"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."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
Actually, the US did find Microsoft guilty of anti-trust. Then Microsoft appealed, complaining about the derison with which Judge Jackson had met their case (which was a complete shambles, and included Jim Allchin being caught perjuring himself). Before the appeal got underway, George Bush became president, and instituted a business friendly policy. Nevertheless, the appeals court upheld all the original judgments from the original trial; however because of the new business-friendly policy, they scrapped all the penalties, letting Microsoft off scot-free.
The different between the US and the EU, is that in most countries in the EU, and in the EU as a whole, there is a wide gap between the executive branch and the judiciary, which makes it extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, for politicians to affect the outcome of legal trials. For example, most countries in the EU don't give the president / prime-minister the right to pardon criminals.
Member since:2005-07-06
Anyone actually following the case would know that the political change had nothing to do with MS' successes. Read the transcripts. It was the severe lack of evidence from MS' "competitors". They tried to make a case based on pure supposition ("MS could do this...") rather than facts ("MS did do this..."), could not prove in many cases that any claimed anti-competitive behavior outweighed consumer and market benefit or lacked technical merit (e.g., IE integration), and offered remedies that were harmful to consumers and third-party vendors, and were unimplementable (e.g., ripping out IE and not accounting for the loss of functionality in ISV applications, or suggesting MS distribute 67 CDs worth of Windows builds in various configurations). They also tried to blame MS for their own coding errors (e.g., both Apple and Real tried to blame MS for breaking their software when in both cases the breaks were caused by coding errors in their own products that MS helped them fix).
About the only issues related to that case that stuck were the Java copyright infringement issues which MS chose not to go back and argue, and the OEM contract issues. The difference between the US and EC is that the EC has no problems covering for the ineptness of MS' competitors.
Member since:2006-07-04
"Howevermuch you agree or disagree with the EU as an institution it was them (and not america) that finally found MS guilty IN COURT of monopoly practices."
It's my understanding that a "COURT" has yet to hear the EU case. The EC isn't a "court", and affords no due process when coming to its decisions. Microsoft wasn't even allowed to cross-examine its accusers. Microsoft has appealed the EC's decrees to a real court, the hearings for which are to be held this fall.
Besides that, I find arguments that boil down to "a COURT decided such and such" to be without merit as it assumes that courts are infallible. Arguments should be based on the underlying facts, not merley a court's decision.
Bringing this back to the topic of Intel, does anyone know the real facts of this case? "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." is pretty vague. I hope the case consists of something more substantive than Intel offering discounts to OEMs.
(If it follows the MS case, the EC will declare Intel to be guilty of something, but won't say exactly what (ala Kafka). When Intel asks what they need to do to be in compliance with EU law (which the EC seems to treat as "ad-hoc law", a truly horrible philosophy of jurisprudence), the EC will say, "It's not up to us to tell you how to be in compliance. It's only up to us to declare you to be out of compliance." Then comes the inevitable 500 million dollar fine(s).)
Edited 2007-07-27 17:27
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-24
"""
If it follows the MS case, the EC will declare Intel to be guilty of something,
"""
Slightly off-topic, perhaps. But I hope AMD is not counting on a flood of anti-Intel letters from the OSS community. Because Intel has pulled off a pretty amazing PR coup over the last year. A year ago, I would never have considered an Intel chipset or processor out of an interest in keeping competition alive. Today, Intel's good behavior has convinced me that my next machine will be a core duo with intel video.
Member since:2006-10-10
You're other statement of someone's voice being a "priviledge and NOT a right" is probably one of the most idiotic things I've read in years....and I've read a lot of stupid comments....mostly on this site.
The day your voice becomes a priviledge, is the day you should join the revolution.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-07-06
Howevermuch you agree or disagree with the EU as an institution it was them (and not america) that finally found MS guilty IN COURT of monopoly practices.
btw before you moan anymore about any political institution, did you vote? If so who is your representitive? Use that voice (which is a privalage and NOT a right) by writing them a letter/email outlining your concerns.