Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

EU Reveals 'Smoking Gun' E-Mails from Intel Antitrust Probe

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 25, 2009 8:50:13 AM

EU Reveals 'Smoking Gun' E-Mails from Intel Antitrust Probe
The European Commission unveiled e-mails that its antitrust officials describe as "smoking gun" evidence of Intel's antitrust abuse.
Paul Meller, IDG News Service
Monday, September 21, 2009 08:40 AM PDT

In an unusual move, the European Commission unveiled e-mail exchanges between Intel and computer manufacturers that its antitrust officials describe as "smoking gun" evidence from the probe that resulted in the chip maker being fined just over $1.45 billion in May.

intel antitrust EC
A non-confidential version of the May ruling was made public Monday, less than a week after Intel's formal appeal of the decision was released by the Court of First Instance in Luxembourg. In its appeal, the company accused Europe's top antitrust authority of erring in law, conducting sloppy analysis and denying it the right to a fair defense.

"Late last week Lenovo cut a lucrative deal with Intel. As a result of this, we will not be introducing AMD-based products in 2007 for our Notebook products," said a Lenovo executive in a December 2006 internal e-mail that the Commission released.

Hewlett-Packard told the Commission that Intel granted it credits subject to unwritten requirements, including that HP should purchase at least 95 percent of its business desktop system from Intel.

In an e-mail written in July 2002 during the negotiation of the rebate agreement between HP and Intel, an HP executive wrote: "PLEASE DO NOT... communicate to the regions, your team members or AMD that we are constrained to 5 percent AMD by pursuing the Intel agreement."

The Commission found Intel guilty of handing out rebates to PC manufacturers on condition of near or total exclusivity, and of paying PC makers to delay the launch of models equipped with Advanced Micro Devices chips.

At the time of the ruling antitrust officials described the e-mail evidence they had gathered as "a smoking gun", but were unable to make the messages public.

The version of its ruling released Monday shows "specific cases of these conditional rebates and naked restrictions, as well as how Intel sought to conceal its practices and how computer manufacturers and Intel itself recognized the growing threat represented by the products of Intel's main competitor, AMD," the Commission said in a statement.

The rebates and restrictions amount to an abuse of Intel's dominant position in the X86 CPU market, it said, adding that the chip maker's behavior "indicates the growing threat that AMD's products represented to Intel, and that Intel's customers were actively considering switching part of their x86 CPU supplies to AMD."

In an October 2004 e-mail from Dell to Intel, a Dell executive said that AMD is "a great threat to our business. Intel is increasingly uncompetitive to AMD which results in Dell being uncompetitive to [Dell competitors]. We have slower, hotter products that cost more across the board in the enterprise with no hope of closing the performance gap for 1-2 years."

It is unusual for the Commission to defend one of its antitrust rulings before a formal appeal is heard in Luxembourg. Some observers said that releasing the e-mails was intended to counter the accusations Intel levelled at the Commission last week.

Others said the Commission was taking advantage of the disruption in Intel's legal team, following the resignation of Bruce Sewell, the company's top antitrust lawyer a week ago. Sewell left to join Apple, leaving behind him outstanding legal disputes on both sides of the Atlantic.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/172321/eu_reveals_smokin...
a b à CPUs
September 25, 2009 9:00:30 AM

What the EU need to do is rewrite a few laws asap. Maybe allow them to increase fines on failed appeals, that ought to do it.

Note also that Dell is being sued by it's own shareholders over this, and heads have been rolling in various places. Everywhere except intel actually, but the crooked behaviour at intel starts at the very top.
a b à CPUs
September 25, 2009 9:16:00 AM

What I dont get is, what do intel actually believe they have to gain by this appeal?

Even if the most unlikely scenario happens, which is their appeal is granted and they get admonished of all charges...do they really believe that would be the end of it?

Such arrogance of this little company to think that it can take on the richest market in the world, fail to obey it's rules, and still believe it can win. Every other misbehaving corporation accepts its fines, but not intel, no.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
September 25, 2009 1:11:11 PM

^^ Nuttin' like a couple AMD fanbozos yakking at each other over STALE news :D . One would think Intel poisoned kid's milk supply (like China) or released a convicted terrorist who killed over 200 innocent civilians to get middle East oil (like Scotland) :whistle: 

IMO, Intel and Microsoft should just stop selling their products in the EU - I'm sure that would cause sufficient economic upheaval to the point where they would refund the fines plus interest! :) .

PS - you two should either get a room or buy a life! :D 
a b à CPUs
September 25, 2009 3:56:23 PM

I wouldn't call it stale news, but if the best you can do to justify it is compare it vs murder then that says it all really.

It's just amusing to see the depth of intel's corruption, and how it affected other companies. While intel destroyed evidence in the case, places like Dell, HP etc didn't...I guess that's why the fine broke a few records.

I'm sure we'll have more of this 'stale' news within the next few days, or until intel decide to limp back across the pond with it's tail beneath it's legs. With luck they'll keep fighting it, it's free advertising for AMD.
September 25, 2009 4:19:44 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
^^ Nuttin' like a couple AMD fanbozos yakking at each other over STALE news :D . One would think Intel poisoned kid's milk supply (like China) or released a convicted terrorist who killed over 200 innocent civilians to get middle East oil (like Scotland) :whistle: 

IMO, Intel and Microsoft should just stop selling their products in the EU - I'm sure that would cause sufficient economic upheaval to the point where they would refund the fines plus interest! :) .

PS - you two should either get a room or buy a life! :D 


Not to mention that those "released" EU emails may actually be taken out of context... :sarcastic: 

But hey, people need friends, right? :whistle: 
September 25, 2009 4:25:36 PM

If they were taken out of context, its on the EU heads then, as this is their evidence, and time will tell all
a b à CPUs
September 25, 2009 4:35:47 PM

"an HP executive wrote: "PLEASE DO NOT... communicate to the regions, your team members or AMD that we are constrained to 5 percent AMD by pursuing the Intel agreement."

Thats pretty difficult to take out of context?

Next stuff we get should be about how intel bent over backwards to hide their tracks, but still failed.
September 25, 2009 6:23:56 PM

jennyh said:
"an HP executive wrote: "PLEASE DO NOT... communicate to the regions, your team members or AMD that we are constrained to 5 percent AMD by pursuing the Intel agreement."

Thats pretty difficult to take out of context?


I've got to side with JennyH on that one, that's gonna be a pretty damn hard statement to put in context and make it sound better, lol.
September 25, 2009 7:12:18 PM

Maybe its a millions =billions thing? heheh
a b à CPUs
September 25, 2009 7:28:48 PM

well, if the emails are not out of context then intel definitely did wrong here
September 25, 2009 7:40:23 PM

jennyh said:
"an HP executive wrote: "PLEASE DO NOT... communicate to the regions, your team members or AMD that we are constrained to 5 percent AMD by pursuing the Intel agreement."

Thats pretty difficult to take out of context?

Next stuff we get should be about how intel bent over backwards to hide their tracks, but still failed.


Could be that Intel required a certain volume of CPU to be purchased by HP in order to qualify for the discounts.
September 25, 2009 7:47:20 PM

I want to know what's inside that ellipsis.
a b à CPUs
September 25, 2009 9:52:08 PM

Actually from what I've read, that HP exec was not in the loop for the actual contract, so yes it is taken out of context. Anyway, given the fact that AMD was capacity constrained anyway, the fine is simply ridiculous - way out of proportion to any actual damages suffered by any EU resident (well, except for Jennyh - I assume she's entitled to mental damages suffered from her injustice alarm bell going ding-ding-ding-bzzt! :D )

It's just another case of the greedy EC going after a rich American corporation to line their own pockets, no matter the facts thankyouverymuch, and coming up rather smelly when the facts come out. Besides, some of the evidence as they call it, was testimony from AMD employees, as if they were unbiased and could be counted on to tell the truth :D .

Best solution

September 25, 2009 10:56:47 PM
Share

As an Intel employee, I can't discuss these issues. But I will point out that Intel posted a 27 page response that addresses many of the legal issues. You can find that here: Intel Response

Should be an interesting case, once it finally gets to court.

* Not speaking for Intel Corp *
September 25, 2009 11:21:37 PM

sonoran said:
Intel posted a 27 page response that addresses many of the legal issues. You can find that here: Intel Response

Touché Intel!
a b à CPUs
September 25, 2009 11:24:23 PM

sonoran said:
As an Intel employee, I can't discuss these issues. But I will point out that Intel posted a 27 page response that addresses many of the legal issues. You can find that here: Intel Response

Should be an interesting case, once it finally gets to court.

* Not speaking for Intel Corp *


TLDR.

Seriously now, 27 pages in response? Is that how many pages it takes to bore people to death while reading it?
a b à CPUs
September 25, 2009 11:25:48 PM

Also, how did intel manage to drum that up after their main defendent jumped ship to apple recently? Another $200m of your overpriced cpu purchase spent on lawyers fees? lol.
a b à CPUs
September 25, 2009 11:46:25 PM

If any of you are wondering why intel can't afford to lower cpu prices, paying $100m quartely lawyers fees on top of $1bn fines can't be that easy. I'm sure it gets taken out of r&d budget before marketing.

Maybe that's why AMD can stay in the game lol. :D 
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2009 12:50:34 AM

enigma, where you been buddy? We've been missing yours and thunderpants' news threads.
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2009 1:04:11 AM

jennyh said:
TLDR.

Seriously now, 27 pages in response? Is that how many pages it takes to bore people to death while reading it?


Considering the EC document was over 500 pages (and I'm sure you memorized every one, despite the frequent "injustice alarm bells" going off :D ), 27 pages is a mere 5% rebuttal rate - Intel is to be commended on its efficiency once again! :p 

Let me quote from the rebuttal:

Quote:
However, one important OEM, Dell, which the Decision says was coerced by fear of Intel “punishment” to buy exclusively from Intel, has confirmed publicly that it always considered itself entirely free to choose to buy from AMD, without fear of reprisal or punishment. The record before the Commission contains sworn testimony of Dell executives that contradicts this essential premise of the Commission‟s case. The Decision nevertheless disregarded this evidence and instead relied on the speculation of a single lower level employee, who was not a decision maker and not even at Dell for much of the relevant period.


We should note that the EC is an administrative, not judicial, body, so jennyh's allegations that Intel has been found guilty in the EU court of law is a whopping 100% incorrect! Congratulations on achieving 100% FAIL efficiency again, Jenny! :D 

a b à CPUs
September 26, 2009 1:05:43 AM

randomizer said:
enigma, where you been buddy? We've been missing yours and thunderpants' news threads.


Actually Enny missed striking the hot iron by about 3 days :) . Thunderpants is much more efficient at digging up obscure news before it goes bad like a 3-day-old fish! :D 
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2009 1:06:49 AM

jennyh said:
If any of you are wondering why intel can't afford to lower cpu prices, paying $100m quartely lawyers fees on top of $1bn fines can't be that easy. I'm sure it gets taken out of r&d budget before marketing.

Maybe that's why AMD can stay in the game lol. :D 


I guess Tiddleywinks qualifies as a "game" :D 
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2009 1:56:52 AM

jennyh said:
TLDR.

Seriously now, 27 pages in response? Is that how many pages it takes to bore people to death while reading it?


How else does Intel win court cases?

The Jury will be so bored listening more would torture them to death, so the Jury decides that Intel must win, otherwise, Intel will reread the script.
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2009 2:01:44 AM

http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007/02/8763.ars

..."Dell of inflating its profits over the past several years by failing to properly disclose rebates from Intel in the amount of "hundreds of millions of dollars" in its earnings."

Now, even with the destroying of evidence, it isn't exactly hard to look elsewhere to see what really happened.

Intel's bribery pockets sure are deep, and a lot of dell fatcats sure as hell got rich on your inflated intel purchase, but nobody can bribe everybody.

See while intel well playing their power game, they totally failed to realise that the likes dell, lenovo and hp are also embroiled in theirs. None of them give a toss about intel, all they care about is the bottom line.

I guess intel didn't really push the point hard enough, especially at HP (what a surprise considering how much cash they had pumped in dell for this 'exclusivity').

So ye, dell managed to destroy most of the evidence...HP didnt seem all that deperate to hide it did they? I wonder why....anyway, whoever thought up this little scheme must have known before long that it was gonna go arse over elbow pretty quickly. Corruption on this scale can never be hidden, that's why it got out.

It sure will be interesting to see the depths of intels corruption over the coming weeks. The rest of them are sensible enough to shut up and pay up, but watching intel intel squirm with each new fact the EU releases is worth even more.
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2009 2:06:49 AM

Me too!

To be honest, aren't rebates legal?
September 26, 2009 3:50:05 AM

Hmm, 27 pages, I hope they dont lose those too!!!
a c 122 à CPUs
September 26, 2009 4:36:39 AM

amdfangirl said:
Me too!

To be honest, aren't rebates legal?


They actually are. As are exclusivities like many companies do.

I didn't see the actual emails. I wouldn't mind reading them. Either way the EU does tend to go a bit too far in most cases (MS).
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2009 5:50:34 AM

Rebates are fine, but rebates that you only receive if you don't sell your competitor's products are not.
a c 122 à CPUs
September 26, 2009 7:13:50 AM

jennyh said:
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007/02/8763.ars

..."Dell of inflating its profits over the past several years by failing to properly disclose rebates from Intel in the amount of "hundreds of millions of dollars" in its earnings."

Now, even with the destroying of evidence, it isn't exactly hard to look elsewhere to see what really happened.

Intel's bribery pockets sure are deep, and a lot of dell fatcats sure as hell got rich on your inflated intel purchase, but nobody can bribe everybody.

See while intel well playing their power game, they totally failed to realise that the likes dell, lenovo and hp are also embroiled in theirs. None of them give a toss about intel, all they care about is the bottom line.

I guess intel didn't really push the point hard enough, especially at HP (what a surprise considering how much cash they had pumped in dell for this 'exclusivity').

So ye, dell managed to destroy most of the evidence...HP didnt seem all that deperate to hide it did they? I wonder why....anyway, whoever thought up this little scheme must have known before long that it was gonna go arse over elbow pretty quickly. Corruption on this scale can never be hidden, that's why it got out.

It sure will be interesting to see the depths of intels corruption over the coming weeks. The rest of them are sensible enough to shut up and pay up, but watching intel intel squirm with each new fact the EU releases is worth even more.


Microsoft paid because they have no way to defend in their case. Do you really think that MS including IE in Windows was forcing the consumers to only use it? Did you have to only use IE?

Considering that and that the EU plans to go after MS for Windows Media Player next, do you think what they are doing is right? Do you think its not going to far?

I have used pretty much every browser out since Netscape on almost every version of Windows (not Windows 95 since I didn't have internet till 98) and was never "forced" by MS to only use IE. So do I think MS was guilty of monopolizing the browser market? No.

Do I think they are monopolizing the media player market? No. Because a lot of people use VLC or WinAMP but since WMP 10 it has become a very formidable media play thats easy to use and works with pretty much every media type and MP3 player (minus the iPod due to Apples inability to not be closed hardware/software wise).

So looking at the case the EU had against MS, it makes me not really trust what they say against Intel or Google (when they get to them).

And now Windows 7 will give people a choice of browsers upon installation. Thats like Burger King selling Big Macs to avoid being a monopoly.

Now I wounder when Apple will be getting the EU guantlet. Apple has completely closed hardware and software. Having a different media player or browser is rare. But I guess since Apple doesn't have the big bucks the EU doesn't care since they can't fill their pockets with more money.......
September 26, 2009 12:45:32 PM

jimmysmitty said:
Microsoft paid because they have no way to defend in their case. Do you really think that MS including IE in Windows was forcing the consumers to only use it? Did you have to only use IE?


Yup, it's like suing the maker of a brownie mix because they included a delicious fudge topping with the brownie mix. Perhaps they shouldn't sell brownie mix in Europe that has fudge topping in it for fear of being sued.

That MS lawsuit has always missed me off, because everyone loses. Microsoft has to spend extra time and money to make an OS without a web browser, so investors lose because profits are lower. Consumers buy an OS without a web browser, therefore consumers lose.
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2009 3:27:34 PM

Yep, the EC is nothing more than a gang of governmental thieves - transfer wealth from American companies to the EU. They just wait for some whiny uncompetitive company to come 'complain' about alleged wrongdoing, then they jump in with both feet and hands grabbing for the pockets of the alleged perpetrator. Take the MS case - how does it injure any consumer by including a free browser or free media player with the OS? Aren't Firefox, Chrome, etc also totally free for the downloand?

It's really just an additional, huge tax on American corporations and I think the Obama administration will have to take some retaliatory action against EU companies or products. How would they like to see a 50% import duty on European goods?
a b à CPUs
September 27, 2009 3:02:58 AM

I know! Declare war on the EU! That'll get us out of recession!
a c 122 à CPUs
September 27, 2009 4:22:26 AM

fazers_on_stun said:
Yep, the EC is nothing more than a gang of governmental thieves - transfer wealth from American companies to the EU. They just wait for some whiny uncompetitive company to come 'complain' about alleged wrongdoing, then they jump in with both feet and hands grabbing for the pockets of the alleged perpetrator. Take the MS case - how does it injure any consumer by including a free browser or free media player with the OS? Aren't Firefox, Chrome, etc also totally free for the downloand?

It's really just an additional, huge tax on American corporations and I think the Obama administration will have to take some retaliatory action against EU companies or products. How would they like to see a 50% import duty on European goods?


But what does the EU make that is actually worth anything? Most electronics are done by Japanese/Korean/American companies (that are worth anything), Most European cars as of late have been getting a pretty bad name and Ford ha sbeen picking up the paces (can't say the same for GM or Dodge, damn whoever made a 4 door Charger DAMN THEM!!!).

So I really can't think of what they have betetr than use besides beer. .....

amdfangirl said:
I know! Declare war on the EU! That'll get us out of recession!


Nah. it would be too easy. France would be a push over, Germany has no real military (can't since after WWII) and the rest of the countries are just really small and have little to nothing. I would say the UK would be the hardest but they were smart and didn't join the EU.

Maybe.......... nah. Too easy.
a b à CPUs
September 27, 2009 5:16:35 AM

What about EU + Russia?
September 27, 2009 6:05:33 AM

"Thats like Burger King selling Big Macs to avoid being a monopoly. "
Well, Intel did good chezboogies!!!

a c 122 à CPUs
September 27, 2009 6:16:26 AM

amdfangirl said:
What about EU + Russia?


I highly doubt Russia would. With Putin doing such a good job to turn Russia around, what do they need the EU for? For them to tell them what they can and cannot do?

The only reason I know this is because my fiance is Russian and her mothers family lives in Moscow and tells her how much better it is.

Plus Russians are a proud people. They are nothing like in the US. No matter what happens, if anyone tries to hurt Russia the people will stand behind their country. But here, as sad as it is, we have two sides consitently arguing that they are right instead of trying to find a common ground for the peoples.
September 27, 2009 6:51:50 AM

I find that the side that wont fight fights hardest not to heheh, its against their principals ya know
a b à CPUs
September 27, 2009 11:31:33 AM

Hehe it's fine really, the EU doesn't consider the US or anyone else as a threat since we stopped slaughtering each other.

I think we look at the US as a wayward child who needs it's backside slapped every so often. :D 
a b à CPUs
September 27, 2009 1:24:19 PM

New Zealand, the island nobody can ever bother to invade.
a b à CPUs
September 27, 2009 2:40:40 PM

amdfangirl said:
I know! Declare war on the EU! That'll get us out of recession!


Well, let's not go that far :D . However, the EC has certainly fired a few salvos across the Atlantic. The point is, the world doesn't need this kind of tradewar-inducing action with the economies about to recover but still in a precarious state.

At the just-concluded G20 summit, Obama tried to get some cooperation from the other leaders to voluntarily not try and boost their economic recovery by such lopsided exports to the US. Didn't succeed. So now I'm expecting some sort of response from the administration. After all, increasing tariffs will add additional $$ to the federal budget. Between Obama & the Democratically-dominated Congress, the deficit is rising faster than the space shuttle...
a b à CPUs
September 27, 2009 2:44:56 PM

jimmysmitty said:
But what does the EU make that is actually worth anything? Most electronics are done by Japanese/Korean/American companies (that are worth anything), Most European cars as of late have been getting a pretty bad name and Ford ha sbeen picking up the paces (can't say the same for GM or Dodge, damn whoever made a 4 door Charger DAMN THEM!!!).

So I really can't think of what they have betetr than use besides beer. .....


I dunno actually and am too lazy to bing it. :D  French wines, Swiss cheeses? :p 
a b à CPUs
September 27, 2009 3:51:38 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
Well, let's not go that far :D . However, the EC has certainly fired a few salvos across the Atlantic. The point is, the world doesn't need this kind of tradewar-inducing action with the economies about to recover but still in a precarious state.

At the just-concluded G20 summit, Obama tried to get some cooperation from the other leaders to voluntarily not try and boost their economic recovery by such lopsided exports to the US. Didn't succeed. So now I'm expecting some sort of response from the administration. After all, increasing tariffs will add additional $$ to the federal budget. Between Obama & the Democratically-dominated Congress, the deficit is rising faster than the space shuttle...


Considering the EU is #1 importer AND exporter in the world I doubt there is really much 'lop-sided' business heading over the pond. Do you have any idea at all how much we pay for electronics from the US? Or fuel from Russia? It's a lot more than what the average US citizen would be comfortable paying I can assure you of that.

I doubt there would be any trade war however, intel will be found guilty in the US also, leaving what...greenland as the sole continent still to find intel guilty of a bunch of market abuses. I'm sure the EU will be keeping close tabs on the US case, if only to see how serious Obama is about cracking down on monopolies.
a b à CPUs
September 27, 2009 5:19:45 PM

All I can say to all this Intel-EU case is that there is no doubt in Intel's guilt. There is sound evidence of illegal rebates or agreements that limited OEMs in the offering of AMD-based products or in their launch (delays). In times when AMD CPUs were better than Intel's (before C2D) Intel prevented AMD from making the money they should legitimately have made because of higher competitivenes with their CPUs.
And I'm sure Intel still has some sort of deals with OEMs:
-A quick look to HP's website shows that, at least in desktop products, there is 1 AMD-based machine to 4 Intel-based machines. And in the budget desktop space I think AMD's products are VERY competitive, with lower prices accross the board and the same performance as Intel's CPUs. I can understand the lack of AMD offerings in more expensive systems, where i7 or i5 are the only good choices.
-Dell just offers AMD products in one of their desktop lines, and has discontinued the XPS Phenom II desktop line.
-And it is evident that both companies offer new Intel-based PCs with the newest Intel CPUs the moment the CPUs are launched (Core i5/ i7; mobile i7); while PCs with the newest AMD CPUs are launched months after the CPUs are released.

To make myself clear, I DO understand the lack of AMD-based offerings in the HIGH END, but not in the medium or low end, where AMD can be as good as, or better than Intel depending on the price range (example: Athlon II X2 and Pentium Dual-Core; Athlon II X4 and Core 2 Quad Q8200). It's not fair for AMD, whose profit margins in low-end CPUs are already low, not to have fair competition because of Intel's ""rebates"".

I understand that it may not be entirely fair for the EU to get all the money from the fine; but I think that the fine is not enough when compared to the possible damages to AMD. I do not know the workings of it, but I think some of the fine should have gone to AMD.
a b à CPUs
September 27, 2009 5:59:27 PM

jennyh said:
Considering the EU is #1 importer AND exporter in the world I doubt there is really much 'lop-sided' business heading over the pond. Do you have any idea at all how much we pay for electronics from the US? Or fuel from Russia? It's a lot more than what the average US citizen would be comfortable paying I can assure you of that.


You can thank your VAT for that :D . Besides, I would imagine most of your electronics, sans CPUs, come from China, Taiwan, Korea & Japan (& probably in that order), just like the US.

Quote:
I doubt there would be any trade war however, intel will be found guilty in the US also, leaving what...greenland as the sole continent still to find intel guilty of a bunch of market abuses. I'm sure the EU will be keeping close tabs on the US case, if only to see how serious Obama is about cracking down on monopolies


Last time I checked, Greenland was a large island, not a whole continent. Did you perhaps mean Antartica?? Or maybe Pangaea? :D 
a c 122 à CPUs
September 28, 2009 1:10:25 AM

jennyh said:
Considering the EU is #1 importer AND exporter in the world I doubt there is really much 'lop-sided' business heading over the pond. Do you have any idea at all how much we pay for electronics from the US? Or fuel from Russia? It's a lot more than what the average US citizen would be comfortable paying I can assure you of that.

I doubt there would be any trade war however, intel will be found guilty in the US also, leaving what...greenland as the sole continent still to find intel guilty of a bunch of market abuses. I'm sure the EU will be keeping close tabs on the US case, if only to see how serious Obama is about cracking down on monopolies.


VAT is a bitch, huh? Unlike here in the US every other country tries to get peopl to buy products made in their country. And as for the fuel, thats also the governments job. And as a Union, yea the EU does import more. But compare country to country, no one imports more than the US.

Damn free market....

sanchz said:
All I can say to all this Intel-EU case is that there is no doubt in Intel's guilt. There is sound evidence of illegal rebates or agreements that limited OEMs in the offering of AMD-based products or in their launch (delays). In times when AMD CPUs were better than Intel's (before C2D) Intel prevented AMD from making the money they should legitimately have made because of higher competitivenes with their CPUs.
And I'm sure Intel still has some sort of deals with OEMs:
-A quick look to HP's website shows that, at least in desktop products, there is 1 AMD-based machine to 4 Intel-based machines. And in the budget desktop space I think AMD's products are VERY competitive, with lower prices accross the board and the same performance as Intel's CPUs. I can understand the lack of AMD offerings in more expensive systems, where i7 or i5 are the only good choices.
-Dell just offers AMD products in one of their desktop lines, and has discontinued the XPS Phenom II desktop line.
-And it is evident that both companies offer new Intel-based PCs with the newest Intel CPUs the moment the CPUs are launched (Core i5/ i7; mobile i7); while PCs with the newest AMD CPUs are launched months after the CPUs are released.

To make myself clear, I DO understand the lack of AMD-based offerings in the HIGH END, but not in the medium or low end, where AMD can be as good as, or better than Intel depending on the price range (example: Athlon II X2 and Pentium Dual-Core; Athlon II X4 and Core 2 Quad Q8200). It's not fair for AMD, whose profit margins in low-end CPUs are already low, not to have fair competition because of Intel's ""rebates"".

I understand that it may not be entirely fair for the EU to get all the money from the fine; but I think that the fine is not enough when compared to the possible damages to AMD. I do not know the workings of it, but I think some of the fine should have gone to AMD.


Well for every AMD CPU Intel can produce probably 10 more. AMDs new line is limited. Its gotten bigger but at first they had maybe 4 CPUs. Intel has a giant line ranging from Celerons to Pentium DCs to Core 2 Duos to Core to Quads to Xeons to Core i5 and finally Core i7. They make many many more CPUS than AMD could even fathom to.

So imagining that Intel outproduces AMD in actual CPUs by 10 to 1, who do you imagine will have a bigger lineup and more PCs with their CPUs in it? You think AMD just because they might have a better one? Nope. Intel. Because Intel can provide as many CPUs as they need.

But of course he EC never puts that in its reports. Plus the EU itself has a AMD FAB and its located in Germany. ANd the head EC person going after Intel, suprise suprise!!!!! She is from Germany.

And after the FAB in New York state was thrown out, what happened to the anti trust probe that NYS was going to do? Oh, no jobs coming? It dissapeared thats what.

Funniest thing is that people talk about corruption and how Intel did this and intel did that yet they miss out on all the stuff going on around them. As I said, its hard to trust the EC since the head is from Germany that has a AMD FAB. Its hard to really trust anything since New York State didn't proceed with a anti-trust case against Intel after AMD didn't build their FAB there and went FABless. And when all these anti-trust hearings leave out the fact that AMD can't keep up in manufacturing against Intel it makes me wounder.

But hey. What do I know?
a b à CPUs
September 28, 2009 1:35:35 AM

Sounds like a regurgitated capacity constrained arguement that turpit went on and on and on and on about jimmy.

You fail to take into account that capacity and demand are a two way thing.

If you have increased demand you streamline production, and ramp it up ... bringing more facilities online to meet the demand.

When Intel bribed these companies to stay away from AMD's products they stifled demand ... and AMD obviously modified production scheduling to best fit ... stockpiling is dangerous ... so you try a best fit approach.

Look how much Pentium 4 CPU stock Intel had a few years ago ... so they bribe companies to stay away from A64 cpus, run a smear campaign (including this website), and basically cleared their Pentium 4 inventory with the halo effect of the core2 line.

The end result of this investigation will cost Intel a lot more than the current fine ... it will gut their company and make them and others change their illegal business tactics accordingly.

I wouldn't be surprised of some of the Intel Executive end up in jail.

Maybe that is why a few of them are leaving ... bye Pat !


September 28, 2009 2:18:37 AM

Maybe Pat was a good one? They usually leave first, while the rats stay in their pack.
I dont know about future lawsuits, and havnt followed every turn, but what I do know is, the evidence the EU has shown is compelling enough, as well as Korea and Japan.
If it were just the EU, then it would be somewhat questionable, but it isnt, its the amount, which is huge, which only goes to Intels guilt, if the fine was to be done according to Intels found guilt.
To me, the EU isnt at all like the sates simply because they arent states, never were, never will be.
In the states, yes, you can ahve a M$, a Ma Bell and so on, because we all allow the same balanced approach from those corps.
But even Ma Bell was broken up here, as our definition of monopoly is actually higher than EU, simply because we are more unified to begin with than the EU ever will be, and somewhat goes hand in hand.
Its like Australia, they are all just 1 big country, sure, there may be petty squabbles between their states, like here in the US, but theres no threats of sanctions, as we see/saw in the EU from 1 nation to the next.
Having done what Intels done, if this and more is found, yes, could lead to even more problems for the company down the road from the US
a b à CPUs
October 12, 2009 12:56:21 PM

Actually isn't Australia the 51st State?

I'd appreciate if you could tow us up just off the coast North of Miami (between Georgia and South Carolina ... Perth (the West coast of Australia) will fit just fine about 20Km off the coast.

We have got to tow it past South Africa and up the Atlantic but those big honking aircraft carriers you have mooching around doing nothing but look threatening should be up for the job.

We will teach you how to do a decent BBQ for a start.









October 12, 2009 2:22:54 PM

Reynod said:
Actually isn't Australia the 51st State?


52nd, you forgot about Canada.
!