I'm with you on the free press. It's the newspapers I can't stand - Tom Stoppard
|
|
|
EU Commission publishes Intel findings
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION (EC) has upped the ante in its PR war against Intel by publishing a non-confidential version of its ruling alleging that the x86 chip giant broke EC Treaty antitrust rules and abused its dominant position in the market.
The move came in response to Intel’s accusation that the Commission’s decision against it was flawed and that it lacked the evidence to prove that the processor manufacturer had attempted to drive arch-rival AMD from the market by engaging in unfair practices.
But the EC has now outlined two kinds of illegal activity that it claims Intel engaged in – conditional rebates and so-called naked restrictions – and how it sought to conceal its actions as it began recognising the rising threat posed by AMD. This threat became apparent when it realised that customers were actively considering whether to switch vendors, the EC decision said.
The Commission claimed that Intel provided the conditional rebates to computer manufacturers ranging from HP and Dell to Lenovo between October 2002 and December 2007. They were also given to Europe’s largest PC retailer, Media Saturn Holding, between October 2002 and December 2007, the EC alleged.
An example of such activity was noted in an internal presentation at Dell dated February 2003. It was suggested that if the PC maker switched any part of its CPU supplies from Intel to AMD, Intel’s retaliation “could be severe and prolonged with impact to all LOBs [Lines of Business]”.
Naked restrictions, meanwhile, refer to measures aimed at preventing or delaying the launch of computers that are based on competing products. The Commission claimed that it had uncovered such activity in the period between November 2004 and May 2005 in relation to the same three computer manufacturers.
But such actions, it alleged, “harmed consumers throughout the EEA".
"By undermining its competitors’ ability to compete on the merits of their products, Intel’s actions undermined competition, reduced consumer choice and hindered innovation," said the Commission. µ
Share this:
Share
Well, WM, exactly because of this, it is NOT plainly clear Intel has been doing anything illegal. When they show me the evidence, I will believe, but till then... And when it comes to Pentium Pro, each technology company has its share of product problems. I have been through this pain myself, but it would be shortsighted not to use their current products because of something that happened over 10 years ago. With this philosophy, you should be using chinese Abacus, because that's the only one without faulty product out there.
I really have a feeling ignorants from EU are on some kind of crusade against big companies, that doesn't always have solid foundation. Hope the "initiative" to control all internet traffic will not be similarly successful.
Havent you all figured it out yet? The European parlaiment just wants "easy money" again for their own sake. They have the habit of sueing the big companies where all the moneys at, MS, intel... and all the fines will be vanishing in those politicians pockets off course. We as ordinary citizens of the EU wont see a dime of it or in or taxes.The EU, a bunch of criminals as all politicians are.
There is more detailed evidence that the EU has but because of privacy reasons they do not want to release it.
It is plainly clear that Intel has been doing this stuff for years now. I have been Intel free since 2002. I got burned with the whole Pentium Pro Overdrive chip fiasco.
Go read the book Only the Paranoid survive. There is two versions one by former CEO Andy Grove, and the other by Tim Jackson.
Marty is not referring to whether the accused behavior is illegal or not, but rather if the "evidence" provided is sufficient to prove Intel did engage in illegal activities. For example, if the EC had in its possession transcripts of negotiations where Intel threatened Dell and others, that would be substantial proof. However, an internal presentation found at a client company is not sufficient evidence on its own. Who wrote it? Who was the presentation directed towards? What prompted its creation? Are there direct ties to Intel, or was it just speculative?
These kinds of things must be investigated so that the EC's case is based on solid -- not flimsy and circumstantial -- evidence. Intel should be given the same kind of rights as you would expect for yourself, in a court of law.
I think the fact that Dell's internal presentation showed that they took Intel's threats seriously enough to refuse to stock competing parts based on their merit.
Dont defend anti-competitve behavior (from either side). I dont want a return to the days where you payed thousands for slow PC's.
BTW - if you stop beating someone up when the cops see you doing it, you are still guilty :)
I don't see how an "information" given in Dell's internal presentation is a proof for Intel acting in a certain way. If I put together a presentation saying half of the EC people are lunatics that should be put into mental institution, and present it to my family, nobody will take this very seriously. Why with Intel then? Just because they are big bad chipzilla? To be honest, I am much more concerned with what EC and EU institutions are doing, than with what Intel or Microsoft is...
But iNTEL said they didn't do any of that - although they stopped immediately not doing that when the ruling was handed down to comply. So they are innocent, obviously, if they said they didn't, but they would stop not doing it, how could they possibly be guilty?
HB
The money will go to the govt (the people) because this is a criminal suit.
Once AMD's civil suit goes to court, then AMD will get the money due them.
Just by convicting Inte£, AMD benefits because they will no longer be illegally cut out from OEM deals. Retailers will no longer collude with Inte£ to keep AMD out of their stores/boxes.
Inte£ has been doing this anti-consumer monopolist shit since the 80's/90's but this suit isn't that broad and doesn't cover all their illegal predatory behavior.
I have been Inte£-free since 2000.
I don't buy monopolist crap.
Still it's sad the money doesn't go at least in part to AMD.
It's almost as criminal for the EU to keep it all as it is for Intel to coerce dell and the like to not use AMD.
SOS, DD with Intel trying to lie their way out of another conviction. The only thing these criminals understand is a 500 Billion Euro fine.