• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

EU slaps a record fine on Intel

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Computer chipmaker Intel has been fined a record 1.06bn euros ($1.45bn; £948m) by the European Commission for anti-competitive practices.

It dwarfs the 497m euro fine levied on Microsoft in 2004 for abusing its dominant market position.

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

Anyone else think the EU Folks have a clue about business? I'm beginning to think they do not.
 
BBC NEWS | Business | EU slaps a record fine on Intel

Anyone else think the EU Folks have a clue about business? I'm beginning to think they do not.

So you are all for near monopolies abusing their position to hurt the only opposition they have? I guess you would also be against breaking up Standard oil and AT&T then. Are you sir a communist since you advocate monopolies?

Intel abused its market position by putting huge pressure on sellers and retailers not to stock its competitors products.... if that is not abuse of its market position, then well..
 
So you are all for near monopolies abusing their position to hurt the only opposition they have? I guess you would also be against breaking up Standard oil and AT&T then. Are you sir a communist since you advocate monopolies?

Intel abused its market position by putting huge pressure on sellers and retailers not to stock its competitors products.... if that is not abuse of its market position, then well..

What do Standard Oil, AT&T and Intel have in common?

None of them were monopolies, but the government treated them as such.
 
So you are all for near monopolies abusing their position to hurt the only opposition they have? I guess you would also be against breaking up Standard oil and AT&T then. Are you sir a communist since you advocate monopolies?

Intel abused its market position by putting huge pressure on sellers and retailers not to stock its competitors products.... if that is not abuse of its market position, then well..

No, it played the market and pushed it's superior product aggressively. I knew that the idea of competition was becoming alien to Europeans, but this really highlights why the EU is falling further down in competitiveness. If you don't give your competitors the advantage, you're screwed.

No wonder Eurasia is your future, you guys gave up and are complacent.
 
So you are all for near monopolies abusing their position to hurt the only opposition they have? I guess you would also be against breaking up Standard oil and AT&T then. Are you sir a communist since you advocate monopolies?

Intel abused its market position by putting huge pressure on sellers and retailers not to stock its competitors products.... if that is not abuse of its market position, then well..

I see that you have difficulty with facts and what the definition of monopoly is again? Please share with me which of the following conditions apply to Intel:

Main Entry: monopoly mu-!n@-p(u-)lE
Pronunciation: \ mə-ˈnä-p(ə-)lē \
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural mo·nop·o·lies,
Etymology: Latin monopolium, from Greek monopōlion, from mon- + pōlein to sell
Date: 1534
Results

1. exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action

2. exclusive possession or control

3. a commodity controlled by one party

4. one that has a monopoly
 
I see that you have difficulty with facts and what the definition of monopoly is again? Please share with me which of the following conditions apply to Intel:

Main Entry: monopoly mu-!n@-p(u-)lE
Pronunciation: \ mə-ˈnä-p(ə-)lē \
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural mo·nop·o·lies,
Etymology: Latin monopolium, from Greek monopōlion, from mon- + pōlein to sell
Date: 1534
Results

1. exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action

2. exclusive possession or control

3. a commodity controlled by one party

4. one that has a monopoly

You forgot one:

5. a Board game from Milton Bradly played by evil rich kids.
 
BBC NEWS | Business | EU slaps a record fine on Intel

Anyone else think the EU Folks have a clue about business? I'm beginning to think they do not.

What is most laughable about this asinine decision that can only be enacted by empty headed Socialists in an effort to chase businesses away from the EU is that the COSTS of computers have consistently dropped to levels unheard of 20 years ago.

I paid about $1,500 in about 1986 for an IBM PC with 640K and 20M hard drive and a color monitor and thought I was on the cutting edge at the time. Today I can buy a computer that more resembles a super computer than the PC of yesterday with 2 gigs internal memory, 200 gig hard drive and operation speeds of 2 gigahertz for about $450.00.

The nerve of those damned American Manufacturers to actually make the costs of products CHEAPER for the people of Europe!!

My belief is that the EU will eventually implode from the weight of its own asinine regulations and its asinine leadership who continue to prove that common sense is practically non-existent with Socialists.
:rofl
 
BBC NEWS | Business | EU slaps a record fine on Intel

Anyone else think the EU Folks have a clue about business? I'm beginning to think they do not.

I'm curious to know if you know anything about the case. I've followed it lightly for a few years now Intel clearly abused their market position, and through the course of various investigations (in Germany, Japan, New York, Delaware, and the US at large to name a few other than the EU) has been caught destroying evidence more than once. I'd expect almost every case against Intel to succeed eventually, the EU is just the first to reach a decision.
 
Last edited:
I'm curious to know if you know anything about the case. I've followed it lightly for a few years now Intel clearly abused their market position, and through the course of various investigations (in Germany, Japan, New York, Delaware, and the US at large to name a few other than the EU) has been caught destroying evidence more than once. I'd expect almost every case against Intel to succeed eventually, the EU is just the first to reach a decision.

I admit I didn't read the article but I was just correcting Pete's use of the word monopoly.

It seems Intel was doing similar things that Microsoft has done. :doh

I'm an AMD guy anyway.
 
Which of the above would be legal/illegal if you decided the rules in a capatilistic market? Why?

Paying distribution companies and retailers money so they delay the release of a competitors product.

Paying a company money to not sell a competitors product.

Paying a supplier money to inflate the price or deny components to a competitor.

Collaborating with a competitor to fix prices.

Lowering prices below profitable levels to force less sustainable competitors out of the market.
 
Last edited:
I'm curious to know if you know anything about the case. I've followed it lightly for a few years now Intel clearly abused their market position, and through the course of various investigations (in Germany, Japan, New York, Delaware, and the US at large to name a few other than the EU) has been caught destroying evidence more than once. I'd expect almost every case against Intel to succeed eventually, the EU is just the first to reach a decision.

I've followed it enough to disagree with your assessment.

Intel used it's superior product and market position to gain a larger share of the market through discounts to both consumers and computer manufacturers. I.E. our prices went down.

AMD's products failed to meet the challenge and they lost...

I fail to see what they did that was actually illegal. Unfair by success? Yes, illegal... no I think not.
 
I've followed it enough to disagree with your assessment.

Intel used it's superior product and market position to gain a larger share of the market through discounts to both consumers and computer manufacturers. I.E. our prices went down.

AMD's products failed to meet the challenge and they lost...

I fail to see what they did that was actually illegal. Unfair by success? Yes, illegal... no I think not.

Vich they were paying suppliers to not use AMD products.

Very anti competitive.
 
Vich they were paying suppliers to not use AMD products.

Very anti competitive.

...

And...

Suppliers could chose not to take the money. You only have 2 choices, AMD and Intel. Intel had the better products.

Sorry, but I look at the computing world from a different perspective, same reason I disliked the hit on MS from the EU (even though I am not a fan of MS)

If Intel starts making crap chips the computer world will turn on them. That's that.
 
...

And...

Suppliers could chose not to take the money. You only have 2 choices, AMD and Intel. Intel had the better products.

Sorry, but I look at the computing world from a different perspective, same reason I disliked the hit on MS from the EU (even though I am not a fan of MS)

If Intel starts making crap chips the computer world will turn on them. That's that.

At this time I haven't formulated stuff like this into my philosophy.

Although at times I do think that if AMD is the better of the two then they will eventually prevail.

I like AMD because you get similar power without the Intel cost.
 
Which of the above would be legal/illegal if you decided the rules in a capatilistic market? Why?

Paying distribution companies and retailers money so they delay the release of a competitors product.
That I think is dirty pool.
Paying a company money to not sell a competitors product.
In the world of computers.. not a problem at all with this.
Paying a supplier money to inflate the price or deny components to a competitor.
That's dirty.
Collaborating with a competitor to fix prices.
dirty

Lowering prices below profitable levels to force less sustainable competitors out of the market.
No problem at all with this.

Why? you ask? If that same company then over prices, or produces crap products... competitors with better products WILL arise.

See the 1970's and the US Automobile industry.
 
I've followed it enough to disagree with your assessment.

Intel used it's superior product and market position to gain a larger share of the market through discounts to both consumers and computer manufacturers. I.E. our prices went down.

AMD's products failed to meet the challenge and they lost...

I fail to see what they did that was actually illegal. Unfair by success? Yes, illegal... no I think not.

The antitrust suit is not about pricing - it's about many deals that Intel made with OEM's that run the spectrum from deals that sound like straight up exclusivity contracts to deals that were clearly illegal. My first reaction to the case when I heard about it several years ago was just what yours was - AMD's position is their own damned fault and processor prices are right in line with what manufacturing technology allows. That's not the focus of the suit, though. As the suits dragged on it came to light that Intel took such actions as threatening OEM's with decreased or delayed shipments unless their lineups heavily favored Intel products, and playing one OEM or retailer off another, threatening their business unless they gave unfavorable treatment to AMD. All of this was only possible due to Intel's dominant market position - you can't effectively run an OEM or a computer outlet without stocking Intel, and Intel will only deal with you if you smack AMD.

P.S. - My first post came off more condescending than I had wanted. It's an insanely boring case that I only know about because of the tech blogs I visit. I don't assume a more politically minded person would have any real knowledge of the charges. No offense intended :2razz:
 
Last edited:
No, it played the market and pushed it's superior product aggressively. I knew that the idea of competition was becoming alien to Europeans, but this really highlights why the EU is falling further down in competitiveness. If you don't give your competitors the advantage, you're screwed.

No wonder Eurasia is your future, you guys gave up and are complacent.

Europe is hopeless. Please dont listen to Pro-EU debaters, because unless there euroskeptic, there insane. Why? Because by advocating the union, they advocate a dismantled Europe for a super state with no national identity or heart, no culture, PC policies that destroy the justice system and hurt our freedom of speech, eat away at our civil liberties, immigrants that destroy our society and fuel the already falling social decline of our nations, take the soviereign away from countries and its people, and squabble about pathetic issues and policies between member states while the real issue at hand is quickly slipping away or has become much worse. They refuse to give any real contribution to your efforts to protect the world from terrorists in the ME (This does not include Britain or Turkey) and bear im mind NATO was divised for our security.

Europe has no future, it is politically flawed, divisions burden any real cooperation between member states and there is no hope for it or its members.
 
...

And...

Suppliers could chose not to take the money. You only have 2 choices, AMD and Intel. Intel had the better products.

Sorry, but I look at the computing world from a different perspective, same reason I disliked the hit on MS from the EU (even though I am not a fan of MS)

If Intel starts making crap chips the computer world will turn on them. That's that.

This isn't about the product. This is about Intel trying to force a competitor out of the market with unfair business practices.

As hard as it is for many to admit or understand, even a capitalist market can be manipulated in unfair ways that don't "auto-correct" themselves as many wish to believe. Therefore, pro-active measures must be taken to limit such unfair manipulations.
 
Europe is hopeless. Please dont listen to Pro-EU debaters, because unless there euroskeptic, there insane. Why? Because by advocating the union, they advocate a dismantled Europe for a super state with no national identity or heart, no culture, PC policies that destroy the justice system and hurt our freedom of speech, eat away at our civil liberties, immigrants that destroy our society and fuel the already falling social decline of our nations, take the soviereign away from countries and its people, and squabble about pathetic issues and policies between member states while the real issue at hand is quickly slipping away or has become much worse. They refuse to give any real contribution to your efforts to protect the world from terrorists in the ME (This does not include Britain or Turkey) and bear im mind NATO was divised for our security.

Europe has no future, it is politically flawed, divisions burden any real cooperation between member states and there is no hope for it or its members.

OMG, Kaya just expressed a vision of AmeriKas future with the Liberal Democrats in charge and the steady march to the Community Organization of the American States. :rofl
 
This isn't about the product. This is about Intel trying to force a competitor out of the market with unfair business practices.

As hard as it is for many to admit or understand, even a capitalist market can be manipulated in unfair ways that don't "auto-correct" themselves as many wish to believe. Therefore, pro-active measures must be taken to limit such unfair manipulations.

Without taking a side in this argument; do you think that slapping a $1.45 billion fine on a publicly traded company is a good idea? Do you think this will promote business in the EU and not create the opposite effect by removing the only OTHER supplier of chips?
 
Without taking a side in this argument; do you think that slapping a $1.45 billion fine on a publicly traded company is a good idea? Do you think this will promote business in the EU and not create the opposite effect by removing the only OTHER supplier of chips?
I don't know the details to be in a position to say exactly what punishment should occur. But yes, $1bill+ sounds extreme.
 
No, it played the market and pushed it's superior product aggressively. I knew that the idea of competition was becoming alien to Europeans, but this really highlights why the EU is falling further down in competitiveness. If you don't give your competitors the advantage, you're screwed.

No wonder Eurasia is your future, you guys gave up and are complacent.

No they paid computer makers and sellers to NOT sell any other product but theirs, plus they threatened the same makers and sellers that if they did not agree to the terms then they would not be allowed to sell Intel products. No matter how you twist it around, they engaged in anti competitive behaviour and against the free market principles that you so oh love. If they were allowed to continue with their behaviour then they would have driven AMD and others (yes there are other chip makers) out of business with their practices.

I fully understand your hatred for anything non American and your wish to defend anything American regardless how disgusting it is (torture, rape, murder and genocide included) but in the real world and even in the US, when a company uses methods like what Intel have used and destroys evidence on top of that, then they pay the penalty for doing so.

It amazes me that people like you, a supposed right winger with free market principles would even contemplate to defend any company that uses such practices.. what is next, defending the mob for competing against the police to protect your local greengrocers? Sure they forced you local greengrocer to pay protection money and only accept supplies from their distributors but hey, they kept him safe right?
 
Back
Top Bottom