Intel Faces New European Charges(shocking)

[thunderman]

Very interesting......
Article:
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Infrastructure/Report-Intel-Faces-New-European-Charges/

Article Quotes:

The new antitrust charges would expand the case against Intel. European regulators say Intel's antitrust actions hurt AMD

(Reuters) - European regulators are preparing to file new antitrust charges against Intel Corp (INTC.O: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), expanding a probe into the chipmaker's marketing and sales practices, The Wall Street Journal said, citing people familiar with the matter

The potential new charges from European regulators would be another blow to Intel, which last month said it faces a formal investigation by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission.

in June, the Korea Fair Trade Commission in Seoul ruled Intel had abused its dominant position in the local market and imposed a fine of $25.6 million

Japan's trade commission also concluded in 2005 that Intel had violated that country's anti-monopoly act

Not looking good for Intel is it? Not just the EU who have had enough of Intel's cheating tactics!

Me Thunderman exposing the truths about Intel! AMD don't do dirty tactics!

AMD4Life!

 

[yomamafor1]

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/07/16/nvidia-amd-accused-price-fixing

IN A BARELY-REPORTED development, a judge has lauded evidence in a case against apparent arch-rivals Nvidia and AMD which stand accused of artificially keeping the price of graphics cards high.

A San Franciscan law suit combines "at least" 51 separate civil complaints against the GPU makers, according to a report here.

District Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California was shown an email that had passed between the two firms which suggested ways of appearing to compete with one another while keeping prices high.

"This is not a bad document for you," he told the plaintiffs after reading the email during a hearing held on July 1st. "It is not a home run, but it is a base hit," he said.

Lawyers from Nvidia and ATI were told off by the judge for claiming such documents were trade secrets.

"This court is not a wholly-owned subsidiary of your companies. I am against you hiding information from the public," he said, adding, "If we get to summary judgment in this case nothing will be under seal."

Even, "if it is under seal and it is the recipe for Coke, you have my permission to blurt it out," he said.

We like the sound of this judge already.

Some nine million documents have been put before the court. One, a 2002 e-mail written by Nvidia senior vice president of marketing, Dan Vivoli, to ATI's president and chief operating officer, Dave Orton said: "I really think we should work harder together on the marketing front. As you and I have talked about, even though we are competitors, we have the common goal of making our category a well positioned, respected playing field. $5 and $8 stocks are a result of no respect."

"A jury would like to see this," the judge remarked.

Complainants against the pair include Microsoft, Dell and Apple amongst others.

Big deal.

 

[jimmysmitty]

I just love how he thinks that AMD is a loving company. Yea let him think that. He will find out some day that they are just like every other corporation. Just after his money.

 

[jimmysmitty]

You cant hide the fact that Intel plays dirty, and it did indeed hurt AMD big time and pump Intels pockets full of money.
They are being sued by every civilized country on gods green earth, not mention many private companies in the US alone. Transmetta being one of those companies that Intel put out of business because Intel stole their patents (copyright/patent infringement). Luckily, with all the millions Intel is currently paying them under a court award, they are actually back in business.

Are you still on about that? You do know that Intel also sued Transmeta for infringing on their copyrights too. It happens all the time. It is possible for 2 people to come up with the same idea you know.

Oh and where does it say that the money is going to AMD? More than likely the money is going to the country that is fining them.
A good example is Edison. There was another group that was creating a light bulb at the same time. Difference was that Edison got to the final design that worked first.

 

[yomamafor1]

Good try YOMAMAFOR, but theres no way were paying more for graphics cards than we should. In fact with hudreds almost thousands now of stream processors, gigabytes of DDR5, 10's of millions of transisters and a ton of raw silicon, VGA cards should be prices much, much higher. Look at the price of cpus. 1-4 processing cores, mere megabytes of memory, miniscule amount of transisters (compared to vga cards) and tiny amount of silicon. VGA cards should be 10-15 times the cost of processors.

....oh god.. not this BM predatory pricing mentality again.

 

[Wisecracker]

I wonder if all those missing Intel emails got lost in the same place as all the missing White House emails

I guess DAAMIT and nVidiot didn't learn from the masters

:lol:

 

[yomamafor1]

I really don't see anything wrong with offering rebates and lowering prices to attract more retailers to offer more Intel CPU. Its called competition.

 

[jimmysmitty]

I think its because AMD couldn't do that (or didn't want to more than likely to try to make more money) so its seen as bad business practice.

I mean even though McDonalds signed a deal with Coke and McDonalds is one of the most popular fast food joints in the US and you can only get Coke products there its ok. But Intel offering rebates on bulk CPU sales is not.

 

[radnor]

I really don't see anything wrong with offering rebates and lowering prices to attract more retailers to offer more Intel CPU. Its called competition.

Nope, its called exclusivity and dumping.

Media-Saturn, or Media Market in some countries only sell Intel. They sell a bunch of brands, form-factors, but only Intel.
Because they know what is good ? nope, because they get payed to sell it. I don't mean they get a profit of it, im saying intel pays them. And it is not a dime per laptop sold. Or a price to reach a sales goal.

There other distributors that have the same modus operandi. Sorry mate, that isn't offering a rebate. That maybe enter in Cartel/Monopoly Laws and dumping laws as well. Ive worked (in darker sides) and i saw a bit what passes behind the curtains.

This should have been happened a long time ago.

 

[yomamafor1]

No its not called dumping. Dumping means a product sold at x price is reduced to y price in another region, in order to compete with another competitor. It usually involves entry to market, and this generally only happens to international markets.

Its also not called exclusivity, because no deal was signed.

What Intel did was using incentive to help retailers and channels to adopt more of their products. This is quite common in the market place. For example, Intel can offer a rebate to retailers if they sell Intel's product up to a certain quota.

 

[Grimmy]

Oh.. the humanity!! How could Intel do such a thing. Looks like I'm chucking my Intel rig out in the street. No more PC's for me... I quit. I guess I'll go back to being a cave man...



[:sheytoonak:2]. o O (NOT)

 

[grieve]

Guilty!

So they'll pay the bill and move onto the next court date. Same as always...

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

AMD don't do dirty tactics!AMD4Life!

AMD lies just like the rest of them!

If Intel is guilty of any wrongdoing I hope they gut punished.


Thunderman, why don't you go buy some AMD stock? I hear they are having a sale; steep discount.

 

[chunkymonster]

I really don't see anything wrong with offering rebates and lowering prices to attract more retailers to offer more Intel CPU. Its called competition.

That is a gross over-simplication of the Intel anti-trust issue and truly demonstrates a fundemental lack of understanding of the of the issue as whole.

Also, -1 for posting links regarding the nVidia/ATI pricing article given that it w3as off topic from this thread and another -1 for linking to The Inquirer.

 

[yomamafor1]

I think I need to clarify myself a bit.

What Intel did was wrong, and should be fined for that. It IS illegal to offer rebates to coerce retailers and channels to not stock competitor's product, unless exclusivity deal is signed. It is ALSO illegal to hike prices if the retailers and channels refuse to play along.

However, it is NOT illegal to offer rebates to retailers and channels to purchase a certain amount of products.

 

[yomamafor1]

Also, -1 for posting links regarding the nVidia/ATI pricing article given that it w3as off topic from this thread and another -1 for linking to The Inquirer.

yawn...

 

[Grimmy]

On thing about this, can't retailers refuse what intel has to offer?

And how honest are retailers? Wouldn't other manufacturers like Dell/Sony/HP-Compaq/ect also be hurting AMD for accepting cash/rebates?

So... AMD doesn't offer rebates?

I mean... If a company signed a contract that stated... if you buy AMD products, we will no longer do business with you, sound childish? Or even, we will take you to court, sound absurd?

Or am I missing another point?

 

[the last resort]

yeah flames. WOO

 

[jimmysmitty]

I think I need to clarify myself a bit.

What Intel did was wrong, and should be fined for that. It IS illegal to offer rebates to coerce retailers and channels to not stock competitor's product, unless exclusivity deal is signed. It is ALSO illegal to hike prices if the retailers and channels refuse to play along.

However, it is NOT illegal to offer rebates to retailers and channels to purchase a certain amount of products.

I think its the exclusivity that Dell had with Intel thats getting Intel the most in terms of harm for this. Even though this does happen all the time in other markets when Intel does it it is considered wrong yet Dell is not held responsable at all even though they were helping in doing this so called "harm" to AMD.

I think Dell should be fined as well since they signed a contract. But meh what do I know.

 

[Reynod]

Great news ... but will it really change anything?

 

[jimmysmitty]

^Meh. Intel has already stopped doing whatever they were doing. I still think a lot of AMDs current misery is due to taking the wrong steps and directions.

I mean if it was me, I would have built FABs and ramped the production to help meet the demands that started to build as well as fund my R&D department more while not paying a CEO a butt load more than he is worth.

But hey what do I know?

 

[radnor]

Its also not called exclusivity, because no deal was signed.

This is the main problem. Let them start digging a bit. It was.

 

[yomamafor1]

I think its the exclusivity that Dell had with Intel thats getting Intel the most in terms of harm for this. Even though this does happen all the time in other markets when Intel does it it is considered wrong yet Dell is not held responsable at all even though they were helping in doing this so called "harm" to AMD.

I think Dell should be fined as well since they signed a contract. But meh what do I know.

The problem is, look at what happened to Dell after they went to AMD. AMD simply doesn't have the manufacture capacity to satisfy Dell AND channels. Its one or the other.

I believe Dell went to Intel for a reason, and Intel's so called "illegal" rebate is just one minor reason.

 

[njalterio]

Questionable tactics or not, I wonder how happy the EU would be if Intel just up and left Europe and refused to sell them any processors. Not that this would actually happen, but I hope the EU realizes they need Intel more than Intel needs market share in Europe. I wouldn't be too quick to bite the hand that feeds.

 

[yomamafor1]

This is the main problem. Let them start digging a bit. It was.

If it was, then we shouldn't have this "illegal rebate" debate/ argument/ flame isn't it? Because if the deal was signed, it became legal for channels and OEMs to exclusively offer Intel products.

I think the main problem was that Intel did not sign exclusivity contract with OEMs and channels, yet they use discounts and rebates to lure channels and OEMs to exclusively offer Intel.