trying to find a way to make a quick buck.
  • by jvkjvk (102057) on Wednesday November 12 2008, @05:00PM (#25739379)

    Perhaps this will cause the price of our TVs to drop?

    Perhaps instead they will factor this cost into their new products in attempt to recoup this lost $$.

    So the scenario is: Purchaser is hurt due to collusion and price fixing. Companies are caught. Purchaser is hurt due to fines.

    Fines are only a deterrent if they actually hurt the companies bottom lines. If they can make enough profit during the price fixing phase, and jack up enough prices during the penalty phase to more than offset the penalty there will continue to be massive collusion in such systems.

    • by Prof Dodecahedron (1233766) on Wednesday November 12 2008, @05:17PM (#25739609)
      Maybe they should fine the board members instead, and disallow them from receiving bonuses/stock/pay increases for 5 or 10 years. You can't punish companies but you can punish people.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Companies are caught. Purchaser is hurt due to fines.

      That would only be true if companies were complete monopolies and purchasers were FORCED to buy their products at a specific time... Neither is true.

      If Samsung and LG raise prices, their competitors will benefit, getting more sales, AND consumers will see that prices are a bit high, and opt not to buy a new device with an LCD screen.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      That doesn't make sense. The price fixing happens because the overcapacity in the market would otherwise cause the price to drop. If the market were willing to pay a higher price, then they would simply increase the price of their products. They wouldn't wait until they're fined and they wouldn't collude in the first place.

  • Is this related? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by blair1q (305137) on Wednesday November 12 2008, @05:09PM (#25739507) Journal

    Does this have anything to do with the ridiculous inability of the laptop LCD screen market to put out 1920x1080 screens?

    It's as though they're keeping the market for TV screens expensive by not allowing the format to bleed into laptop realm, wherupon cheap computers become high-quality televisions, killing the TV screen market.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Maybe there is a limit on the clock speed? 1920 x 1080 x 50/60 Hz would give a clock speed in the range 103 MHz to 124.4 MHz, and a double-buffered 32-bit framebuffer of 16 MBytes.