EU expected to rule against Intel in AMD antitrust case: Microsoft points, afraid to laugh
By Thomas Ricker 
posted May 11th 2009 3:57AM
posted May 11th 2009 3:57AM
There are many tried and true methods for beating your competition in the free-market. Product innovation seems to work as does a proprietary ecosystem of peripherals, media, and services that keep customers locked-in for life. Or you can take Intel's approach: pay computer makers and retailers "to postpone or cancel" products containing CPUs from AMD, Intel's chief rival. That's the allegation it faces in the EU which, according to Reuters, has completed its antitrust investigation and is preparing to announce its decision on Wednesday. According to Reuters' sources, the European Commission will fine Intel for the violations discovered over the last eight years and order changes to Intel's business practices. It remains to be seen if the related fine exceeds the $655 million levied against Microsoft in 2004. But given the EU's distaste for anti-competitive practices, we're not expecting Intel to get off easy -- self-proclaimed "rock star" status or not.
never ending war
Terrorism, Drugs, Crime, and Poverty.
For once, I side with AMD and say GOOD JOB
You know, I'm not huge on the EU's brand of competition law, but Intel deserves to burn here.
Intel's practices are blatantly anticompetitive in many, many ways.
For example, Intel refuses to license QPI (the Nehalem bus) to NVIDIA, which means that the only chipset for Intel's Core i7 CPU is made by Intel.
Intel restricts certain platform functionality (e.g. AMT) to systems that use Intel network controllers, rather than exposing this functionality in a generic way so that manufacturers can choose to use cheaper Broadcom or Realtek network controllers.
Intel's new CPU, the i5, will only have a DMI bus, which means that it can only be used with Intel ICH-series I/O hubs (rather than, say, NVIDIA chipsets).
The bottom line is that Intel is doing everything it can to prevent chipset manufacturers (NVIDIA in particular) from developing chipsets for Nehalem-based CPUs. And it's doing everything that it can to push Intel NICs on hardware manufacturers.
I think that Intel NICs and Chipsets are good. But the fact is that Intel shouldn't be allowed to use its dominant position in CPUs to attempt to prevent competition in the chipset market. NVIDIA's chipsets have much better graphics performance than Intel chipsets (which is one reason Apple is using them), but they won't be an option with Intel's next-generation platforms if Intel continues down this path. That's bad for NVIDIA and it's bad for customers.
All good points, and that really just scratches the surface of all the anti-competitive stuff Intel has done, and continues to do. "Centrino" is the very definition of monopolistic abuse, and certainly a huge part of why Intel should lose.
Basically, we're well past the point where Intel should be forced to split up. Instead, they keep expanding into new markets, and Nvidia will likely die in a few years as a result. Between Intel making (and forcing partners to use) their own GPUs, and AMD/ATI on the other side trying to keep up, Nvidia really doesn't have a chance.
Very good points....I couldn't have said it better myself. I think Intel deserves a hefty fine on this. AMD is practially out of business because of it. I'm sure my next custom built PC will be AMD. You have my support AMD!
This makes me feel kinda good for buying into AMD.
The money should go to AMD.
Wooo! AMD
Intel and microsoft need out customer far more than we need to use their projects over linux or AMD.
Yes, I did just press the wrong reply button.
@fanman: You should just edit your post...ohhh...
This is all going according to the plans of the European Commission to drive Europe into a new Dark Age. First was to get rid of Microsoft, then Intel. The next step is to get rid of everyone else
I'm not saying Microsoft or Intel didn't deserve it, but the EU is going to regret it when they have to go back to using abbacuses and quail feathers when all the technology companies stop doing business in Europe. I don't think any one will want to travel there for the next 500 years. That's about how long the last Dark Age lasted.
So, what's your solution to the problem? Just turn a blind eye? If you are going to do bad things then don't be surprised if you are punished for it. If corrupt businesses choose not to do business in the EU because they might be fined then that's fine by me.
I also don't understand this attitude that Europe "needs" the likes of Microsoft or Intel. We don't, thanks very much.
The fact that you think that intel and microsoft will actually stop selling their products in the massive marketplace and the huge numbers of customers in europe is actually pretty hilarious
Quite the opposite. You need to be quite vigilant. Not just of corporations or individuals, but also of the people who you're trusting to protect you. Let's take the Microsoft case as an example. If you don't want it to include a web browser or media player in its OS, fine. But don't single out one company when another does the same exact thing. Treat them with the same regard. Otherwise, you give the other company too much power and you'll be in the same boat again.
You also don't want the governing body to make laws so vague that you'll break them regardless of how careful you are. If you haven't read the linked article, it says that the EC has proposed a law that will make companies liable for errors in their code. Unfortunately, humans are required to write the code, and as you should be well aware of, humans aren't perfect. There will never be a thing as rock solid code. Regardless of how solid you write it, over time it will it will crumble just like everything else. That will mean that competition will ease up because not all companies will be able to afford the new cost of having to use humans. And if you lose enough competition, you'll end up in virtually a dictatorship. And if you thought having to use Windows was bad, just wait until the EC tells you what toilet paper you can use or how much food you get for a week. What it looks like to an outside observer is, you're going from being able to choose what you want with your wallet to having someone telling you what you can do with your wallet. Just because you don't like what you "need," doesn't mean you don't need it.
Think of it this way; you need a web browser just like your body needs calcium. The most common way to get it is to drink milk. That's not the only way to get calcium, which is good because in this scenario you're lactose intolerant. So you're with a tiny group that eats sardines instead, while slightly larger group prefer to drink soy milk. Now the government says the milk has an unfair "monopoly" on calcium, and orders them to sell milk with calcium. Now the people who like milk are SOL if they want to drink milk because they like it and to get calcium UNLESS they want to add the calcium back in. Sure, now instead of having to get the calcium from cows, they can add whatever calcium they want. But how many people do you think care about where their calcium comes from as long as they can get it? Do you think people want choice or convenience? Of course it doesn't matter because the decision was made for them and apparently they want choice even though they actually wanted the convenience. So they move to soy milk, creating the same problem as before, but now it's soy milk that has a disproportionate share of the market. And as far as you're concerned you don't need milk, so the government says that soy milk has to take the calcium out of its product. Now what are you going to do? Are you going to continue one company at a time until no one has calcium in its product? Make a blanketed rule saying nothing can have calcium in it? Or reverse the court cases against milk and soy milk, making the rulings a complete waste of time and money now that everyone is equal again? We don't know what will happen because you haven't even gotten this far yet in the scenario; you're still at the calcium-less milk stage. But now the government says if any product that contains calcium causes health problems, then they will be charged with a crime. How long do you think you'll be able to buy sardines before all the companies that sell them are no longer in business? How long before milk and soy milk pull out of Europe because they cannot make a profit because the EC keep hitting them with criminal charges for all the health problems they cause? Now the only place to get calcium is from the government, but it will likely cause the most health problems of all.
You may not "want" the likes of Microsoft or Intel, but you do need them. Competition lowers prices; even when the competition isn't expected to do much (Just look at the horse the won this year's Kentucky Derby). The EC just needs to make laws that keep any company from gaining too much market, while letting others grow. But if that law that I linked to passes, the little guys with wither and die, and the big guys WILL stop doing business in Europe. That's why I said Europe is headed to another Dark Age. I only mentioned the Microsoft case to better illustrate that point. Microsoft -> Intel -> Any software or hardware -> Dark Ages
While hardware isn't mentioned in the proposed law, I include it because you can't use computer hardware without drivers, which is nothing more than software. And drivers can cause security problems, so Intel, along with all other hardware manufacturers, will be affected by the law if passed.
I agree about the microsoft example, if they want to bundle windows media player or internet explorer i dont see what the problem is, even if they should at least allow to uninstal them. I never used either, firefox and vlc are mor efficient. But in this case what intel has done is much worse and they deserve what happens to them. The laws you talk about may seem too abusive to you but they are necessary. Killing competition brings no competition (duh), and thats the worst case possible for the end consumers
Oh and i was speaking about the antitrust laws related to this case, the other project law you are talking about will never be voted since they couldnt be applicated. Thats why its called a project
sorry for the double post
At the end of the day regardless of what the Commission proposes, the Member States and their governments have the final word. If something bad gets passed through it's their fault as much as it is everyone's else. The EU legislation is intentionally vague because it's not national legislation, it's just guidelines for national legislation.
A agree this proposal is pretty wired but I think what they are trying to do is extend security support for software and give consumers the possibility to sue companies that sell to them or provide them with software that contains malware or intentional security holes. Not a bad idea as long as it is implemented properly.
asdf
I wonder if it's possible for Intel to die...
So much money wasted harassing American companies for "anti-competitive" BS when it could have been used to say help the supposed "victims" get a leg up, but no, it's better to waste the money than use for good
I think if Intel has extra cash to bribe other companies to cancel their AMD products then they have the extra money to pay AMD for their losses.
You American advocate for economic liberalism, for the free market and the laissez faire.
Now that's fine, but you cannot disagree when a European institution works its ass off to protect THE ONE THING your whole model is based on Perfect competition. (and which is btw a myth which explain how your model sucks..)
Without perfect competition economic liberalism is crap.
It leads to the situation of Microsoft in the late 90's : 95%marketshare, control over the clients who could NOT switch, close to 0 innovation for 10 years and the Hugest pile of money in the History of Capitalism.
If I recall right you used to have the kind of trial in the US of A, back in the days before Bush Jr.
funnily enough, this is a ruling against an American company for actions taken against an American company.... but who does the money go to? Oh, that's right, the EU. They sure do have the noblest of intentions, using their court system to take money from foreign businesses...
The Austrian economists never depended upon "perfect competition," it's the Friedman and Keynesian crowd who do which is why the EU court made this ruling based on "anti-competitive" behavior. Statists seem to think they know the perfect amount of market share a company should have.
I think John is confused, the EU can only fine the European operations, their leaving intels US operations to the DOJ. Intel already settled in Japan, was unable to do so in europe and it looks like the Obama administration is about to hop on the bandwagon. it certainly looks like its not a good time to be either a intel exec, or employee. But i guess you've been enjoying the over priced cpu prices for the last five years.
Intel can bite my shiny metal ass
....if I had a shint metal ass
and once again a witty post is ruined by lack of an edit button
"a witty post"?
I think your wit sensor is broken.
You mean another witty post ruined by a non-witty poster.
And it's no longer witty regardless if you refer to your own post as witty.
Null and void and fail.
Now we can all buy AMD processors and feel like Rogues and Rebels again.
DOWN WITH THE CORPORATE MONSTER!!
I loved the ghost in the shell laughing man movie
This money isn't going to AMD. And Microsoft's money isn't going to software developers either. This lines the EU's pockets so they can afford to sue the next US company. You don't see them lining up to sue Toyota, of Fujitsu, let alone, (oh no!) a EU company? They wouldn't dare levy this kind of fine against an EU company. They'd be thrown out of office, or the EU would collapse.
This is legal money making - that is not helping a single of the victim companies. The US needs to start dragging SAP and other EU companies into court and drag a few billion out of them and give the EU a taste of its own medicine. The cause may be just in some of these instances, but the execution is pure grand theft. And when AMD goes under, you'll ask yourself what happened to the hundreds of millions that Intel paid, and you'll find that in the huge houses and huge cars driven by the EU reps.
Grand theft...
What I don't get is why they are only focusing on Intel? Intel is only part half the perpetrator in each transgression.
When Intel paid company foo to cancel/delay and/or otherwise _BRIBE_ them to do things to negatively impact AMD, company foo is also at fault. Perhaps even moreso in my mind. If no one takes the bribe, or better yet, reports the briber, to the appropriate governing body they will get their 'pee pee whacked' and eventually stop doing it.
I fully support Intel getting economically raped for the badness they are doing. But I believe these other companies should get to experience similar badness as well.
I also agree that were Intel not a ripe fruit w/deep pockets the EU wouldn't bother, regardless of how egregious their offenses. Since the money goes to the EU, they are just looking to get paid.
Intel is more accountable than the companies it was dealing with because:
A) Most of the time, the companies were not in a position to refuse or really even negotiate with Intel because a large portion of their product lines depended on Intel parts, which required them to maintain an amicable relationship with Intel.
B) Each company is only a fraction of Intel's sales (and we know EU is going for big $$$)