Intel fined $1.45 Billion for European Anti Trust 'Market Abuse'

First it was Microsoft with 497 million Euro fine in 2004 and now it is Intel's turn. Intel are appealing the decision.

BBC NEWS | Business | EU slaps a record fine on Intel

Find more posts tagged with

Free for TechExams community: Cybersecurity salary guide

Compare cert salaries and plan your next career move

Button

Comments

nel

Kaminsky wrote: »

First it was Microsoft with 497 million Euro fine in 2004 and now it is Intel's turn. Intel are appealing the decision.

BBC NEWS | Business | EU slaps a record fine on Intel

Im sure this will line the pockets of EU ministers for a while with even crazier expenses, job roles and wasting money than they already have!

ElvisG

If I was Intel I would tell EU to suck it. Then I would not allow any Intel product to be sold in Europe. Let's see how long they last with any new processors.

bertieb

nel wrote:

I'm sure this will line the pockets of EU ministers for a while with even crazier expenses, job roles and wasting money than they already have!

Does this mean I have to pay back the £1.2b I claimed on expenses to have a gardener de-weed my patio? Sorry, was dreaming then and though I worked for the UK government.

But yes, surely those EU ministers are gonna have one heck of a party now

nel

bertieb wrote: »

Does this mean I have to pay back the £1.2b I claimed on expenses to have a gardener de-weed my patio? Sorry, was dreaming then and though I worked for the UK government.

But yes, surely those EU ministers are gonna have one heck of a party now

Yes it does...and all those receipts for those seedy clubs you claimed back too

If I was Intel I would tell EU to suck it. Then I would not allow any Intel product to be sold in Europe. Let's see how long they last with any new processors.

Thats pretty unrealistic to say the least but welcome to our "world" of the EU barmy army!

genXrcist

There's no way for these companies to win! If they lower their prices they're squeezing out the little guy. If they raise their prices they are participating in price gouging and if they keep their prices static they are hit for price collusion!

What a joke.

jibbajabba

They made over $5bn profit last year so it might sting a bit but hardly hurts. Although they did announce job cuts which I am not sure is related.

Forsaken_GA

ElvisG wrote: »

If I was Intel I would tell EU to suck it. Then I would not allow any Intel product to be sold in Europe. Let's see how long they last with any new processors.

It'll cost them less to pay the fine than it would to stop supplying the region and let a competitor gain market share by filling the void.

genXrcist

This isn't about how much it hurts them but about whether or not someone has the right to be successful. Is it really impossible to be as successful as Microsoft is without cheating in some sort of way? That's what they're saying here by fining Intel/Microsoft.

If you make USD$100,000/yr and someone said to you "You're too successful, you must have trampled on people to get where you are. Give me $1000." would that be ok?

Oh wait, that's exactly what a progressive income tax system is...

cnfuzzd

genXrcist wrote: »

This isn't about how much it hurts them but about whether or not someone has the right to be successful. Is it really impossible to be as successful as Microsoft is without cheating in some sort of way? That's what they're saying here by fining Intel/Microsoft.

If you make USD$100,000/yr and someone said to you "You're too successful, you must have trampled on people to get where you are. Give me $1000." would that be ok?

Oh wait, that's exactly what a progressive income tax system is...

if you read the article, thats kind of exactly what they are not accusing intel of doing.

john

Ahriakin

Seriously folks, read the article at least before commenting. This is not about pricing competitively or incentives to buy more of their product it is about actively paying (by rebates or directly) for vendors to NOT use competitors products. That is very clearly anti competitive, huge difference.

dynamik

Ahriakin wrote: »

Seriously folks, read the article at least before commenting.

Nah, between the people making assumptions and the people correcting them, I think I've got the gist of it. Thanks to everyone for saving me some time

Slowhand

I'm thinking this,

The Commission said that personal computer makers Acer, Dell, HP, Lenovo and NEC had all been given hidden rebates if they only used Intel chips.

and this,

It also found that Media Saturn, which owns Europe's biggest consumer electronics retailer Media Markt, had been given money so that it would only sell computers containing Intel chips.

are the less-than-gray areas that the EU is fining Intel for. Regardless of the state of AMD's sales, regardless of what you might think of the EU or Intel's business practices, those actions are legally questionable and are certainly not conducive to a free market. (Then again, back-alley deals and secret partnerships rarely are.)

If Intel were simply selling more chips than AMD and there was nothing to it more than one manufacturer doing better than the other, it would be ridiculous to say that there's some need to fine Intel or punish them. Since this isn't the case, and Intel did allegedly give hidden incentives to retailers and computer manufacturers that sold only their chips, the fine is understandable. . . high, but understandable.

genXrcist

Ahriakin wrote: »

Seriously folks, read the article at least before commenting. This is not about pricing competitively or incentives to buy more of their product it is about actively paying (by rebates or directly) for vendors to NOT use competitors products. That is very clearly anti competitive, huge difference.

By providing incentives for customers to NOT purchase a competitor's product are they not effectively raising their prices?

If I was the competitor I'd say "Awesome. They just made themselves more expensive."

Take a look at this paragraph:
"It is a major decision that shows the Commission is serious about curtailing abusive behaviour of dominant companies, especially in the high-tech sector."

Should read: "It is a major decision that shows the Commission is serious about curtailing abusive behaviour of companies with Deep Pockets, especially in the high-tech sector. Please note that the vendors who accepted these payments from Intel were in no way punished and in we sympathize with these poor, defenseless victims of capitalism."

HeroPsycho

genXrcist wrote: »

If you make USD$100,000/yr and someone said to you "You're too successful, you must have trampled on people to get where you are. Give me $1000." would that be ok?

Oh wait, that's exactly what a progressive income tax system is...

Let's not carried away. A progressive income tax system is for the good of everyone in a mostly market economy, including those who pay more taxes, since it allows the lower classes money to buy goods the richer people are producing, thereby producing a market for the rich to sell goods and jobs for the middle and lower classes. We tried flatter income tax rates in our history, and it lead to statification of wealth which resulted in recessions and depressions. Crap the EU is pulling doesn't help anyone.

WanBoy67

I can only say that mysteriously AMD processors disappeared for nearly 3 months completely off Dell's website about a year or 2 ago. When they reappeared it was in a far less range of computers. I did think something was up at the time, as you could easily buy either AMD or Intel processor prior to that. AMD were undercutting Intel prices too.

A monopoly flexes it muscle. Shocking.