I don't think the European Union sees the chip market through all its avenues. First you cannot take AMD chips out of the market and expect it to not have an impact somewhere else. If Intel gets someone to stop selling AMD chips, the customer may have shopped around and went with another retailer selling AMD chips. I really don't see these acts as decreasing sales of AMD chips in the European Union since there were always AMD retailers despite those techniques. If anything those retailers decreased there possible sales for offering lower selection. To me those decreased sales AMD had weren't caused by non-compete practices, but by a poor performing platform. However, the European Union has been adament about fining large corporations for anti-compete acts in the last few months, such as their fining of Microsoft for not offering competing browsers on initial install of their operating system.
So are you sayiong it's OK for Intel to break EU law, because you can buy AMD elsewhere? Most people just go to a shop and buy a tower, wether it has AMD or Intel makes little to no difference with their choice. If Intel didn't think this illegal practice would increase their sales and/or lower AMD sales then why do you suppose they broke the law and did it?
Caveat emptor. The ignorance of the consumer is not the responsibility of the manufacturer; that's the (3rd party) retailer's role. If the retailer finds that not selling one chip or the other is in their best interest, how is that the manufacturer's fault? AMD should have been right there with the Intel guy, offering the same kind of deal-- If they weren't, that's a piss poor sales strategy. If they were and couldn't beat Intel's prices, that's hardly Intel's fault.
Retailers jump all over these kinds of discounts for a reason. If AMD can't compete, then they need to restructure so that they can. That's the whole upside to competition; elimination of the weak and lower prices from the strong.
People who want to buy AMD can and will. I had no problem finding a retailer that sold both AMD and Intel chips, and I made an informed decision and bought AMD.
Caveat emptor. The ignorance of the consumer is not the responsibility of the manufacturer; that's the (3rd party) retailer's role. If the retailer finds that not selling one chip or the other is in their best interest, how is that the manufacturer's fault? AMD should have been right there with the Intel guy, offering the same kind of deal-- If they weren't, that's a piss poor sales strategy. If they were and couldn't beat Intel's prices, that's hardly Intel's fault.
Retailers jump all over these kinds of discounts for a reason. If AMD can't compete, then they need to restructure so that they can. That's the whole upside to competition; elimination of the weak and lower prices from the strong.
People who want to buy AMD can and will. I had no problem finding a retailer that sold both AMD and Intel chips, and I made an informed decision and bought AMD.
No offence Videojockey but your post shows some deal of ignorance aswell.
I do not think that anyone, any country, would have or have had any problem with what you are saying things should be. Dell, Media Markt is ofcourse free to choose whatever product they wish to sell.
And if AMD can not compete with Intels prices, well they can not. But the problems begin to arise when thay can not compete due to something that is deemed illegal and in the affects the consumers. Because what Intel did have nothing to compete and lowering the prices for us consumers.
Agricola quotes this:
---
"Article 82 TEC is designed to prohibit abuse by very large corporations who dominate the market.
"Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the common market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the common market insofar as it may affect trade between Member States.
This provision is then clarified through the use of some specific categories of behaviour which are deemed "abusive".
"Such abuse may, in particular, consist in (a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions; (b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers; (c) applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage; (d) making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts."
---
These things, or laws to put it right, is nothing special. They are in some form in most, or atleast alot of, countries. That to make sure that a dominant force can't destroy the competition with unfair methods.
Here in America we have similar anti-trust laws, but I will posit this: why is it acceptable for a small business to operate in this way, but not a large one? How does making Intel chipsets cost less negatively impact consumers? Why would it be perfectly acceptable for Intel to spawn a faux competitor and continue to operate in the same way with both companies (and why should they have to go through the inefficient motions to achieve the same result)? I understand that using these tactics to remove AMD from the marketplace is unacceptable, but that has not happened; AMD has been around for quite a time (relative to the age of the microchip) and doesn't seem to be going anywhere soon.
Here in America we have similar anti-trust laws, but I will posit this: why is it acceptable for a small business to operate in this way, but not a large one? How does making Intel chipsets cost less negatively impact consumers? Why would it be perfectly acceptable for Intel to spawn a faux competitor and continue to operate in the same way with both companies (and why should they have to go through the inefficient motions to achieve the same result)? I understand that using these tactics to remove AMD from the marketplace is unacceptable, but that has not happened; AMD has been around for quite a time (relative to the age of the microchip) and doesn't seem to be going anywhere soon.
So you believe that what they did was unacceptable yet you forgive them of their crimes because their attempt was unsuccessful?
I hope that if I ever commit a criminal act but am thwarted by the law before my acts come to fruition, that you will be on the jury at my trial!
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
Here in America we have similar anti-trust laws, but I will posit this: why is it acceptable for a small business to operate in this way, but not a large one? How does making Intel chipsets cost less negatively impact consumers? Why would it be perfectly acceptable for Intel to spawn a faux competitor and continue to operate in the same way with both companies (and why should they have to go through the inefficient motions to achieve the same result)? I understand that using these tactics to remove AMD from the marketplace is unacceptable, but that has not happened; AMD has been around for quite a time (relative to the age of the microchip) and doesn't seem to be going anywhere soon.
Maybe someone else can motivate it better. But it would be easier for a dominant force on the market to do this to get unfair advantages then for a small one. A nondominant, or rather a small one, have much more to lose by undercutting their prices.
Maybe it is unfair for the dominant actor, but then again they are the dominant factor which is great thing (for them).
Ofcourse Intel can lower their prices. I don't thnk that would be an issue it is just up to them to decide what they think they have to earn on each "thing" sold. I would actually think that it would not be ok for Intel to make a fake company to be able to undercut prices from there.
Now we can not read into the future, AMD is still here, but nobody knows if they still would be. This is a long case it is based on events starting 2002(?) and during that time it seemingly have affected the business for AMD. Maybe things today would have not looked any differen but we will never now that either.
Im an AMD fanboy, and I have to say. This is just another ploy by the European Union to line their pockets from hard working american companies. As a business tactic, its dirty but not illegal. Such tactics if made public lead to poor marketing for Intel. Thats highly likely considering how the press would jump at any dirt like that. AMDs poor sales from 2006~2008 are purely a result of their own complacency, and over building. I don't consider Phenom I a failure. I think it was just over ambitious and didn't realize the full scope of its potential. It also performed better then the Core 2 in the majority of productivity tasks. It was a better super computer and server processor then Core2. It also was the architecture used for the future. Now both Intel and AMD use the same design in their processor. If anything the Core2 architecture is the greater failure for only having a 2 year shelf life before becoming obsolete.
I always thought Intel was a Japenese company? Though they have the majority of their Fabs in the U.S.A they also have them in the EU and the Middle East. Most of their assembly plants are in East Asia so I wouldn't say the EU is ripping off an American company since Intel is a multi national Japenese company (I think).
Besides AMD is the American company here that the EU has ruled in favour of, who also have a Fab in Europe and assemble the chip in Malaysia. Intel were engaged in business paractices that would be considered illegal in Europe, the Americas and most of Asia. I believe that what Intel did was illegal, well it is in the EU and if you want to sell your wares in the EU you must do it by EU laws. It's not like Intel didn't know the laws, they did and deliberately broke them in order to try and ruin an American manufacturers sales.
Maybe Intel gets away with this kind of behaviour in the U.S.A but they'll get into trouble eventually in the EU, remember AMD is the company that's kept Intel honest all these years. Without AMD we'd all be on our Pentium 2 $2000 rigs playing internet pong and wetting ourselves at the thought of Dark and Light with only the half the features it launched with and twice the bugs and three times the lag!
It is a US Corporation, like most wetsern corps though it is cheaper to invest in fabs and plants in Asia due to the cheaper labour and manufacturing costs.
I agree with it being a plot by the EU to line thier pockets, the EU is one of the most corrupt institutions on the planet, they haven't been able to audit their books for years. Billions and Trillions move around the EU with ko knowledge of where it came from or where it is going. It is also important to note that the UK and Germany are the only net contributors to the EU so it even shows it's leech characteristics there.
Just loom at this information given by the UK independance party, the EU is not a good thing by any means...
If the EU is one of the most corrupt institutions in the world it probably only comes second to the U.S senate! Also UKIP? Are you serious? They are a bunch of egotistical morons that have less credability than the BNP since Robert Kilroy Silk (a crappy talk show host with a bad fake tan and nasty combover) left them due to egos clashing and incompetence on all sides.
Everything that is on the link is true and Kilroy isn't a part of UKIP anymore as far as i'm aware.
lol what radical left-wing populist wrote that piece of propaganda crap? well if you believe everything on that link is true then im not suprised ppl here are spouting nonsense about the EU. i dont think most ppl have a clear understanding what it means.. its not as powerful as you think.
That wasn't written by Left-wing people, it was done the the UKIP the UK independance party which is viewed a s a right-wing party in the UK.
The EU is extremely powerful and it's power and influence is regularly increasing, it is also becoming more communist.
And also i can see why you would think that the link is rubbish as you are from one of the many EU nations that beneift from German and British tax payers money. Britain and Germany are the only net contributors to the EU, of the billions we put in we get less than half back out of it, whereas you lot put nothing in, only take.
ok, right wing left wing... they needed something to piss on in the hope to get some attention for their crappy party. i doubt you have any understanding of the EU. Netherlands profiting from German and Brit tax payers? LMAO. the netherlands actually pays way more then most other EU countries compared to the size of our economy. but be my guest and keeping believing in that, it wont change the situation.
It has nothing to do with Netherlanders supposedly paying more in taxes than other EU countries, i'm talking about tax payers money that goes directly into the European Union budget. And compared to Britain and Germany The Netherlands is a small country with a small economy, you get far more out being in the EU than you lose. Britain and Germnay have the largest and most successful economies in Europe and are the ONLY NET CONTRIBUTORS to the EU, as i have already said we put billions in every year and get a very small amoutn back if we're lucky.
So my friend you obviously know fuck all about the EU and yes your nation benefits massively from British and German money, as does France, Poland, Belgium ect ect.
Great Britain has one of the most unstable economies in the world.
I think its still debatable if Intel actually broke the law. The European Union lately has been interpreting what counts as a law violation. Intel like other companies researches the limits of what counts as law violation. I don't think they would make the mistake to break a law if it did exist. Also most people I know don't just go to the computer store and buy a tower. They usually research and shop around before buying a system. At the very least looking at multiple e-tailers sites. Mainly since a $1000 machine is still an investment.
Well it isn't debatable as to wether Intel broke the law or not, they have been found guilty and fined already. It is a fact that they did break the law. Do you really think they sat in a meeting and someone said "Hey lets pay retailers not to stock AMD CPUs" and not one person questioned the legality? I can tell you that's illegal in any civilized countrey in the world, if their legal team didn't know that then I'd offer my services.
Judge: "What do you have to say in your defece?"
Intel: "We weren't aware that bribing retailers and manufacturers not to stock the competitions goods was an illegal practice in the EU, your honour"
Seriously, if you need to debate it you definatly need to get a grip! Also why do you think they did it in the first place? To help the consumer?
Exclusive retailer arangements have been legal going back to the middle ages. I don't see anyone fining German Gasthouses for not selling Budweiser.
Maybe in the middle ages, alongside burning witches and slavery. However Intel is not selling its chips in medival Europe they're selling them in the modern day EU where according to this case it was illegal.
..not true Me lord...me own bruva gots his puter jus las monf ...'e did. It as an intel chip it does. The arc'beshup im'self catches me bruva ....playin Darkfall Online 'e was. Me bruva was burnt at tha stake for practicin witchcraft...'em an 'es puter ...I swear 'e was...on me word an an honerabul servant 'a tha church. I do miss me bruva tho. I must go in haste for tha arc'beshup 'emself approaches.
Here in America we have similar anti-trust laws, but I will posit this: why is it acceptable for a small business to operate in this way, but not a large one? How does making Intel chipsets cost less negatively impact consumers? Why would it be perfectly acceptable for Intel to spawn a faux competitor and continue to operate in the same way with both companies (and why should they have to go through the inefficient motions to achieve the same result)? I understand that using these tactics to remove AMD from the marketplace is unacceptable, but that has not happened; AMD has been around for quite a time (relative to the age of the microchip) and doesn't seem to be going anywhere soon.
So you believe that what they did was unacceptable yet you forgive them of their crimes because their attempt was unsuccessful?
I hope that if I ever commit a criminal act but am thwarted by the law before my acts come to fruition, that you will be on the jury at my trial!
let me clarify: I believe using these tactics to specifically put AMD out of business would be unacceptable. That did not happen and will not happen. Exclusive manufacturer-retailer relationships have been going on for ages. I am not arguing that they did not commit a crime (they already have been convicted), I am arguing that such practices should not be considered a crime.
I also think calling Intel's actions "paying retailers to not sell AMD" is misleading; they gave retailers a discount to carry only their products. It's a fairly common practice, and they're doing it here in the USA without any legal difficulties. I really don't think there is an anti-trust issue here because not only is AMD a comparably priced alternative, it's also a pretty good one (I switched to an AMD core last year). The whole point of anti-trust legeslation is to protect the consumer; have any consumers suffered because Intel can offer cheaper products than AMD?
AMD is fully capable of making the same arrangements, and since they have a smaller market share the EU would probably encourage it in the name of competition. It is not Intel's fault if they are not willing to do so.
Intel abused its position, thats illegal in europe. So now they have to sit on the blisters. They should have tought of this before they took the afformentioned actions.
No, they should have made certain that those in power got their "piece of the action". Then nothing would have been said. Europe is even more corrupt than New Rome on the Potomac.
Im an AMD fanboy, and I have to say. This is just another ploy by the European Union to line their pockets from hard working american companies. As a business tactic, its dirty but not illegal. Such tactics if made public lead to poor marketing for Intel. Thats highly likely considering how the press would jump at any dirt like that. AMDs poor sales from 2006~2008 are purely a result of their own complacency, and over building. I don't consider Phenom I a failure. I think it was just over ambitious and didn't realize the full scope of its potential. It also performed better then the Core 2 in the majority of productivity tasks. It was a better super computer and server processor then Core2. It also was the architecture used for the future. Now both Intel and AMD use the same design in their processor. If anything the Core2 architecture is the greater failure for only having a 2 year shelf life before becoming obsolete.
I always thought Intel was a Japenese company? Though they have the majority of their Fabs in the U.S.A they also have them in the EU and the Middle East. Most of their assembly plants are in East Asia so I wouldn't say the EU is ripping off an American company since Intel is a multi national Japenese company (I think).
Besides AMD is the American company here that the EU has ruled in favour of, who also have a Fab in Europe and assemble the chip in Malaysia. Intel were engaged in business paractices that would be considered illegal in Europe, the Americas and most of Asia. I believe that what Intel did was illegal, well it is in the EU and if you want to sell your wares in the EU you must do it by EU laws. It's not like Intel didn't know the laws, they did and deliberately broke them in order to try and ruin an American manufacturers sales.
Maybe Intel gets away with this kind of behaviour in the U.S.A but they'll get into trouble eventually in the EU, remember AMD is the company that's kept Intel honest all these years. Without AMD we'd all be on our Pentium 2 $2000 rigs playing internet pong and wetting ourselves at the thought of Dark and Light with only the half the features it launched with and twice the bugs and three times the lag!
It is a US Corporation, like most wetsern corps though it is cheaper to invest in fabs and plants in Asia due to the cheaper labour and manufacturing costs.
I agree with it being a plot by the EU to line thier pockets, the EU is one of the most corrupt institutions on the planet, they haven't been able to audit their books for years. Billions and Trillions move around the EU with ko knowledge of where it came from or where it is going. It is also important to note that the UK and Germany are the only net contributors to the EU so it even shows it's leech characteristics there.
Just loom at this information given by the UK independance party, the EU is not a good thing by any means...
If the EU is one of the most corrupt institutions in the world it probably only comes second to the U.S senate! Also UKIP? Are you serious? They are a bunch of egotistical morons that have less credability than the BNP since Robert Kilroy Silk (a crappy talk show host with a bad fake tan and nasty combover) left them due to egos clashing and incompetence on all sides.
Everything that is on the link is true and Kilroy isn't a part of UKIP anymore as far as i'm aware.
lol what radical left-wing populist wrote that piece of propaganda crap? well if you believe everything on that link is true then im not suprised ppl here are spouting nonsense about the EU. i dont think most ppl have a clear understanding what it means.. its not as powerful as you think.
That wasn't written by Left-wing people, it was done the the UKIP the UK independance party which is viewed a s a right-wing party in the UK.
The EU is extremely powerful and it's power and influence is regularly increasing, it is also becoming more communist.
And also i can see why you would think that the link is rubbish as you are from one of the many EU nations that beneift from German and British tax payers money. Britain and Germany are the only net contributors to the EU, of the billions we put in we get less than half back out of it, whereas you lot put nothing in, only take.
ok, right wing left wing... they needed something to piss on in the hope to get some attention for their crappy party. i doubt you have any understanding of the EU. Netherlands profiting from German and Brit tax payers? LMAO. the netherlands actually pays way more then most other EU countries compared to the size of our economy. but be my guest and keeping believing in that, it wont change the situation.
It has nothing to do with Netherlanders supposedly paying more in taxes than other EU countries, i'm talking about tax payers money that goes directly into the European Union budget. And compared to Britain and Germany The Netherlands is a small country with a small economy, you get far more out being in the EU than you lose. Britain and Germnay have the largest and most successful economies in Europe and are the ONLY NET CONTRIBUTORS to the EU, as i have already said we put billions in every year and get a very small amoutn back if we're lucky.
So my friend you obviously know fuck all about the EU and yes your nation benefits massively from British and German money, as does France, Poland, Belgium ect ect.
Great Britain has one of the most unstable economies in the world.
And yet not other country in the EU other than Germnay has an equal or better economy, shows how good thee rest of the EU is...
Also a bit strange for a yank to make comments like that when the US economy is on the shits right now and has caused many other nations economies to plunge too.
I know the U.S. economy sucks, just as much as Britain's. They use cronie-capitalism which is essentially de facto fascism. EU has better economies, just because they don't boom as big, does not mean they are not good. Most countries in Europe however, do not exert great economic practices, which is why Europe is recovering so slowly, although faster than USA.
I have always been a fan of Intel myself, but not long ago I went out & bought an AMD Quad Core 9550 Phantom CPU & honestly I am not impressed with it! My Intel P4 Socket 478 800MHz FSB 1mb L2 is just as good if not better gaming wise. I am ashamed that I wasted $200.00 on a CPU that can not stand close to a Core 2 let alone an Intel Quad Core. So its my first & last AMD from now on I will stick to Intel...
Wait... am I really seing an anti-thrust fine when the market for this segment is only composed of two major companies - Intel and AMD? Nice competition.
Wait... am I really seing an anti-thrust fine when the market for this segment is only composed of two major companies - Intel and AMD? Nice competition.
I suspect AMD got their lobbyists in first. Being such Good Corporate Citizens, the Europeans naturally saw things AMD's way. If Intel had been paying attention(and the proper people), this wouldn't have happened.
Well I used AMD products for quite some time. The first one I bought was a K6-2 3D Now... and the last one I had was a 3800+ X2.
I'm running a Core 2 Duo and very happy with it at the moment... Then again most of my local friends work at Intel and they have planets all over the area. So in a sense it makes "sense" for me to support intel and my local Economy (har har).
The issue is Intel does have a better product at the moment (at least in my opinion) and having the deal with Apple as well...
If you have a better product you don't need to penalize a retailer or manufacturer for selling a competitors product. I have no idea how Anti Trust laws work in the EU..... It just seems a stupid legal risk to take when you have the better product....
Here in America we have similar anti-trust laws, but I will posit this: why is it acceptable for a small business to operate in this way, but not a large one? How does making Intel chipsets cost less negatively impact consumers? Why would it be perfectly acceptable for Intel to spawn a faux competitor and continue to operate in the same way with both companies (and why should they have to go through the inefficient motions to achieve the same result)? I understand that using these tactics to remove AMD from the marketplace is unacceptable, but that has not happened; AMD has been around for quite a time (relative to the age of the microchip) and doesn't seem to be going anywhere soon.
So you believe that what they did was unacceptable yet you forgive them of their crimes because their attempt was unsuccessful?
I hope that if I ever commit a criminal act but am thwarted by the law before my acts come to fruition, that you will be on the jury at my trial!
let me clarify: I believe using these tactics to specifically put AMD out of business would be unacceptable. That did not happen and will not happen. Exclusive manufacturer-retailer relationships have been going on for ages. I am not arguing that they did not commit a crime (they already have been convicted), I am arguing that such practices should not be considered a crime.
I also think calling Intel's actions "paying retailers to not sell AMD" is misleading; they gave retailers a discount to carry only their products. It's a fairly common practice, and they're doing it here in the USA without any legal difficulties. I really don't think there is an anti-trust issue here because not only is AMD a comparably priced alternative, it's also a pretty good one (I switched to an AMD core last year). The whole point of anti-trust legeslation is to protect the consumer; have any consumers suffered because Intel can offer cheaper products than AMD?
AMD is fully capable of making the same arrangements, and since they have a smaller market share the EU would probably encourage it in the name of competition. It is not Intel's fault if they are not willing to do so.
Really? They gave kickbacks for not stocking AMD, not giving discounts to sell Intel. They also gave kickbacks to manufacturers that used their chips, maybe not a crime but when you have a 70% market share it falls under anti-monopoly laws. I think the EU did protect the consumer, as if Intel was allowed to run rampant the only choice we'd have in 20 years would be overpriced and underperforming Intel chips. With no competition only Intel chips would be available and they'd have no motivation to design and build better chips or lower prices.
AMD could make thye same arrangments and since they don't have over 70% of market share they might well get away with it. However does that give the green light for commiting and illegal and some might say immoral act? That's a moral question but the fact is what Intel did was illegal, the law is the law and shouldn't be changed to excuse the wealthy to the detriment of others which is what you're suggesting.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
AMD is fully capable of making the same arrangements, and since they have a smaller market share the EU would probably encourage it in the name of competition. It is not Intel's fault if they are not willing to do so.
Originally posted by mcharj11 It is also important to note that the UK and Germany are the only net contributors to the EU so it even shows it's leech characteristics there.
It is also important to note that the UK and Germany are the only net contributors to the EU so it even shows it's leech characteristics there.
I call bullshit on this...
This may be of interest in that regard. It appears its not just the UK and Germany. But the Germans as of 2007 had the highest contribution(followed by the UK and France).
It is also important to note that the UK and Germany are the only net contributors to the EU so it even shows it's leech characteristics there.
I call bullshit on this...
This may be of interest in that regard. It appears its not just the UK and Germany. But the Germans as of 2007 had the highest contribution(followed by the UK and France).
Really? They gave kickbacks for not stocking AMD, not giving discounts to sell Intel. They also gave kickbacks to manufacturers that used their chips, maybe not a crime but when you have a 70% market share it falls under anti-monopoly laws. I think the EU did protect the consumer, as if Intel was allowed to run rampant the only choice we'd have in 20 years would be overpriced and underperforming Intel chips. With no competition only Intel chips would be available and they'd have no motivation to design and build better chips or lower prices. AMD could make thye same arrangments and since they don't have over 70% of market share they might well get away with it. However does that give the green light for commiting and illegal and some might say immoral act? That's a moral question but the fact is what Intel did was illegal, the law is the law and shouldn't be changed to excuse the wealthy to the detriment of others which is what you're suggesting. However this simple fact remains click.
So exactly what percentage of the market does our lords and masters allow their servants to capture. 50% ? 60% ? We must always punish the evil corporation for being successful of course. What bullshit. Is it OK to have abusive practicies if you're sponsored by your locak government or produce such crap you only have 5% of the market? Apparently so since that is often the case. You know, like every national air line in Europe? Of course it's of vital national interest that every country in Europe have it's own state sponsored air line. There's nothing illegal or immoral about giving you customers a discount for carrying your product exclusively, unless you're intel or actually successful at what you do of course.
I'm certain Intel made a similar speech in court, although probably alot more eloquent than yourself. If you have a large market share or not you have to play by the rules, I'm not sure what European airlines have to do with it since every country has a national airline. There is something immoral about giving a discount when it's punitive or predatory pricing, atleast many find it immoral and immoral enough to make laws against it(Even in the U.S.A!). You seem to be very confused and believe Intel is dropping prices for the benefit of the customer?
Punitive pricing is not for the benefit of the consumer nor are any of the practices they've been fined for, they are for the detriment of competitors and it's an illegal practice in most civilized countries of the world. You seemed to be trapped in this notion that Intel did all of this so that you can have cheaper CPUs. In the short term yes it may work out that way, in the long term you'd be paying a crap load more and for less with little to no choice.
Since Subsidies have nothing to do with this case it seems to me you're just confused over the issue. The EU has anti monoploy laws, Intel broke them and had to pay. Just because you don't like what happened doesn't make it unjust, besides Intel are being/have been sued in Japan, South Korea and the U.S.A for doing exactly the samething.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
Really? They gave kickbacks for not stocking AMD, not giving discounts to sell Intel. They also gave kickbacks to manufacturers that used their chips, maybe not a crime but when you have a 70% market share it falls under anti-monopoly laws. I think the EU did protect the consumer, as if Intel was allowed to run rampant the only choice we'd have in 20 years would be overpriced and underperforming Intel chips. With no competition only Intel chips would be available and they'd have no motivation to design and build better chips or lower prices. AMD could make thye same arrangments and since they don't have over 70% of market share they might well get away with it. However does that give the green light for commiting and illegal and some might say immoral act? That's a moral question but the fact is what Intel did was illegal, the law is the law and shouldn't be changed to excuse the wealthy to the detriment of others which is what you're suggesting. However this simple fact remains click.
So exactly what percentage of the market does our lords and masters allow their servants to capture. 50% ? 60% ? We must always punish the evil corporation for being successful of course. What bullshit. Is it OK to have abusive practicies if you're sponsored by your locak government or produce such crap you only have 5% of the market? Apparently so since that is often the case. You know, like every national air line in Europe? Of course it's of vital national interest that every country in Europe have it's own state sponsored air line. There's nothing illegal or immoral about giving you customers a discount for carrying your product exclusively, unless you're intel or actually successful at what you do of course.
I'm certain Intel made a similar speech in court, although probably alot more eloquent than yourself. If you have a large market share or not you have to play by the rules, I'm not sure what European airlines have to do with it since every country has a national airline. There is something immoral about giving a discount when it's punitive or predatory pricing, atleast many find it immoral and immoral enough to make laws against it(Even in the U.S.A!). You seem to be very confused and believe Intel is dropping prices for the benefit of the customer?
Punitive pricing is not for the benefit of the consumer nor are any of the practices they've been fined for, they are for the detriment of competitors and it's an illegal practice in most civilized countries of the world. You seemed to be trapped in this notion that Intel did all of this so that you can have cheaper CPUs. In the short term yes it may work out that way, in the long term you'd be paying a crap load more and for less with little to no choice.
Since Subsidies have nothing to do with this case it seems to me you're just confused over the issue. The EU has anti monoploy laws, Intel broke them and had to pay. Just because you don't like what happened doesn't make it unjust, besides Intel are being/have been sued in Japan, South Korea and the U.S.A for doing exactly the samething.
Interesting use of emotionally loaded words... Certainly corps have to "play by the rules". But I suspect you do not understand what those really are. First and most important rule. Make CERTAIN that you have professional lobbyists in a given country, so that those in power have been properly bought off(don't bother with the old "bribery is illegal" dodge, that only works for the naive). If you track back the vast majority of "anti trust" and other such nonsense, you find that those in power had not been given a sufficient "piece of the action".
Next "punitive pricing", compared to what and in what context? If you are from one of the various socialist hell holes(as opposed to one of the fascist, such as the US) you may not understand that corporations are NOT in this for the benefit of the "consumer" or to play nice with their *competitors*(you do understand the nature of competition I trust?). They are in business(note the use of the word business) to make a profit and increase share holder value. Customer benefit is a side effect of that. At least it is in market sectors that government intervention does prevent market actions from making that a requirement.
Next, the use of the word "civilized" is highly subjective when you consider the real history of every significant government in existence. They are all based on coercion and the threat of violence for their daily operation and continued existence. That is simply the nature of government at its most fundamental. They have no resources that are not extorted from their subject populations(be that money or the life of that population, if they are still subject to the draft). One would have to have a VERY odd definition of the word "civilized" to be able to apply it to just about any countries government(or the societies that such produce for that matter).
Really? They gave kickbacks for not stocking AMD, not giving discounts to sell Intel. They also gave kickbacks to manufacturers that used their chips, maybe not a crime but when you have a 70% market share it falls under anti-monopoly laws. I think the EU did protect the consumer, as if Intel was allowed to run rampant the only choice we'd have in 20 years would be overpriced and underperforming Intel chips. With no competition only Intel chips would be available and they'd have no motivation to design and build better chips or lower prices. AMD could make thye same arrangments and since they don't have over 70% of market share they might well get away with it. However does that give the green light for commiting and illegal and some might say immoral act? That's a moral question but the fact is what Intel did was illegal, the law is the law and shouldn't be changed to excuse the wealthy to the detriment of others which is what you're suggesting. However this simple fact remains click.
So exactly what percentage of the market does our lords and masters allow their servants to capture. 50% ? 60% ? We must always punish the evil corporation for being successful of course. What bullshit. Is it OK to have abusive practicies if you're sponsored by your locak government or produce such crap you only have 5% of the market? Apparently so since that is often the case. You know, like every national air line in Europe? Of course it's of vital national interest that every country in Europe have it's own state sponsored air line. There's nothing illegal or immoral about giving you customers a discount for carrying your product exclusively, unless you're intel or actually successful at what you do of course.
I'm certain Intel made a similar speech in court, although probably alot more eloquent than yourself. If you have a large market share or not you have to play by the rules, I'm not sure what European airlines have to do with it since every country has a national airline. There is something immoral about giving a discount when it's punitive or predatory pricing, atleast many find it immoral and immoral enough to make laws against it(Even in the U.S.A!). You seem to be very confused and believe Intel is dropping prices for the benefit of the customer?
Punitive pricing is not for the benefit of the consumer nor are any of the practices they've been fined for, they are for the detriment of competitors and it's an illegal practice in most civilized countries of the world. You seemed to be trapped in this notion that Intel did all of this so that you can have cheaper CPUs. In the short term yes it may work out that way, in the long term you'd be paying a crap load more and for less with little to no choice.
Since Subsidies have nothing to do with this case it seems to me you're just confused over the issue. The EU has anti monoploy laws, Intel broke them and had to pay. Just because you don't like what happened doesn't make it unjust, besides Intel are being/have been sued in Japan, South Korea and the U.S.A for doing exactly the samething.
Interesting use of emotionally loaded words... Certainly corps have to "play by the rules". But I suspect you do not understand what those really are. First and most important rule. Make CERTAIN that you have professional lobbyists in a given country, so that those in power have been properly bought off(don't bother with the old "bribery is illegal" dodge, that only works for the naive). If you track back the vast majority of "anti trust" and other such nonsense, you find that those in power had not been given a sufficient "piece of the action".
Next "punitive pricing", compared to what and in what context? If you are from one of the various socialist hell holes(as opposed to one of the fascist, such as the US) you may not understand that corporations are NOT in this for the benefit of the "consumer" or to play nice with their *competitors*(you do understand the nature of competition I trust?). They are in business(note the use of the word business) to make a profit and increase share holder value. Customer benefit is a side effect of that. At least it is in market sectors that government intervention does prevent market actions from making that a requirement.
Next, the use of the word "civilized" is highly subjective when you consider the real history of every significant government in existence. They are all based on coercion and the threat of violence for their daily operation and continued existence. That is simply the nature of government at its most fundamental. They have no resources that are not extorted from their subject populations(be that money or the life of that population, if they are still subject to the draft). One would have to have a VERY odd definition of the word "civilized" to be able to apply it to just about any countries government(or the societies that such produce for that matter).
So by your response I'd suppose you'd smpathize with the mob and drug smugglers? They are in business to make a profit, things like enforcing protection and so forth have consumer benefits as a side effect yes? However they are all frowned upon as unethical and therefore illegal forms of business by most goverments. I'm not questioning the morality of these types of business practices nor debating wether it should be legal to pay a retailer money not to stock your competitions products. All I'm saying is that in the EU it is a crime, punishable by hefty fines. Intel were not ignorant to that fact yet they still broke it and are now paying the price. Whatever your political or economic philosophy is, Intel commited a crime and were punished for it, fact.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
Comments
So are you sayiong it's OK for Intel to break EU law, because you can buy AMD elsewhere? Most people just go to a shop and buy a tower, wether it has AMD or Intel makes little to no difference with their choice. If Intel didn't think this illegal practice would increase their sales and/or lower AMD sales then why do you suppose they broke the law and did it?
Caveat emptor. The ignorance of the consumer is not the responsibility of the manufacturer; that's the (3rd party) retailer's role. If the retailer finds that not selling one chip or the other is in their best interest, how is that the manufacturer's fault? AMD should have been right there with the Intel guy, offering the same kind of deal-- If they weren't, that's a piss poor sales strategy. If they were and couldn't beat Intel's prices, that's hardly Intel's fault.
Retailers jump all over these kinds of discounts for a reason. If AMD can't compete, then they need to restructure so that they can. That's the whole upside to competition; elimination of the weak and lower prices from the strong.
People who want to buy AMD can and will. I had no problem finding a retailer that sold both AMD and Intel chips, and I made an informed decision and bought AMD.
Caveat emptor. The ignorance of the consumer is not the responsibility of the manufacturer; that's the (3rd party) retailer's role. If the retailer finds that not selling one chip or the other is in their best interest, how is that the manufacturer's fault? AMD should have been right there with the Intel guy, offering the same kind of deal-- If they weren't, that's a piss poor sales strategy. If they were and couldn't beat Intel's prices, that's hardly Intel's fault.
Retailers jump all over these kinds of discounts for a reason. If AMD can't compete, then they need to restructure so that they can. That's the whole upside to competition; elimination of the weak and lower prices from the strong.
People who want to buy AMD can and will. I had no problem finding a retailer that sold both AMD and Intel chips, and I made an informed decision and bought AMD.
No offence Videojockey but your post shows some deal of ignorance aswell.
I do not think that anyone, any country, would have or have had any problem with what you are saying things should be. Dell, Media Markt is ofcourse free to choose whatever product they wish to sell.
And if AMD can not compete with Intels prices, well they can not. But the problems begin to arise when thay can not compete due to something that is deemed illegal and in the affects the consumers. Because what Intel did have nothing to compete and lowering the prices for us consumers.
Agricola quotes this:
---
"Article 82 TEC is designed to prohibit abuse by very large corporations who dominate the market.
"Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the common market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the common market insofar as it may affect trade between Member States.
This provision is then clarified through the use of some specific categories of behaviour which are deemed "abusive".
"Such abuse may, in particular, consist in (a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions; (b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers; (c) applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage; (d) making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts."
---
These things, or laws to put it right, is nothing special. They are in some form in most, or atleast alot of, countries. That to make sure that a dominant force can't destroy the competition with unfair methods.
I'm so broke. I can't even pay attention.
"You have the right not to be killed"
Here in America we have similar anti-trust laws, but I will posit this: why is it acceptable for a small business to operate in this way, but not a large one? How does making Intel chipsets cost less negatively impact consumers? Why would it be perfectly acceptable for Intel to spawn a faux competitor and continue to operate in the same way with both companies (and why should they have to go through the inefficient motions to achieve the same result)? I understand that using these tactics to remove AMD from the marketplace is unacceptable, but that has not happened; AMD has been around for quite a time (relative to the age of the microchip) and doesn't seem to be going anywhere soon.
So you believe that what they did was unacceptable yet you forgive them of their crimes because their attempt was unsuccessful?
I hope that if I ever commit a criminal act but am thwarted by the law before my acts come to fruition, that you will be on the jury at my trial!
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
CS Lewis
Maybe someone else can motivate it better. But it would be easier for a dominant force on the market to do this to get unfair advantages then for a small one. A nondominant, or rather a small one, have much more to lose by undercutting their prices.
Maybe it is unfair for the dominant actor, but then again they are the dominant factor which is great thing (for them).
Ofcourse Intel can lower their prices. I don't thnk that would be an issue it is just up to them to decide what they think they have to earn on each "thing" sold. I would actually think that it would not be ok for Intel to make a fake company to be able to undercut prices from there.
Now we can not read into the future, AMD is still here, but nobody knows if they still would be. This is a long case it is based on events starting 2002(?) and during that time it seemingly have affected the business for AMD. Maybe things today would have not looked any differen but we will never now that either.
I'm so broke. I can't even pay attention.
"You have the right not to be killed"
I always thought Intel was a Japenese company? Though they have the majority of their Fabs in the U.S.A they also have them in the EU and the Middle East. Most of their assembly plants are in East Asia so I wouldn't say the EU is ripping off an American company since Intel is a multi national Japenese company (I think).
Besides AMD is the American company here that the EU has ruled in favour of, who also have a Fab in Europe and assemble the chip in Malaysia. Intel were engaged in business paractices that would be considered illegal in Europe, the Americas and most of Asia. I believe that what Intel did was illegal, well it is in the EU and if you want to sell your wares in the EU you must do it by EU laws. It's not like Intel didn't know the laws, they did and deliberately broke them in order to try and ruin an American manufacturers sales.
Maybe Intel gets away with this kind of behaviour in the U.S.A but they'll get into trouble eventually in the EU, remember AMD is the company that's kept Intel honest all these years. Without AMD we'd all be on our Pentium 2 $2000 rigs playing internet pong and wetting ourselves at the thought of Dark and Light with only the half the features it launched with and twice the bugs and three times the lag!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel
It is a US Corporation, like most wetsern corps though it is cheaper to invest in fabs and plants in Asia due to the cheaper labour and manufacturing costs.
I agree with it being a plot by the EU to line thier pockets, the EU is one of the most corrupt institutions on the planet, they haven't been able to audit their books for years. Billions and Trillions move around the EU with ko knowledge of where it came from or where it is going. It is also important to note that the UK and Germany are the only net contributors to the EU so it even shows it's leech characteristics there.
Just loom at this information given by the UK independance party, the EU is not a good thing by any means...
drjn.co.uk/
If the EU is one of the most corrupt institutions in the world it probably only comes second to the U.S senate! Also UKIP? Are you serious? They are a bunch of egotistical morons that have less credability than the BNP since Robert Kilroy Silk (a crappy talk show host with a bad fake tan and nasty combover) left them due to egos clashing and incompetence on all sides.
Everything that is on the link is true and Kilroy isn't a part of UKIP anymore as far as i'm aware.
lol what radical left-wing populist wrote that piece of propaganda crap? well if you believe everything on that link is true then im not suprised ppl here are spouting nonsense about the EU. i dont think most ppl have a clear understanding what it means.. its not as powerful as you think.
That wasn't written by Left-wing people, it was done the the UKIP the UK independance party which is viewed a s a right-wing party in the UK.
The EU is extremely powerful and it's power and influence is regularly increasing, it is also becoming more communist.
And also i can see why you would think that the link is rubbish as you are from one of the many EU nations that beneift from German and British tax payers money. Britain and Germany are the only net contributors to the EU, of the billions we put in we get less than half back out of it, whereas you lot put nothing in, only take.
ok, right wing left wing... they needed something to piss on in the hope to get some attention for their crappy party. i doubt you have any understanding of the EU. Netherlands profiting from German and Brit tax payers? LMAO. the netherlands actually pays way more then most other EU countries compared to the size of our economy. but be my guest and keeping believing in that, it wont change the situation.
It has nothing to do with Netherlanders supposedly paying more in taxes than other EU countries, i'm talking about tax payers money that goes directly into the European Union budget. And compared to Britain and Germany The Netherlands is a small country with a small economy, you get far more out being in the EU than you lose. Britain and Germnay have the largest and most successful economies in Europe and are the ONLY NET CONTRIBUTORS to the EU, as i have already said we put billions in every year and get a very small amoutn back if we're lucky.
So my friend you obviously know fuck all about the EU and yes your nation benefits massively from British and German money, as does France, Poland, Belgium ect ect.
Great Britain has one of the most unstable economies in the world.
Just look at the facts...
Intel abused its position, thats illegal in europe.
So now they have to sit on the blisters.
They should have tought of this before they took the afformentioned actions.
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
Well it isn't debatable as to wether Intel broke the law or not, they have been found guilty and fined already. It is a fact that they did break the law. Do you really think they sat in a meeting and someone said "Hey lets pay retailers not to stock AMD CPUs" and not one person questioned the legality? I can tell you that's illegal in any civilized countrey in the world, if their legal team didn't know that then I'd offer my services.
Judge: "What do you have to say in your defece?"
Intel: "We weren't aware that bribing retailers and manufacturers not to stock the competitions goods was an illegal practice in the EU, your honour"
Seriously, if you need to debate it you definatly need to get a grip! Also why do you think they did it in the first place? To help the consumer?
Exclusive retailer arangements have been legal going back to the middle ages. I don't see anyone fining German Gasthouses for not selling Budweiser.
Maybe in the middle ages, alongside burning witches and slavery. However Intel is not selling its chips in medival Europe they're selling them in the modern day EU where according to this case it was illegal.
..not true Me lord...me own bruva gots his puter jus las monf ...'e did. It as an intel chip it does. The arc'beshup im'self catches me bruva ....playin Darkfall Online 'e was. Me bruva was burnt at tha stake for practicin witchcraft...'em an 'es puter ...I swear 'e was...on me word an an honerabul servant 'a tha church. I do miss me bruva tho. I must go in haste for tha arc'beshup 'emself approaches.
So you believe that what they did was unacceptable yet you forgive them of their crimes because their attempt was unsuccessful?
I hope that if I ever commit a criminal act but am thwarted by the law before my acts come to fruition, that you will be on the jury at my trial!
let me clarify: I believe using these tactics to specifically put AMD out of business would be unacceptable. That did not happen and will not happen. Exclusive manufacturer-retailer relationships have been going on for ages. I am not arguing that they did not commit a crime (they already have been convicted), I am arguing that such practices should not be considered a crime.
I also think calling Intel's actions "paying retailers to not sell AMD" is misleading; they gave retailers a discount to carry only their products. It's a fairly common practice, and they're doing it here in the USA without any legal difficulties. I really don't think there is an anti-trust issue here because not only is AMD a comparably priced alternative, it's also a pretty good one (I switched to an AMD core last year). The whole point of anti-trust legeslation is to protect the consumer; have any consumers suffered because Intel can offer cheaper products than AMD?
AMD is fully capable of making the same arrangements, and since they have a smaller market share the EU would probably encourage it in the name of competition. It is not Intel's fault if they are not willing to do so.
No, they should have made certain that those in power got their "piece of the action". Then nothing would have been said. Europe is even more corrupt than New Rome on the Potomac.
I always thought Intel was a Japenese company? Though they have the majority of their Fabs in the U.S.A they also have them in the EU and the Middle East. Most of their assembly plants are in East Asia so I wouldn't say the EU is ripping off an American company since Intel is a multi national Japenese company (I think).
Besides AMD is the American company here that the EU has ruled in favour of, who also have a Fab in Europe and assemble the chip in Malaysia. Intel were engaged in business paractices that would be considered illegal in Europe, the Americas and most of Asia. I believe that what Intel did was illegal, well it is in the EU and if you want to sell your wares in the EU you must do it by EU laws. It's not like Intel didn't know the laws, they did and deliberately broke them in order to try and ruin an American manufacturers sales.
Maybe Intel gets away with this kind of behaviour in the U.S.A but they'll get into trouble eventually in the EU, remember AMD is the company that's kept Intel honest all these years. Without AMD we'd all be on our Pentium 2 $2000 rigs playing internet pong and wetting ourselves at the thought of Dark and Light with only the half the features it launched with and twice the bugs and three times the lag!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel
It is a US Corporation, like most wetsern corps though it is cheaper to invest in fabs and plants in Asia due to the cheaper labour and manufacturing costs.
I agree with it being a plot by the EU to line thier pockets, the EU is one of the most corrupt institutions on the planet, they haven't been able to audit their books for years. Billions and Trillions move around the EU with ko knowledge of where it came from or where it is going. It is also important to note that the UK and Germany are the only net contributors to the EU so it even shows it's leech characteristics there.
Just loom at this information given by the UK independance party, the EU is not a good thing by any means...
drjn.co.uk/
If the EU is one of the most corrupt institutions in the world it probably only comes second to the U.S senate! Also UKIP? Are you serious? They are a bunch of egotistical morons that have less credability than the BNP since Robert Kilroy Silk (a crappy talk show host with a bad fake tan and nasty combover) left them due to egos clashing and incompetence on all sides.
Everything that is on the link is true and Kilroy isn't a part of UKIP anymore as far as i'm aware.
lol what radical left-wing populist wrote that piece of propaganda crap? well if you believe everything on that link is true then im not suprised ppl here are spouting nonsense about the EU. i dont think most ppl have a clear understanding what it means.. its not as powerful as you think.
That wasn't written by Left-wing people, it was done the the UKIP the UK independance party which is viewed a s a right-wing party in the UK.
The EU is extremely powerful and it's power and influence is regularly increasing, it is also becoming more communist.
And also i can see why you would think that the link is rubbish as you are from one of the many EU nations that beneift from German and British tax payers money. Britain and Germany are the only net contributors to the EU, of the billions we put in we get less than half back out of it, whereas you lot put nothing in, only take.
ok, right wing left wing... they needed something to piss on in the hope to get some attention for their crappy party. i doubt you have any understanding of the EU. Netherlands profiting from German and Brit tax payers? LMAO. the netherlands actually pays way more then most other EU countries compared to the size of our economy. but be my guest and keeping believing in that, it wont change the situation.
It has nothing to do with Netherlanders supposedly paying more in taxes than other EU countries, i'm talking about tax payers money that goes directly into the European Union budget. And compared to Britain and Germany The Netherlands is a small country with a small economy, you get far more out being in the EU than you lose. Britain and Germnay have the largest and most successful economies in Europe and are the ONLY NET CONTRIBUTORS to the EU, as i have already said we put billions in every year and get a very small amoutn back if we're lucky.
So my friend you obviously know fuck all about the EU and yes your nation benefits massively from British and German money, as does France, Poland, Belgium ect ect.
Great Britain has one of the most unstable economies in the world.
And yet not other country in the EU other than Germnay has an equal or better economy, shows how good thee rest of the EU is...
Also a bit strange for a yank to make comments like that when the US economy is on the shits right now and has caused many other nations economies to plunge too.
I know the U.S. economy sucks, just as much as Britain's. They use cronie-capitalism which is essentially de facto fascism. EU has better economies, just because they don't boom as big, does not mean they are not good. Most countries in Europe however, do not exert great economic practices, which is why Europe is recovering so slowly, although faster than USA.
I have always been a fan of Intel myself, but not long ago I went out & bought an AMD Quad Core 9550 Phantom CPU & honestly I am not impressed with it! My Intel P4 Socket 478 800MHz FSB 1mb L2 is just as good if not better gaming wise. I am ashamed that I wasted $200.00 on a CPU that can not stand close to a Core 2 let alone an Intel Quad Core. So its my first & last AMD from now on I will stick to Intel...
Wait... am I really seing an anti-thrust fine when the market for this segment is only composed of two major companies - Intel and AMD? Nice competition.
I suspect AMD got their lobbyists in first. Being such Good Corporate Citizens, the Europeans naturally saw things AMD's way. If Intel had been paying attention(and the proper people), this wouldn't have happened.
Well I used AMD products for quite some time. The first one I bought was a K6-2 3D Now... and the last one I had was a 3800+ X2.
I'm running a Core 2 Duo and very happy with it at the moment... Then again most of my local friends work at Intel and they have planets all over the area. So in a sense it makes "sense" for me to support intel and my local Economy (har har).
The issue is Intel does have a better product at the moment (at least in my opinion) and having the deal with Apple as well...
If you have a better product you don't need to penalize a retailer or manufacturer for selling a competitors product. I have no idea how Anti Trust laws work in the EU..... It just seems a stupid legal risk to take when you have the better product....
So you believe that what they did was unacceptable yet you forgive them of their crimes because their attempt was unsuccessful?
I hope that if I ever commit a criminal act but am thwarted by the law before my acts come to fruition, that you will be on the jury at my trial!
let me clarify: I believe using these tactics to specifically put AMD out of business would be unacceptable. That did not happen and will not happen. Exclusive manufacturer-retailer relationships have been going on for ages. I am not arguing that they did not commit a crime (they already have been convicted), I am arguing that such practices should not be considered a crime.
I also think calling Intel's actions "paying retailers to not sell AMD" is misleading; they gave retailers a discount to carry only their products. It's a fairly common practice, and they're doing it here in the USA without any legal difficulties. I really don't think there is an anti-trust issue here because not only is AMD a comparably priced alternative, it's also a pretty good one (I switched to an AMD core last year). The whole point of anti-trust legeslation is to protect the consumer; have any consumers suffered because Intel can offer cheaper products than AMD?
AMD is fully capable of making the same arrangements, and since they have a smaller market share the EU would probably encourage it in the name of competition. It is not Intel's fault if they are not willing to do so.
Really? They gave kickbacks for not stocking AMD, not giving discounts to sell Intel. They also gave kickbacks to manufacturers that used their chips, maybe not a crime but when you have a 70% market share it falls under anti-monopoly laws. I think the EU did protect the consumer, as if Intel was allowed to run rampant the only choice we'd have in 20 years would be overpriced and underperforming Intel chips. With no competition only Intel chips would be available and they'd have no motivation to design and build better chips or lower prices.
AMD could make thye same arrangments and since they don't have over 70% of market share they might well get away with it. However does that give the green light for commiting and illegal and some might say immoral act? That's a moral question but the fact is what Intel did was illegal, the law is the law and shouldn't be changed to excuse the wealthy to the detriment of others which is what you're suggesting.
However this simple fact remains click.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
CS Lewis
Do you know that?
I'm so broke. I can't even pay attention.
"You have the right not to be killed"
I call bullshit on this...
I call bullshit on this...
This may be of interest in that regard. It appears its not just the UK and Germany. But the Germans as of 2007 had the highest contribution(followed by the UK and France).
http://www.eu-oplysningen.dk/euo_en/spsv/all/79/
There is also this to consider.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/public/focus_page/034-31028-161-06-24-905-20080605FCS31027-09-06-2008-2008/default_p001c005_en.htm
I'm seeing some pretty sneaky "America Rulez!" statements being made. /barf
... U.S.A did a few hundred years back ...
A few, implying several hundred years ago? Isn't USA only about 200 yrs?
I call bullshit on this...
This may be of interest in that regard. It appears its not just the UK and Germany. But the Germans as of 2007 had the highest contribution(followed by the UK and France).
http://www.eu-oplysningen.dk/euo_en/spsv/all/79/
There is also this to consider.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/public/focus_page/034-31028-161-06-24-905-20080605FCS31027-09-06-2008-2008/default_p001c005_en.htm
From the summary in your first link i conclude that the following countries payed more than they got from EU in 2007, i.e contributed to the net:
Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France, Italy, Cyprus, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Austria, Finland, Sweden and UK.
So Germany and UK being the sole contributors to the EU net is indeed bullshit.
So exactly what percentage of the market does our lords and masters allow their servants to capture. 50% ? 60% ? We must always punish the evil corporation for being successful of course. What bullshit. Is it OK to have abusive practicies if you're sponsored by your locak government or produce such crap you only have 5% of the market? Apparently so since that is often the case. You know, like every national air line in Europe? Of course it's of vital national interest that every country in Europe have it's own state sponsored air line. There's nothing illegal or immoral about giving you customers a discount for carrying your product exclusively, unless you're intel or actually successful at what you do of course.
I'm certain Intel made a similar speech in court, although probably alot more eloquent than yourself. If you have a large market share or not you have to play by the rules, I'm not sure what European airlines have to do with it since every country has a national airline. There is something immoral about giving a discount when it's punitive or predatory pricing, atleast many find it immoral and immoral enough to make laws against it(Even in the U.S.A!). You seem to be very confused and believe Intel is dropping prices for the benefit of the customer?
Punitive pricing is not for the benefit of the consumer nor are any of the practices they've been fined for, they are for the detriment of competitors and it's an illegal practice in most civilized countries of the world. You seemed to be trapped in this notion that Intel did all of this so that you can have cheaper CPUs. In the short term yes it may work out that way, in the long term you'd be paying a crap load more and for less with little to no choice.
Since Subsidies have nothing to do with this case it seems to me you're just confused over the issue. The EU has anti monoploy laws, Intel broke them and had to pay. Just because you don't like what happened doesn't make it unjust, besides Intel are being/have been sued in Japan, South Korea and the U.S.A for doing exactly the samething.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
CS Lewis
So exactly what percentage of the market does our lords and masters allow their servants to capture. 50% ? 60% ? We must always punish the evil corporation for being successful of course. What bullshit. Is it OK to have abusive practicies if you're sponsored by your locak government or produce such crap you only have 5% of the market? Apparently so since that is often the case. You know, like every national air line in Europe? Of course it's of vital national interest that every country in Europe have it's own state sponsored air line. There's nothing illegal or immoral about giving you customers a discount for carrying your product exclusively, unless you're intel or actually successful at what you do of course.
I'm certain Intel made a similar speech in court, although probably alot more eloquent than yourself. If you have a large market share or not you have to play by the rules, I'm not sure what European airlines have to do with it since every country has a national airline. There is something immoral about giving a discount when it's punitive or predatory pricing, atleast many find it immoral and immoral enough to make laws against it(Even in the U.S.A!). You seem to be very confused and believe Intel is dropping prices for the benefit of the customer?
Punitive pricing is not for the benefit of the consumer nor are any of the practices they've been fined for, they are for the detriment of competitors and it's an illegal practice in most civilized countries of the world. You seemed to be trapped in this notion that Intel did all of this so that you can have cheaper CPUs. In the short term yes it may work out that way, in the long term you'd be paying a crap load more and for less with little to no choice.
Since Subsidies have nothing to do with this case it seems to me you're just confused over the issue. The EU has anti monoploy laws, Intel broke them and had to pay. Just because you don't like what happened doesn't make it unjust, besides Intel are being/have been sued in Japan, South Korea and the U.S.A for doing exactly the samething.
Interesting use of emotionally loaded words...
Certainly corps have to "play by the rules". But I suspect you do not understand what those really are. First and most important rule. Make CERTAIN that you have professional lobbyists in a given country, so that those in power have been properly bought off(don't bother with the old "bribery is illegal" dodge, that only works for the naive). If you track back the vast majority of "anti trust" and other such nonsense, you find that those in power had not been given a sufficient "piece of the action".
Next "punitive pricing", compared to what and in what context? If you are from one of the various socialist hell holes(as opposed to one of the fascist, such as the US) you may not understand that corporations are NOT in this for the benefit of the "consumer" or to play nice with their *competitors*(you do understand the nature of competition I trust?). They are in business(note the use of the word business) to make a profit and increase share holder value. Customer benefit is a side effect of that. At least it is in market sectors that government intervention does prevent market actions from making that a requirement.
Next, the use of the word "civilized" is highly subjective when you consider the real history of every significant government in existence. They are all based on coercion and the threat of violence for their daily operation and continued existence. That is simply the nature of government at its most fundamental. They have no resources that are not extorted from their subject populations(be that money or the life of that population, if they are still subject to the draft). One would have to have a VERY odd definition of the word "civilized" to be able to apply it to just about any countries government(or the societies that such produce for that matter).
So exactly what percentage of the market does our lords and masters allow their servants to capture. 50% ? 60% ? We must always punish the evil corporation for being successful of course. What bullshit. Is it OK to have abusive practicies if you're sponsored by your locak government or produce such crap you only have 5% of the market? Apparently so since that is often the case. You know, like every national air line in Europe? Of course it's of vital national interest that every country in Europe have it's own state sponsored air line. There's nothing illegal or immoral about giving you customers a discount for carrying your product exclusively, unless you're intel or actually successful at what you do of course.
I'm certain Intel made a similar speech in court, although probably alot more eloquent than yourself. If you have a large market share or not you have to play by the rules, I'm not sure what European airlines have to do with it since every country has a national airline. There is something immoral about giving a discount when it's punitive or predatory pricing, atleast many find it immoral and immoral enough to make laws against it(Even in the U.S.A!). You seem to be very confused and believe Intel is dropping prices for the benefit of the customer?
Punitive pricing is not for the benefit of the consumer nor are any of the practices they've been fined for, they are for the detriment of competitors and it's an illegal practice in most civilized countries of the world. You seemed to be trapped in this notion that Intel did all of this so that you can have cheaper CPUs. In the short term yes it may work out that way, in the long term you'd be paying a crap load more and for less with little to no choice.
Since Subsidies have nothing to do with this case it seems to me you're just confused over the issue. The EU has anti monoploy laws, Intel broke them and had to pay. Just because you don't like what happened doesn't make it unjust, besides Intel are being/have been sued in Japan, South Korea and the U.S.A for doing exactly the samething.
Interesting use of emotionally loaded words...
Certainly corps have to "play by the rules". But I suspect you do not understand what those really are. First and most important rule. Make CERTAIN that you have professional lobbyists in a given country, so that those in power have been properly bought off(don't bother with the old "bribery is illegal" dodge, that only works for the naive). If you track back the vast majority of "anti trust" and other such nonsense, you find that those in power had not been given a sufficient "piece of the action".
Next "punitive pricing", compared to what and in what context? If you are from one of the various socialist hell holes(as opposed to one of the fascist, such as the US) you may not understand that corporations are NOT in this for the benefit of the "consumer" or to play nice with their *competitors*(you do understand the nature of competition I trust?). They are in business(note the use of the word business) to make a profit and increase share holder value. Customer benefit is a side effect of that. At least it is in market sectors that government intervention does prevent market actions from making that a requirement.
Next, the use of the word "civilized" is highly subjective when you consider the real history of every significant government in existence. They are all based on coercion and the threat of violence for their daily operation and continued existence. That is simply the nature of government at its most fundamental. They have no resources that are not extorted from their subject populations(be that money or the life of that population, if they are still subject to the draft). One would have to have a VERY odd definition of the word "civilized" to be able to apply it to just about any countries government(or the societies that such produce for that matter).
So by your response I'd suppose you'd smpathize with the mob and drug smugglers? They are in business to make a profit, things like enforcing protection and so forth have consumer benefits as a side effect yes? However they are all frowned upon as unethical and therefore illegal forms of business by most goverments. I'm not questioning the morality of these types of business practices nor debating wether it should be legal to pay a retailer money not to stock your competitions products. All I'm saying is that in the EU it is a crime, punishable by hefty fines. Intel were not ignorant to that fact yet they still broke it and are now paying the price. Whatever your political or economic philosophy is, Intel commited a crime and were punished for it, fact.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
CS Lewis