Intel fined record $1.45 billion in AMD antitrust case
By Thomas Ricker 
posted May 13th 2009 5:32AM
posted May 13th 2009 5:32AM
Intel has harmed millions of European consumers by deliberately acting to keep competitors out of the market for computer chips for many years.Intel was ordered to cease the illegal practices immediately and has three months from the notification of the decision to pay up. Of course, Intel will appeal and this will drag the litigation on for years as did Microsoft. Regardless, we'll bet that AMD, who raised the complaint against Intel back in 2000, will be celebrating come dawn in Sunnyvale.
Update: Intel has issued a formal response to the ruling saying that the commission "is wrong and ignores the reality of a highly competitive microprocessor marketplace," and that its practices have caused, "absolutely zero harm to consumers." Oh, and it will <gasp> appeal the decision. Hurrah for corporate lawyers!
[Via Canada.com]
So what's wrong with offering a rebate in exchange for exclusivity? Who stopped AMD from using the same approach? It's a competitive world, and if a company can't compete based on it's product offerings (AMD), then perhaps they should take a different approach to stake out it's market share.
It's illegal, that's what wrong with it. The logic behind this law is very simple: Once you effectively control a market (Intel's share is about 80%), you can shut out competitors with deals like this and shaft the consumers once you've done so.
AMD offered 1,000,000 free CPUs to an OEM. Obviously that's a killer offer and under normal circumstances no OEM would reject it. The OEM ended up accepting just 160k CPUs to avoid punishment from Intel. At that point it becomes impossible to compete with Intel, no matter how good or cheap your product, because Intel threatens to cause serious financial harm to anyone who does business with AMD.
And the EU is being noncompetitive here—might as well go back to a planned economy.
There are rules, those rules are written down, they are available to be viewed by everybody, if you break the rules you get fined, it's that simple (and yes they did fine EU companies too, siemens for instance).
It's the same as taking dope in sports or speeding on the road, you get caught you get a fine and if you keep by the rules you don't, and in the same way sometimes you/they get away with it too.
~Now follows a politically loaded statement and personal bitching:
And the US has anti-monopoly laws too, except under bush those were less and less pursued, upto the point that the economy collapsed even I'm told :X (note that bush's administration lead that move but it were both sides of the political spectrum that revelled in corruption so you can't blame anything but the decline of politicians self-control as they rolled with the debauchery one and all, and still do largely although they went back to pretending they don't more)
You may have a point, if it weren't for the fact that the main time period for when this issue was considered was from 2000-2004. During that time, AMD was beating the absolute stew out of Intel in both price AND performance. AMD ruled the dual-core 64 bit land for years until Intel came out with the Conroe platform.
Since then, Intel has made a better product. It's not Intel's fault that AMD couldn't keep up. And subsequently, Intel should be rewarded, not punished for their innovation. But the popular notion these days is to chase after the guy on top with the proverbial torch and pitch fork. Because today, success is the new bad guy.
They broke the monopoly rules, this isn't about 'oh we are going to fine someone for being successful' or 'we like AMD so much let's fine intel' or 'oh I like those CPU's from brand X let's fine brand Y'
Perhaps you would use such standards, but that's only showing poor character on your part if that's so heh.
Compare this with the profits Intel made in Europe only during the 3 years periode that they are considering..
This is like 10%..
Crime pays as usual.
back ?
in what universe has the europe ever had a plannified economy ?
Your rewriting of History is funny...
What i could say, hhm.. ROTFLMAO!!
Mhuahaha!! die Intel, DIE! Mhuahahaa!!
we should all be given rebates or the money given to AMD or another
startup to even the playing field as we the consumer have lost out
ohhh Intel, I but your butt will be hurting for weeks after that court date
Interesting fact: this was not in downtown San Jose. I rode by it on my way to lunch; it happened at the AT&T Labs office on River Oaks Place in northern San Jose. I asked one of the employees what had happened and when she told me I didn't believe her.
There were, however, at least 3 firetrucks and another 3 ambulances on the scene. Gogo San Jose emergency response.
Thanks for clearing that up, haha.
wow
Ruling against Intel isn't going to make me purchase some cheap-ass AMD configuration any time soon. I've been burned (no pun intended) by AMD chips in the past. I've been happy in Intel land, and don't plan on going back any time soon. Cheating AMD out of the marketplace is unforgivable, and unnecessary.
"absolutely zero harm to consumers."
While this might be a valid argument in the US (if true), in the EU anti-trust law protects competitors as well as consumers.
"So what's wrong with offering a rebate in exchange for exclusivity? Who stopped AMD from using the same approach? It's a competitive world, and if a company can't compete based on it's product offerings (AMD), then perhaps they should take a different approach to stake out it's market share."
So what's wrong with breaking the rules? By your logic, athletes using steroids should not be punished. Instead their clean competitors should start using steroids if they want to keep up.
I wonder if this was an European company in US forcing a monopoly and hurting customers, would all these people be saying "there's nothing wrong with that, they're just making money". And I don't get how Americans get upset when EU tries to make the free market fair and free. Isn't free market an Amreican thing?
How do you know where all these people hail from? Answer: You don't.
I live in the neighbor of AMD. I heard they had a great party today!
Poor Intel.
Still, AMD sucks.
Wow, lots of Europeans on this site. You seem to tremble at the thought of not being able to buy Intel based technology. And it really bothers all of you when someone puts your 'glorious' EU in its place. You're not as important as you think you are.
Intel has the best technology. You hate that fact. Just like you hate any other American company that dominates their field. Same hate you have for Microsoft, American auto manufacturers, et.al."
Ameican auto makers.....dominating their field?....where have you been lately, Chrysler is about to get bailed out product wise by Fiat....a Eurowussie company by way of Italy......of course we have no sucessfull companies in high tech fields here, Thomson, Phillips, Nokiaa, TomTom, siemens, palstic logic all being from California...ect ect....get over yourself.
wow a lot of money for a firm that is atm experiencing double digits drops in sales and revenue.
I hope that EU does not harm the market place. In the end it is the consumer who will pay for the money Intel have to give EU in form of higher prices on their products. It says that Intel offered some OEM and Media Market exclusivity deals, but how did they actually do it businesswise would be interesting to know. Did they offer additional discount or additional marketing budget or other form at kick back. How did Intel control the AMD/Intel ratio on the products sold by OEM's that were not on a exclusivity deal ?
This is silly. The basic logic is that once you get to a certain size as a company, you are suddenly switched to a different set of standards. Intel is violating the law by paying HP to use Intel processors, but Microsoft isn't violating the law by paying Rockstar to make GTA4 exclusive content for their product?
"FINISH HIM!"
I think people also forget that Intel uses something called MDF's (Marketing Development Funds) to keep the OEM's at bay. That is why when you see a comercial to a product featuring an Intel cpu, you see their logo. Intel used this approach to make it impossible for OEM to use AMD products. The rebates, in forms of MDF's, basically increase the margin a company can have in a single product. I know how this works, because other companies do it. The difference is that none of them is in a position of doing it in such a large scale that is basically killing competition, as Intel does.
IMHO: EU Competition Commission is not just an evil machine that tries to push money into EU pockets. It is what the anti-trust should be: someone who controls the fairness of the market, and, if Intel is actually guilty (thing that is proven by facts), it deserves to be charged for it, just like American anti-trust attempted to do with Microsoft in 2000 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft#1995.E2.80.932005:_Internet_and_legal_issues ). I don't think I need to remind anybody that the extreme freedom of American markets brought to the current financial crisis. Things like that the EU is trying to avoid by making the market a little bit more controlled and the EU charges against Microsoft first and Intel now have to be seen in this context too.
Besides, EU has welfare state, that is unfortunately missing in the USA, that is a way to redistribute money amongst poorest parts of the people and includes public health care, public education (up to university level and more) and professional development. I'm talking about this because the money Intel is supposed to give to the EU will flow into this redistribution of wealth.
that's why f**** intel was 6 months in front of AMD technology(motherboards-manufactures).
that's why f**** intel was 6 months in front of AMD technology(motherboards-manufactures).
that's why f**** intel was 6 months in front of AMD technology(motherboards-manufactures).