Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 57

Thread: EU probes Oracle-Sun deal, cites open-source issue

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Toronto/North Bay Canada
    Posts
    877

    Default

    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.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    201

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by L33F3R View Post
    More regulated and properly regulated are different. My cause is against the arbitrary fines against companies. What we agree on is patching the stupid holes in the legal system.
    But the EU fines are simply enforcing their legislation!

    Quote Originally Posted by L33F3R View Post
    Government needs to protect its people(...)
    Which is why the EU passed it's antitrust laws - to protect its people from monopolies. Intel broke those laws and were made to pay a fine. How is that wrong?

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    201

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by L33F3R View Post
    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.
    Fair is everyone playing by the same rules. No other company broke the antitrust law - why should Intel be excused?

    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.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Toronto/North Bay Canada
    Posts
    877

    Default

    Now it gets complicating

    Justice
    Quote Originally Posted by http://www.thefreedictionary.com/justice
    1. The quality of being just; fairness.
    http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarge...ust-fine-ever/

    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.
    But as usualy. the EU is retarded and like the oracle ordeal they had no idea what they were talking about.

    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
    “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.”
    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.

    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.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    201

    Default

    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.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Toronto/North Bay Canada
    Posts
    877

    Default

    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 .

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    201

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by L33F3R View Post
    But as usualy. the EU is retarded and like the oracle ordeal they had no idea what they were talking about.

    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.
    I'm not sure what you're saying here. They broke the law and had to pay a fine. How is that not just?

    Quote Originally Posted by L33F3R View Post
    The ruling was in question
    ... by some US lawyer. Fortunately, he isn't in the majority in the EU or in the US (both have antitrust laws). Intel is going to court in 2010 in the US.

    Quote Originally Posted by L33F3R View Post
    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.
    History shows that they can't. And if you see my groklaw link, the EU have a guidance paper which...
    includes a rigorous, effects-based analysis which has demonstrated that Intel's conduct has reduced consumer choice and limited innovation in the market.
    More QA on this here.

    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 07:19 AM.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by L33F3R View Post
    for the most part you are right. But you failed to read what i already wrote.

    1. If global brands like MS or Intel where barred from selling in a particular jurisdiction. That jurisdiction would collapse.
    You've forgotten about the WTO. The planet in interconnected now. Laws are enforced by global institutions. You're also misreading me. I never said ms or intel would be barred from a jurisdiction. I said the cash flow they generate could be garnished. At substantial penalties, if they didn't willingly comply.

    Quote Originally Posted by L33F3R View Post
    2. Your argument about manipulating government is only true in cases where the government is bad. If the voter is stupid, the voter will get a stupid government. And to think only a little over 50% of people voted for Obama.....
    NO, NO, NO!!! It only requires the voter to be complacent and willing to accept the story presented to him by the media. When the corporations gain control over the media the ability of the voter to get accurate info is greatly diminished. Given human nature being what it is, they will accept most seemingly reasonable stories until it starts hurting them personally.

    Quote Originally Posted by L33F3R View Post
    3. You have no idea what your talking about. That conspiracy stuff may fly well in science fiction novels but it stops at that. Your basis behind that REQUIRES everyone in a particular jurisdiction to be evil. If all are bad then what is good? Once again, you need good government. The American example is getting tiresome to repeat.
    The fact that corporations would try to influence laws and regulations is so obvious and ingrained in government I can't believe you're denying it. Look at the campaign donor list of any important pol and you'll see all of the major corporations on it as well as a host of PACs, many of which are sponsored by corporations.

    Quote Originally Posted by L33F3R View Post
    3. Monopolies dont stifle innovation, thats a load of crap. I beg you to provide a real world example. If anything companies like google encourage this by providing trips and perks to its employees. This helps google become a better and larger company. Historically when a situation is bad, people are pressured with ways to solve it. For example, Soviet russia was a hell of alot better then the TSAR, people got motivated to throw the TSAR after they were treated like garbage.
    I provided the well known example of Standard Oil. You just provided another with the Tsar. He had a monopoly on all economic activity in Russia. His abuse of power and and control is what got him overthrown. This is exactly what I meant when I said:
    "
    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???

    Quote Originally Posted by L33F3R View Post
    BTW, if google can come up from nothing and now compete with M$, it must mean opportunity to be competitive exists. So if a company is top dog, it doesn't mean it will be forever.
    No, but you've forgotten that ms was fighting a monopoly lawsuit then. That greatly constrained it's ability to attack Google and probably bankrupt or absorb them. If a republican administration had been in Washington then, there would have been no lawsuit and probably no Google, at least as we know it. You don't seem to be aware of the netscape, internet explorer war of the last decade.

    Quote Originally Posted by L33F3R View Post
    Oh and 1 more thing. I would like an answer on where the corporate fines go to in the EU. I really am curious.
    I would assume they go where all the rest of the taxes and fines go. In the EU budget, to be spent however they want. All income and expenditures are in the public record. Where do the taxes and fine in Canada go?

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,802

    Default

    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.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    772

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nanonyme View Post
    MySQL was very likely the only interesting part of the company to them.
    I wouldn't be surprised if they were interested in getting Solaris as well. Oracle is very much about big installations, scalability, redundancy, and other stuff that can be considerably enhanced by the right OS features. Nothing stops them from maintaining their own patches to Linux, but those might not make it upstream (whether "upstream" in this case is an enterprise distro or mainline). A Sun buyout means that Oracle is upstream for Solaris, and has access to the top architects (assuming that they don't leave).

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •