Intel Fined $1.45bn by European Union

[modeps]

Intel has been fined a whopping 1.45 billion dollars due to anti-competitive behavior in the European Union. Marketwatch (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/text-of-european-commission-statement-on-intel):

On Wednesday the European Commission fined Intel Corp. 1.06 billion euros ($1.45 billion), for anti-competitive behavior.

The Commission charged that Intel /quotes/comstock/15*!intc/quotes/nls/intc (INTC 15.19, -0.02, -0.13%) made illegal payments to manufacturers and retailers to gain preferential treatment for computers using its chips. See related story.

Excerpts from the European Commission's statement Wednesday regarding its fine of Intel for anti-competitive behavior follows:

The European Commission has imposed a fine of €1 060 000 000 on Intel Corporation for violating EC Treaty antitrust rules on the abuse of a dominant market position (Article 82) by engaging in illegal anticompetitive practices to exclude competitors from the market for computer chips called x86 central processing units (CPUs).

That is a lot of money.

[Demo_Boy]

Well that will get tied up in appeals forever.

Nice career money for lawyers though.

[brandonjclark]

Meh, the E.U. will sue anyone for anything. They sued Microsoft for putting Windows Media Player in their OS! That's friggin' ridiculous.

Now Microsoft has to put out this Live Messenger and other things that were previously bundled.

The E.U. seems like the NAACP.

[Greeble]

I'm glad intel got fined for this, it is some shady shit they pull with exclusivity contracts. But the amount of the fine seems a bit absurd.

[brandonjclark]

I'm glad intel got fined for this, it is some shady shit they pull with exclusivity contracts. But the amount of the fine seems a bit absurd.

Where are you from? The U.S.?

Why would you be glad an American corporation got sued by the E.U for this amount? That's money {if it's ever paid} that will leave this country, and that's never a good thing unless it's true trade.

[Ulysses]

Well if they were actually paying people to not buy AMD, then this fine is ok. As for Windows and WMP and IE, the EU sees them as a monopoly, and monopolies have to play a bit differently than everyone else.

[Fartacus]

Microsoft and Intel should just pull out of the European market entirely.

[Nimos]

Microsoft and Intel should just pull out of the European market entirely.

Yeah ! and lose a market share 2x that of the US, they can totally afford that

[SwitchBlade_Jax]

personally, I think if they fine Intel, the companies that took the money are just as guilty, they should have to payback what they got out of the deal. It takes two to Tango

[Greeble]

Where are you from? The U.S.?

Why would you be glad an American corporation got sued by the E.U for this amount? That's money {if it's ever paid} that will leave this country, and that's never a good thing unless it's true trade.

I am from the US, and as I said, I do think Intel should be punished, but not for that "absurd" amount. That fine is way to high. But yeah their exclusivity contracts really hurt AMD and were the reason why it took so long for Athlons to come to Dell and etc. And AMD is another american company. I'd prefer Intel having to pay the fine in US court but the bigger business usually always wins in US court. (Or is killed by politics, the MS monopoly trial was basically dropped when Bush W. came to office)

[Qoz]

We don't know the economics behind it. The fine has to sting compared to the profits they made due to shady dealings. Or else companies will just abuse the law anyway, because the money earned is way more than the fines.

This is not about US vs. EU. It is about the consumers getting screwed because companies manipulate the market. In EU Microsoft is an OS monopoly. They have a huge influence on the market due to this fact, and they need to play nice. AMD made a very nice Athlon CPU, but had difficulties getting the superior product to the consumers.

The strategy of Microsoft seem to be, to slowly introduce/integrate features with windows, so competitors have a hard time surviving. They do this ALL the time, doing special protocols and DLL's that only MS programs can use. For example DirectX is a huge bonus for MS as no other OS can emulate it well.

I hear people all the time saying how they like messenger and mediaplayer and why should we care about this? The problem is when all competitors have died and we are left with no options to choose. Then MS could just relax and not innovate anymore, because everyone is forced to use their OS and whatever come along, due to applications being tied too much into special standards. A monopoly will always hurt the consumers in the long run, so to do nothing is like peeing in your pants to feel warm.

[PopoWRX]

We don't know the economics behind it. The fine has to sting compared to the profits they made due to shady dealings. Or else companies will just abuse the law anyway, because the money earned is way more than the fines.

This is not about US vs. EU. It is about the consumers getting screwed because companies manipulate the market. In EU Microsoft is an OS monopoly. They have a huge influence on the market due to this fact, and they need to play nice. AMD made a very nice Athlon CPU, but had difficulties getting the superior product to the consumers.

The strategy of Microsoft seem to be, to slowly introduce/integrate features with windows, so competitors have a hard time surviving. They do this ALL the time, doing special protocols and DLL's that only MS programs can use. For example DirectX is a huge bonus for MS as no other OS can emulate it well.

I hear people all the time saying how they like messenger and mediaplayer and why should we care about this? The problem is when all competitors have died and we are left with no options to choose. Then MS could just relax and not innovate anymore, because everyone is forced to use their OS and whatever come along, due to applications being tied too much into special standards. A monopoly will always hurt the consumers in the long run, so to do nothing is like peeing in your pants to feel warm.

Yea. Definitely need competitors like Mozilla and the like to keep MS on their toes. Having those innate programs is really useful for the average PC user but ultimately, like you said, can stifle innovation if not carefully monitored.

[brandonjclark]

... so to do nothing is like peeing in your pants to feel warm.

That's a strange way to end your argument, but allow me to retort.

Monopolies are NOT always harmful to the consumer, and in fact bring real benefits, which is why the US goverment allows them in certain situations. (electric company)

Microsoft should be allowed to put whatever fucking software they want in the product and sell it. That's not stopping Joe dumbass from downloading Realplayer (ugh) or Quicktime or WinAMP or any of the other THOUSANDS of options out there.

And Microsoft is NOT a monopoly, as anyone in the world could buy an Apple or download for free one of the THOUSANDS of Linux distros out there.

They sell a product, and if you don't like it, there are other options. Hence, not a monopoly.

"But those

[Qoz]

Well.. a matter of definition I guess.
I don't think you fully realize the magnitude of MS' influence.

Many companies investigate the option of having other OS, but it is just not feasible to educate the entire staff in Linux. As windows standards are so widespread people need to have it in order to communicate and be productive. They have a monopoly in the sense, that if you need to run the programs compatible, then you need the OS.

Comparing to electricity - you could also go down and buy a power generator running on oil instead. It's an option, but in real life it is not. The same for most companies I ever worked for as an IT Specialist. Companies REALLY want to have options, but the options are just not something that will be productive for the company.

[brandonjclark]

Well.. a matter of definition I guess.
I don't think you fully realize the magnitude of MS' influence.

Many companies investigate the option of having other OS, but it is just not feasible to educate the entire staff in Linux. As windows standards are so widespread people need to have it in order to communicate and be productive. They have a monopoly in the sense, that if you need to run the programs compatible, then you need the OS.

Comparing to electricity - you could also go down and buy a power generator running on oil instead. It's an option, but in real life it is not. The same for most companies I ever worked for as an IT Specialist. Companies REALLY want to have options, but the options are just not something that will be productive for the company.

Actually, I know more about Microsoft's influence in the world than 99.999% of all people on this planet, as I'm a Microsoft Systems Administrator with several certifications.

I've also worked in a MAC-only design studio, and they got along just fine without Microsoft products.

You have to ask yourself why Microsoft is so widespread. Yes, it's partly due to the licensing thing, but also because early on they were the best OS around, and still are IMO.

As far as training goes, it's a lot less expensive to train your staff in using Linux than it is to pay for Microsoft's licensing fees. Trust me.

[drakkarim]

this is all retarded, why aren't governments ass raping apple for all the exclusivity in their crap.

next the bitches will be forcing microsoft to bundle another OS with its OS's and Intel to incorporate all AMD instructions with their processors (and pay AMD royalties on top).

[brandonjclark]

this is all retarded, why aren't governments ass raping apple for all the exclusivity in their crap.

I'll tell you why.....

Money.

Laws are so overwritten in this day in age that anyone with a pencil and paper can manufacture a good reason why someone else owes them money.

It makes me fucking sick.

[sticky]

I'll tell you why.....

Money.

Laws are so overwritten in this day in age that anyone with a pencil and paper can manufacture a good reason why someone else owes them money.

It makes me fucking sick.

The EU is just swinging their nuts. How can the hypocrites go after Intel when they allow De Beers in Britain to lie, rape, pillage, and steal to maintain their diamond monopoly?

[teksama]

Waiting for EU to sue me .....

[SwitchBlade_Jax]

Here's what they can do, let all PCs/Macs be shipped to market with dual booting for both OS's! YAY, everyone gets everything for freeeeeeeeeeee! lol

[drakkarim]

I'll tell you why.....

Money.

Laws are so overwritten in this day in age that anyone with a pencil and paper can manufacture a good reason why someone else owes them money.

It makes me fucking sick.

that's what i mean, since its only about money and not about pretending to uphold some laws you'd think they'd go after apple too, since these days aren't their coffers fuller than intels/microsoft's?

or does popularity not translating directly to apple's bottom line.

[Chimpbot]

that's what i mean, since its only about money and not about pretending to uphold some laws you'd think they'd go after apple too, since these days aren't their coffers fuller than intels/microsoft's?

or does popularity not translating directly to apple's bottom line.

Apple's popularity has certainly increased, but their market share is still miniscule when compared to Microsoft's.

[Qoz]

There is a BIG difference!

Apple is NOT a huge monopoly.

Windows can support almost everything Apple computers can, as programs are mostly in Win-versions, games are primarily for Windows etc.

It's not the same the other way around, as when you choose an Apple, you automatically dont' have the option of using all the programs only running on Windows. Apple has been de-creasing this difference, but it is still there.

With .NET, DirectX and all the dll's with special MS standards, windows will still have alot of things unique for Windows, because it is easier for developers to just go Win-only.

It is about options. In a perfect world the OS should primarily be a framework for things to run stable, and every feature would be added like an add-on hooking into the system with well defined standards. Then developers could make a competing product supporting these standards. Of course MS doesn't want that, because they would quicly loose the monopoly they have, and the US and EU, would probably kill off the company, if they forced them. So they focus on minor things where MS is pushing a bit too far - like Mediaplayer, the browser.

MS is starting to do antivirus for free. If they develop this further, then we will have no external antivirus products in 4 years. Some people will like the idea of not paying, but in the long run, you totally remove the incentive for MS to keep innovating the product, if there is no competition. And competitors will not dare to start a company and introduce an AV product to compete with MS' crappy version, because they know that MS will just screw them over on weird protocols/system access, and probably just make their own a little better.

When someone has control of a market, then it is bad for the consumer in the long run. We like MS right now, because they are giving us free OS (beta, not cracking hard on pirates) with cool free stuff (MSN, Outlook, AV, Firewall etc.), and they are doing this because they WANT to keep their monopoly. They are slowly moving the boundries of what is considered abuse and they are slowly using their power in the market by slightly increasing the piracy-effort through WGA.

They know that people don't go crazy over small changes. People hardly notice it - they get used to it being the way it is. If MS pulled this WGA 10 years ago, then people would have gotten really mad. That is why I like EU for taking these hard decisions even though the abuse seem miniscule, because you need to draw the line somewhere.