did intel really know them? could it? Very few lawyers know even a fraction of what the law entails. Canada is a small population and was a country for little over 100 years. Our tax law alone is too large for any 1 man to read. any 10 men? 20 men? 20 women? not an easy state of affairs. Now we compare it to europe.
Enough to make a man cry.
Intel diddnt do its research, that puts it in the wrong but doesn't make it fair. and last i checked that was what justice was.
A company the size of Intel would have a legal team numbering in the hundreds, if not thousands. And yes, it is their responsibility to understand the law in the jurisdictions they operate. Ignorance of the law is no defence anywhere.
Now it gets complicating
http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarge...ust-fine-ever/Originally Posted by http://www.thefreedictionary.com/justice
But as usualy. the EU is retarded and like the oracle ordeal they had no idea what they were talking about.The European Commissioner for Competition Policy stated throughout the period covered by the decision, Intel held at least 70% of the worldwide market in x86 server CPUs, and used anti-competitive practices to hold that position.
x86 cpu's are not computers as we know it. We have how many arm licencees, mips? sparc? power? they all serve a purpose. x86 is for the desktop. is this fair? no. They might as well go after IBM because they have made so many supercomputers.
Justice had failed to be served. Equity was not present.
The ruling was in question
So i ask, was justice served? are monopolies bad if quality goes up and price goes down? monopolies, like any company can swing both ways.“The EC’s use of huge fines against market-leading firms - fines calculated from a firm’s world-wide sales, not from harm to European consumers - discourages aggressive competition that benefits consumers,” Ronald A. Cass, Chairman, Center for the Rule of Law, said in a statement. “Consumer harm should be the concern for competition law, and here instead consumers saw sharp declines in cost and increases in product quality - even Intel’s complaining rival, AMD, enjoyed historic success during the period it claims Intel’s actions foreclosed competition.”
Legislation let banks mess up the economy, not lack of legislation. Holes existed. For the mortgage issue in particular, bush wanted to get visible minorities in houses. Turns out they couldn't afford them. I debated ridiculous legislation, and i have proven that.
I just found an interesting Q/A article about the Intel case over at Groklaw. Some choice quotes:
...Intel gave wholly or partially hidden rebates to computer manufacturers on condition that they bought all, or almost all, their x86 central processing units (CPUs) from Intel. Intel also made direct payments to a major retailer on condition it stock only computers with Intel x86 CPUs. Second, Intel made direct payments to computer manufacturers to halt or delay the launch of specific products containing a competitor's x86 CPUs and to limit the sales channels available to these products. Intel is obliged desist from the specific practices identified in this case and not to engage in these or equivalent practices in the future.
...Intel limited consumer choice and stifled innovation by preventing innovative products for which there was a consumer demand from reaching end customers. Such practices deter innovative companies which might otherwise wish to enter and compete in the market. By ordering Intel to end its abusive practices, competition on the x86 CPU market will play out on the merits with the effect that innovation to the benefit of the consumer can flourish.
Does the Commission seek to limit companies' ability to provide customers with discounts?
No. This case is about the conditions associated with Intel's rebates and payments, not the rebates and payments themselves. What is at stake here are loyalty or fidelity rebates, granted on condition that a customer buys all or most of its requirements from the dominant undertaking, thereby preventing that customer from purchasing from competitors. Intel also paid clients to delay or not launch computers incorporating a competitor's CPUs, a conduct which is not linked at all to a company's ability to provide customers with discounts.
...the Commission acts in the interests of consumers. The Commission does not look at the specific interests of individual companies, but is charged with ensuring that competition on the merits is safeguarded. This creates an environment where consumers can benefit and where innovation can flourish.
Intel is a US company. What gives the European Commission authority to decide whether its behaviour is legal or not?
Intel sells its products inter alia in the European Union, which is one of its main markets in the world. It must therefore respect EU antitrust rules in the same way that European companies must respect US law when operating on the other side of the Atlantic.
What percentage of Intel's turnover does the fine represent?
The fine represents 4.15 % of Intel's turnover in 2008. This is less than half the allowable maximum, which is 10% of a company's annual turnover.
ders a million sites we can look at which contract the same information both our ways. I think we have to agree to disagree.
Certainly an interesting debate tho. I have literally been hitting bud for the past 10 hours, sense my dog died . So im going to go to bed and not wake up for a week.
BTW krazy, i agree with alot of your points. I just like to keep a debate going .
More QA on this here.includes a rigorous, effects-based analysis which has demonstrated that Intel's conduct has reduced consumer choice and limited innovation in the market.
Edit: I didn't see your last post.. I'm sorry to hear that.
And I agree that we disagree :P. It's really just another political debate..
Last edited by krazy; 09-07-2009 at 06:19 AM.
the corporations (or Tsar) can siphon as much as they want out of the cash flow the citizenry generates. When they over reach and the facade comes tumbling down as it recently has with the mortgage crisis (or the economic crisis in tsarist Russia), the public has to be fed more bones and the most obvious inequities addressed." Or in the case of the tsar: Off with their Heads!!!
Closer to home... What about Intel and AMD. If not for the anti-monopoly laws they could have undercut their prices severely by selling their chips at as large a loss as they needed to, until AMD went out of business, then raise their prices all they wanted to recoup their losses. They tried that anyway, but they had to at least look like they were playing fair and constrain their actions to avoid being too obvious, preventing the blatant price cutting that would have bankrupted AMD. This allowed AMD to continue to stay in the game.
You seem to have forgotten about Intel losing $100million to AMD in the recent lawsuit, or maybe you think all would be well if AMD had gone bankrupt. Then intel would have developed quad core chips anyway, just like they developed Pentiums through the nineties and early 2000's.
(PS I can get you a great deal on some Florida property. Warm climate, close to town, real prime real estate, at firesale prices, and it's under water less than 3 months a year. PM me for details)
Fact is intel rested on their laurels, raked in the money, and let development stagnate until AMD overtook and passed them in chip performance. Then when their income was finally threatened they put increasingly larger amounts of time and money into development and there's been mere advances in chip performance in the last 5 years than in the previous 20. They even put out press releases saying they were going to do that. Do you really think that would have happened if AMD hadn't threatened their dominant position???
Sheesh, how has this thread gone up in such a flamewar? It's a known fact Oracle has been buying away its (smaller) competitors whenever it has managed and merged their know-how of SQL products into its own. It seems almost like users here are trying to excuse their own blindness by telling EU makes stupid decisions. I at least admit myself I was blind and didn't realize what Oracle was actually doing when they bought Sun. MySQL was very likely the only interesting part of the company to them.