Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 27th Jul 2007 09:45 UTC, submitted by JK
"As suspected, the European Union formally lodged antitrust charges against Intel, accusing the CPU maker of using illegal methods to compete against its main rival AMD. "I can confirm the statement of objections has been sent," European Commission spokesperson Ton Van Lierop said in a statement given to Reuters. This action represents the culmination of years of antitrust investigation by the EU - and is likely beginning of a very unpleasant experience for Intel. While the exact Statement of Objection has not yet been made public, the EU charges that Intel used illegal methods to coerce OEM computer manufacturers to ship systems with Intel rather than AMD processors."
Thread beginning with comment 258630
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-04-07
Member since:2005-07-06
Why do these things always come too late? This really isn't going to change the monopoly situation at all; it'll inconvenience Intel sure, but the EU's investigation into and actions against Microsoft haven't stopped them from being monopolistic. Vista is even more anti-competitive than XP by a looong shot.
How so; everytime I hear customers complain, it isn't over the lack of choices, its over the fact that third parties flat out refuse to port their software to alternative platforms. If you're a customer and the only thing stopping you from moving is the lack of applications on the alternative platform, is it the 'big bad Microsoft monopoly' or the fact that third parties can't be bothered?
Its time for people to ignore the freak side show attraction that is Microsoft and take aim at the real scum bag in the equation - and that is the third party and its refusal to support alternative platforms and given the consumer choice on which operating system they wish to run. Same goes for hardware vendors who hide behind the boogie man smoke screen that is 'IP' to some how claim that they can't support nor opensource their hardware specifications because of some unnamed party which would object - interesting how these parties are never named.
Sure, Microsofts products are cruddy, their support is even worse, and yes, they have hard nose business tactics, but at the same time, if it weren't for the third party software and hardware support, no one would be running their operating system.
If you as the consumer want to make a difference, one would be better off demonising third party vendors who refuse to support alternative operating systems - restricting consumer choice and propping up a monopoly.
Edited 2007-07-27 13:19
Member since:2006-11-24
"Why do these things always come too late?"
Anticomp-cases normally take that long because it is so difficult to determine a company's market and market power.
Anyway, anyone who did advertising with/for Intel in connection with their Intel-inside campaign knows that they are guilty as hell. In that light, I would agree that it took an awful long time 
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-11-10
Why do these things always come too late? This really isn't going to change the monopoly situation at all; it'll inconvenience Intel sure, but the EU's investigation into and actions against Microsoft haven't stopped them from being monopolistic. Vista is even more anti-competitive than XP by a looong shot.