Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 11th May 2009 08:46 UTC
Intel Microsoft isn't the only company in the technology industry with a monopoly. Its partner in crime, Intel, has often been accused of monopoly abuse as well, and is currently under scrutiny by the same European Commission who fined Microsoft. Sources have told eWeek (which generally has a good track record) that Intel will indeed be found guilty this week of abusing its monopoly position to stifle the competition.
Thread beginning with comment 362833
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Confused
by bile on Mon 11th May 2009 13:16 UTC
bile
Member since:
2005-07-08

"paid computer makers to postpone or cancel the launch of products containing chips made by its main rival"

Isn't that the very definition of competitive behavior? Non-violently and without government intervention performing voluntary deals with their customers in an attempt to out do competitors?

If you don't like the fact that company X doesn't provide AMD based processors... go somewhere else. If not enough people go somewhere else to keep AMD alive... too bad. They couldn't compete. That's how things work.

Reply Score: -3

RE: Confused
by tweakedenigma on Mon 11th May 2009 13:38 in reply to "Confused"
tweakedenigma Member since:
2006-12-27

There is a big difference between a company out competing another one, and Simply paying for dominance. If all comers took a deal that would see AMD ousted from the industry then how would consumers vote with their wallets?

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: Confused - in a healthy market, yes
by jabbotts on Mon 11th May 2009 13:53 in reply to "Confused"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Once a company dominates enough of the market to legally be a Monopoly, it becomes subject to different laws designed to allow that company to exist without allowing it to damage the market.

In a healthy competitive market, you'd be absolutely right, let the five little fish compete fiercely. Such purely business dealing strategies don't benefit the industry or end users but they are all still small enough that natural market forces should balance everything out.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: Confused
by poundsmack on Mon 11th May 2009 15:46 in reply to "Confused"
poundsmack Member since:
2005-07-13

"..."paid computer makers to postpone or cancel the launch of products containing chips made by its main rival"

Intel may have been the one offereing perks to the OEM's to use their chips, but ultimatly the OEM's chose to take those bribes. Am I wrong in assuming that the OEM's too are guilty to an extent?

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Confused
by jboss1995 on Mon 11th May 2009 20:08 in reply to "RE: Confused"
jboss1995 Member since:
2007-05-02

I was thinks the same thing

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Confused
by 0brad0 on Tue 12th May 2009 06:20 in reply to "RE: Confused"
0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05

"..."paid computer makers to postpone or cancel the launch of products containing chips made by its main rival"

Intel may have been the one offereing perks to the OEM's to use their chips, but ultimatly the OEM's chose to take those bribes. Am I wrong in assuming that the OEM's too are guilty to an extent?


It isn't just about offering the perks. If the OEM vendors used AMD hw they were also penalized for it. They also had contracts with vendors that in most sane countries would be considered quite illegal.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Confused
by wannabe geek on Mon 11th May 2009 23:04 in reply to "Confused"
wannabe geek Member since:
2006-09-27

That line of thought doesn't seem to be very popular over here, or in most places nowadays for that matter. For what it's worth, I agree. So do Austrian economists like Murray Rothbard:
http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap10a.asp

In a nutshell, there's no consistent way to define "monopolistic" behavior as opposed to legitimate market behavior, and all antitrust legislation is harmful interventionism.

BTW, I do think Microsoft and Intel are monopolists, not because they dominate the market, but because their business model is largely based on intellectual monopolies granted by the State through "intellectual property" laws, especially patents, the antithesis of free competition. OTOH, I have no issues with, say, McDonald's, as long as they don't try to get patents on fast food to shun competition (I wouldn't be too surprised to learn they have).

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Confused
by tweakedenigma on Tue 12th May 2009 03:17 in reply to "RE: Confused"
tweakedenigma Member since:
2006-12-27

I would be inclined to agree that Anti-trust laws would probably not be as necessary if Patents just went away.

Reply Parent Score: 2