Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel attacks EU commision

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 27, 2008 4:34:05 PM

Not sure if this has been posted before

"European regulators filed fresh anti-trust charges against the world's largest computer chip-maker in July, accusing it of abusing its dominant position in the market to try to squeeze out AMD"

"In reply, Intel asked that the Commission "annul the decisions" on the basis they "contain errors in law" and that the Commission pay the costs the US chip company has incurred to defend itself"

"Intel's move was met with criticism by the head of the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA).

"We are disappointed that Intel has apparently chosen to attack the law enforcement organization that is investigating it," CCIA president Ed Black said in a statement.

"This is a tactic we have seen before by other companies when they have concluded they cannot effectively argue the merits of their wrongdoing.

"The European Commission's credibility is strong and as the historical record demonstrates it has consistently struck the right balance in antitrust action," he said. "

http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1227740521.17

Not sure what to make of this

November 27, 2008 4:52:18 PM

nothing really. that is just Intel saying they can afford to be in court as long as it takes to win. not shocking, not unprescedented. i kind of expect it from the powerful companies because thats their natural course of action lol
November 27, 2008 4:55:48 PM

Im guessing, if found guilty, the longer they have from having to pay a few billion, the better

What I really dont understand is, whos ear will they get with this response? Ive heard of appealing, but this is more accusations. Only thing I can say is, CYA in a broader sense
Related resources
a b à CPUs
November 27, 2008 4:56:28 PM

Who's the CEO of Intel Gil Bates???
November 27, 2008 5:01:35 PM

Hes known as the master

I remember when this all started, and the estimates of costs, not inclusive of court costs, were exceding 3 billion by early estimates. Could be that high, or higher if they drag it out further
a b à CPUs
November 27, 2008 5:11:02 PM

If this this plays out and Phenom II lives up to most of the hype, this could really put a chink in Intel's armor.
a b à CPUs
a b å Intel
November 27, 2008 5:14:14 PM

Keep in mind that the "European regulators" who do all this have very well paid and secure jobs and they want this situation to continue. If Intel is willing to keep the case going for ever, they will be happy to help. Of course, consumers are the ones who pay for the regulators' salaries and benefits and perks (through their income taxes and VAT) and for Intel's lawyers (through higher prices).
November 27, 2008 5:15:57 PM

One things for sure, having just gone to i7, and it being planned as a slow adapter in production/sales, according to Intel, and having the present economy the way it is, the margins will surely hurt. Depends on IF, how much and when if so.
November 27, 2008 5:19:06 PM

Higher prices, if Deneb comes thru, is what he was talking about. Makes it all the harder for profit margins, if your competitor has something to offer, and not having all the fines attached.
November 27, 2008 6:30:23 PM

"annul the decisions" on the basis they "contain errors in law"

Seems reasonable.
a b à CPUs
November 27, 2008 6:46:47 PM

I say if it took a team of lawyers 5 months to come up with that statement, they might be doing a little straw grasping.


PS: JDJ, what are those little red -1's for. You doing a bit of inappropriate touching ???
November 27, 2008 6:52:32 PM

I never notice them. The only time I do is when someones been voted down. I think if someone posts something undesirable, or wrong, then post the corrections. If someones right, then yea, give em a thumbs up +.

Point is, if somethings undesirable, getting someone elses POV can be invaluable. Alot better than - vote in my mind. Ive been swayed by others POV many a time, and find a simple - lacking, and not helpful at all
a b à CPUs
November 27, 2008 6:58:45 PM

Ya, maybe thier using Intel's support team.

Part of the reason I signed to this forum was to learn from others. More than 1 POV is always better. Thats why they have debate teams in HS.

November 27, 2008 7:14:06 PM

People do tend to side one way or another, do to their previous purchases, experience etc, thats normal, but to go beyond favortism, and find that if a judge finds someone or thing guilty, and not to agree, well its like saying, if the gloves dont fit, you have to aquite heheh. Trouble is, sometimes people believe the gloves, and not the larger picture
a b à CPUs
November 27, 2008 7:32:51 PM

Definitely, plp awlays want to believe that thier purchases are the best or they feel they been cheated. But they shouldn't if they did their research, ie... I put this system together (AMD 5400) knowing that it's not to compair to mid-upper Intels. But I don't know Intels, so I went this way hoping the next showing for AMD would make up some ground.


HAVA NICE TURKEY DAY

check back later
November 27, 2008 7:44:51 PM

TY, you too !!
November 27, 2008 8:02:46 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Im guessing, if found guilty, the longer they have from having to pay a few billion, the better

What I really dont understand is, whos ear will they get with this response? Ive heard of appealing, but this is more accusations. Only thing I can say is, CYA in a broader sense


heck i have no idea who or where it would go next jaydee. for that matter, im not really caught up in this one only because you see these things often. they all seem to go the same way though. long, drawn out, by the end of it people have forgotten why they were there and settled for a ceremonial offering and told not to do it again.
November 27, 2008 8:06:08 PM

I ncurrently live in California, and these things are EXPECTED here heheh
November 27, 2008 8:08:18 PM

they lose the lawsuites..
November 27, 2008 8:09:50 PM

wasnt that long ago and the roar was ATI and Nvidia price fixing the whole market. amazing how soothing a little pile of cash can be to hurt feelings.
November 27, 2008 8:13:25 PM

blackwidow_rsa said:
they lose the lawsuites..


yes and no. has microsoft ever REALLY lost a lawsuit? did ATI and Nvidia? moral victories are cheap to these companies. they will let you swim in them.
November 27, 2008 8:16:20 PM

Thing is, both nVidia and ATI werent found guilty, but here, it doesnt look as promising, tho you never know.
November 27, 2008 8:19:47 PM

indeed they were but it was a victory for them punatively. i am sure they are both happy with the outcome lol
a b à CPUs
November 28, 2008 2:12:03 AM

I hope they win. I can't stand the EU anti-trust regulators.
November 28, 2008 4:11:24 AM

If that happened, it would get real interesting indeed
November 28, 2008 7:02:15 AM

Considering the fact MS did lose their battle with the EU regulators, as in the past have GM, Ford, VW, IBM and a multitude of other companies it sounds to me like they are grasping at anything to avoid paying a fine. Intel aren't worth anything like MS, who can and did spend millions on legal fees.
November 28, 2008 7:21:25 AM

Intel knows they're guilty and they're going to lose the case. That's why they attacked.

It's just a matter of time before the gavel falls and punishes Tyranny. :) 

From other articles you can see clearly that Intel is real nervous and does not want to lose the
anti trust case. If Intel had nothing to fear from AMD they wouldn't have violate the law.

Watch the market shift in favor of AMD sometime after the suit is settled.

;) 

a b à CPUs
November 28, 2008 9:44:04 PM

enigma067 said:
From other articles you can see clearly that Intel is real nervous and does not want to lose the
anti trust case.

What self-respecting company would want to lose the case?

enigma067 said:
Watch the market shift in favor of AMD sometime after the suit is settled.

;) 

What do businesses care if AMD is being squeezed by Intel's dominance? They'll still buy whatever suits their bottom line, be it AMD or Intel.
a b à CPUs
November 29, 2008 12:53:34 AM

The main reason for squeezing out your compatiton in business so that you can dictate prices to the consumer. ( ie... mickyscoft ) You pay more for XP than you do Vista. (Nothin like getting something crammed your throat A).
November 29, 2008 2:02:15 AM

randomizer said:
What self-respecting company would want to lose the case?


What do businesses care if AMD is being squeezed by Intel's dominance? They'll still buy whatever suits their bottom line, be it AMD or Intel.


I agree with the smiling cat.
November 29, 2008 3:51:04 AM

While I agree, a company will buy whatever, part of these lawsuits go to benck marks, and to how theyre done. According to the lawsuit, Intels compiler was slowing AMDs cpus down by more than 10%. When companies decide on their purchases, alot of times they go by benchmarks to get an idea as to the newer cpus performance. Im not saying this is the only decision maker, but it is part of their decision making when buying a cpu for their servers, and thats exactly where companies care, and why, if found guilty, this is just 1 example of Intels possible wrongdoing

Anyone that has need of a lawyer, whether its in house/their own, retained or thru the yellow pages, that lawyer is going to defend his/her client no matter what, and its just how its done. However, to come at the lawmakers themselves is something somewhat unique, in that, its not the wrongdoing theyre denying when saying this, its the laws that effect them that are in question, and their understanding of those laws arent being used properly towards their clients.

Im sure Intel has some mighty fine lawyers, but this is sorta like fighting city hall, it just cant be done, and their lawyers, unless they actually have another body to appeal to, thats totally seperate, and higher, are just filling the open air with words
November 29, 2008 2:58:10 PM

enigma067 said:
If Intel had nothing to fear from AMD they wouldn't have violate the law.

If Intel has to fear AMD (and market action during K10's reign proved they do), then they're not a monopoly.
November 29, 2008 3:15:48 PM

BeakerUK said:
Considering the fact MS did lose their battle with the EU regulators, as in the past have GM, Ford, VW, IBM and a multitude of other companies it sounds to me like they are grasping at anything to avoid paying a fine. Intel aren't worth anything like MS, who can and did spend millions on legal fees.


kind of proves my point. all the companies you mentioned are still around. this event isnt going to re-shape the tech landscape anymore than the others who lost. get a grip on reality guys. this wont be the event that AMD leapfrogs over Intel anymore than when Microsoft lost becoming the launchpad for Linux taking over the desktop market. its a short term nuisance financially and a slap on the hand. the only company that can make AMD #1 is AMD. a lawsuit isnt going to do it. releasing superior products and ability to produce tons of them for OEM's will.
November 29, 2008 6:04:58 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
While I agree, a company will buy whatever, part of these lawsuits go to benck marks, and to how theyre done. According to the lawsuit, Intels compiler was slowing AMDs cpus down by more than 10%. When companies decide on their purchases, alot of times they go by benchmarks to get an idea as to the newer cpus performance. Im not saying this is the only decision maker, but it is part of their decision making when buying a cpu for their servers, and thats exactly where companies care, and why, if found guilty, this is just 1 example of Intels possible wrongdoing

Anyone that has need of a lawyer, whether its in house/their own, retained or thru the yellow pages, that lawyer is going to defend his/her client no matter what, and its just how its done. However, to come at the lawmakers themselves is something somewhat unique, in that, its not the wrongdoing theyre denying when saying this, its the laws that effect them that are in question, and their understanding of those laws arent being used properly towards their clients.

Im sure Intel has some mighty fine lawyers, but this is sorta like fighting city hall, it just cant be done, and their lawyers, unless they actually have another body to appeal to, thats totally seperate, and higher, are just filling the open air with words

I hadn't seen mention of the compilers before. Where did you see that?
That could be huge. Just add 10% to present benchmarks, and all of a sudden AMD chips look a lot more competative.
November 29, 2008 6:21:22 PM

Old news. It goes back to 2005 and before, theyve since "corrected" the "problem". Ill see if I can dig up some info on it
!