EU Slaps Intel With Formal Antitrust Charges 62
castrox writes "Intel is now facing a prolonged legal battle in the European Union for engaging in anti-competitive practices. The courts allege that Intel made at least one arrangement in Germany to ensure that PC manufacturers could only use their products. From the article: 'The investigation in Europe has been going on for a long time. Intel's European offices were raided by EU investigators in 2005. Last year, AMD filed a formal complaint with the Bundeskartellamt, the German Federal Cartel Office, accusing a German and Intel of entering into an agreement under which the German retailer would only sell Intel PCs in exchange for undisclosed payments from Intel. The EC quickly took over that investigation from the Bundeskartellamt.'"
AMD.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
And another issue, how much will a Barcelona processor cost when it is released. In my opinion, Intel is fighting tooth and nail to stay on top in this one, including dropping their prices drastically when they release newer processors. And the older processors that are having their pr
Re: (Score:1)
Slashdotter's creed: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
But back on topic... how big of a market is Germany compared to the big picture? Even with competing hardware, they shouldn't lose too much considering they probably have a strong grasp on the market there already.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And, Germany is (and has been for a long time) the high tech nation in europe. Technological decision made in Germany influence large parts of europe, since many companies need to work/trade with German companies.
Cheers,
-S
Punishments. (Score:5, Insightful)
It is more likely they looked at previous (MS) antitrust settlements and decided that an anti-competitive strategy was an attractive move for execs and shareholders alike.
Regards.
Re:Punishments. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes.. if fact maybe the main problem is a lack of conherence and predictability in antitrust presecution and antitrust judgements. See the paper "The Incoherence of Punishment in Antitrust" [ssrn.com] by S. W. Waller, Chicago-Kent Law Review, Vol. 78, p. 207, 2003.
It is more likely they looked at previous (MS) antitrust settlements and decided that an anti-competitive strategy was an attractive move for execs and shareholders alike.
Yes :-(
Parent link is fantastic. (Score:2)
Thanks for posting it.
Regards.
Re: (Score:2)
But in the case of Intel vs AMD that only works if they can completely squeeze out the competition. Microsoft was able to lock people into MS products by making users dependent on software on file formats only available on Windows. Once they did that, they could charge as much as they wanted and didn't have to be very innovative because
We all know litigation... (Score:1, Troll)
I would have to believe that the product is reaching the top of the s-curve (diffusion of an innovation - ie the stock CPU), and has become a commodity, when EVERY transaction becomes about price and no longer about comparison of the technologies. At this point, looks like litigation is the only way to compete - instead of taking the food from your competitor's mouth, you try to bleed them out.
Or Intel cheated and AMD is just saying "ne
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
So which, pray tell, European company is a near monopoly and competes with Intel and AMD?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, come on, it's not like we Americans are living in a land of vigilant corporate oversight.
Not trying to start a fight, but your comment seems to miss the fact that questionable corporate practices are rampant here in America.
Regards.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:US Companies (Score:4, Insightful)
YES, for god sake. It is not our fault that some of you don't know what happens arround the world.
* European companies are getting fined when doing anti competiveve practices
* European companies are getting investiged about monopolistic practices (recent I hear more and more about the telecom sector)
* European companies are getting fined when they are forming a cartel
* European companies must follow the same rules as foreign companies between "our" borders
* Etc
It's not one big European conspiracy against the good "old USA". Some of you people are really stuck in the "they are all against us" mantra aren't you ?
Re: (Score:2)
It is not our fault that some of you don't know what happens arround the world.
To be fair, any of those things that happen to European companies that don't do significant business in the United States wouldn't really be news here. I wouldn't fault any Europeans for not knowing what happens to companies that don't do business in Europe, either. It wouldn't surprise me if something as major in the United States as the Enron collapse was no more than an "other news" moment in mainstream European media (though I am assuming that Enron didn't do much, if any, business in Europe, which I m
Re:US Companies (Score:5, Interesting)
Because
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I think it's called experience.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's Intel vs. AMD. Both US companies AFAIK. Maybe the EC just takes the words "competition", "monopoly" and "free market" more serious than other areas of this planet do ?
Cheers,
-S
FYI: "Market Development Funds" (Score:3, Interesting)
These kinds of market development funds are used to take valued decision makers on vacations, the usual wine and dine and some more unusual things, some of which are legal in Las Vegas. It's a very cozy relationship. So cozy that any hint of a competitor would **really** disrupt the good times.
Think about it this way. Either Intel keeping you in wine and roses or the MDF goes to your competitor while you have both Intel and AMD's sales people whining in your office once a quarter with less MDF coming in the door overall and fewer perks overall.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Just a friendly bit of advice from someone who wouldn't want any Slashdotters to end up in the klink in Vegas.
what is fundamentally wrong about it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Back in the day, there were stores that would sell only Apple equipment and related peripherals. I don't know if they signed any exclusive deals, but I don't recall any noise about that. Yes Intel is huge, making it vunerable to charges of monopolistic tendencies, but what is it about this case that makes it fundamentally different from any sort of exclusive agreements?
Consider: I might want to sell only cheese from a certain company, and discounts (kickbacks if you like) might make that choice even sweeter. What's wrong with that? Why do I have to sell anybody else's cheese? And why do the cheese manufacturer and I have to be punished?
Re:what is fundamentally wrong about it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Intel abused their position to bully/pay off companies to not sell AMD gear, not because the AMD gear was inferior, or less desirable. That's counter what a free market should look like and is bad for everyone. It lets Intel slack off [re: Pentium 4] and sell things for ridiculous prices [re: Pentium 4].
Nowadays though things seem to be better, Intel has better tech than before and they're selling them at fairly competitive prices. But that doesn't excuse their behaviour earlier. Who knows where AMD would be today if they had more funding for research from sales that were denied them?
Tom
Re:what is fundamentally wrong about it? (Score:5, Interesting)
Left alone, agreements like this can erode the supposed free market in which they exists, leading to monopoly, reduced quality and higher prices. We have anti-trust agreements to protect consumers and producers. You may believe in some pure and unadulterated laissez faire market system, but the fact is that has been proven to be unworkable, no matter how many poor excuses are thrown up.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You may say, "but why don't they just go online and buy som
Re: (Score:2)
By that logic bribery wouldn't be wrong as it benefits the briber and the bribee.
Official links (Score:4, Informative)
Read 'em yourselves: EU's official statement [europa.eu] and Intel's official response [intel.com].
Intel says its actions actually benefit consumers (Score:3, Informative)
Monopoly: AMD can't even give chips away. (Score:5, Interesting)
www.cbronline.com [cbronline.com]
In the case of HP, he said, AMD could not even give away a million processors for free, due to the fear of the potential of Intel punishing the PC maker.
If you trust Ruiz, this comment should be all you need to know. If Intel is being such a monopolistic bitch that AMD can't even give away chips to HP, I wonder what other cases are going undocumented. I really hope AMD gets the monetary compensation they deserver, as I promise you that Intel's anti-competitive tactics aren't helping the consumer any.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, it depends (Score:2)
I'm not say
Typical licensing agreement (Score:2)
The courts allege that Intel made at least one arrangement in Germany to ensure that PC manufacturers could only use their products.
Well, that's a typical licensing agreement: you only get a license to use their products, not possess them.
Oh, you meant Intel said the PC manufacturers could only use their products? I read it with implied emphasis on "use" instead of "their".
So the PC manufacturers can only use their products, not Intel's products? Well, is Intel obligated to sell to anyone who can pay? Or am I confusing not only the emphasis but also the pronoun association?
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Because it ultimately hurts the people and the people are paramount. In USA , corporations are paramount. People are just a nuisance and should not interfere with corporations ability to reap profits.
In USA, people fear the government, in EU, the government fear the people.
Re: (Score:1)
Fixed.
I know there's no such thing as "mainland EU", but as someone living in the UK, I'm not allowing you to complement our country as such. I mean on the current topic, the consumers do seem to be protected more than in the US (BBC Watchdog just humilliates any company who breaks the law), but the fear seems to follow the USA model.