Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 13th May 2009 10:23 UTC
Intel As was already revealed by eWeek earlier this week, the EU has imposed a massive fine on Intel for abusing its monopoly position. The fine is larger than the one given to Microsoft: 1.06 billion EUR, or 1.44 billion USD, opposed to the 899 million EUR fine imposed upon Microsoft.
Thread beginning with comment 363328
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Sounds awfully familiar
by lemur2 on Wed 13th May 2009 10:53 UTC
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

We already detailed why Intel is being fined: it paid money to PC makers and retailers to not use AMD chips.


This is surely similar to what happened recently in the netbook market, where the "Linux OS pre-installed" option for netbooks suddenly virtually disappeared of retailers shelves all over the world.

It is also surely very similar to what has been happening for years and years where a vendor would venture into offering Linux pre-installed on some machines, and soon after that was withdrawn amidst advertising along the lines of "we recommend Windows".

If there was a case against Intel, then surely a similar case can be made against other monoploistic suppliers who have been using a dominant market position to force out potential competitors.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Sounds awfully familiar
by darknexus on Wed 13th May 2009 11:41 in reply to "Sounds awfully familiar"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

The EU already went after Microsoft for monopolistic practices, and as far as I know that's still ongoing. I believe the situation you're describing was in the ECIS report, if I remember correctly.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Sounds awfully familiar
by lemur2 on Wed 13th May 2009 11:54 in reply to "RE: Sounds awfully familiar"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

The EU already went after Microsoft for monopolistic practices, and as far as I know that's still ongoing. I believe the situation you're describing was in the ECIS report, if I remember correctly.


That first fine on Microsoft by the EU was for not revealing interoperability specifications (network protocols) and for bundling (media player). The current investigation is for bundling again, this time for bundling IE and thereby keeping other web browsers out of the market and attempting to make it necessary to have IE and Windows in order to view web content.

Paying one party to not use a competitor's product would be an entirely different thing again.

Reply Parent Score: 5

Of course
by linumax on Wed 13th May 2009 14:11 in reply to "Sounds awfully familiar"
linumax Member since:
2007-02-07

The one and only reason Linux failed on Netbooks is the Grand Microsoft Conspiracy and facts such as:

- Users booting up netbooks and seeing something unfamiliar
- Users not being able to install all the windows programs that they already paid for
- Messed up Linux installations which failed to support webcams out of the box

played absolutely zero role. Everything was perfect until Microsoft came along.

Edited 2009-05-13 14:13 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Of course
by Kroc on Wed 13th May 2009 14:56 in reply to "Of course"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

"Users not being able to install all the windows programs that they already paid for"

Users don’t install software on netbooks> The majority don’t because it doesn’t have a CD drive, and they’re not used to the idea of software not coming on CDs. The only software I’ve seen users install is either Skype, or MSN.

The only valid reason I could see an average users wanting XP over Linux for is that the Linux software bundled with the machine isn’t MSN enough, and doesn’t support webcam; as you've said.

Reply Parent Score: 1