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 363405
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: This is bull
by ichi on Wed 13th May 2009 14:47 UTC in reply to "This is bull"
ichi
Member since:
2007-03-06

Paying OEMs and retailers to NOT sell products from the competition is not working with OEMs, but more like bribery.

If Intel releases better processors and AMD can't compete, AMD will flop no matter what, but that's irrelevant when it comes to whether Intel broke the law and if they should be punished for that.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: This is bull
by bile on Wed 13th May 2009 15:38 in reply to "RE: This is bull"
bile Member since:
2005-07-08

bribe:
1. Something, such as money or a favor, offered or given to a person in a position of trust to influence that person's views or conduct.
2. Something serving to influence or persuade.

It's exactly a bribe... so what? It was done without the threat of violence so was in no way illegitimate.

The only thing here which is wrong IMO is the fact Intel can use the guns of government to enforce so called intellectual property rights. That's a monopoly granted and enforced by the government which limits competition to those who play by their rules.

So what if they broke some law. Just because a law exists doesn't make it right, legitimate or moral. Sorry to jump the shark so quickly but it was the law to own other humans once and to turn in Jews to the SS. Did they break the law? Sure. Should they be punished. Absolutely not.

Edit:
I should note that some definitions of bribe include giving money for 'dishonest' behavior. That doesn't change my argument insomuch as the governments intervention except in where such a bribe would be contrary to existing contracts which that "dishonest" action may have broken. In that case the government is simply the arbitrator to a private contract conflict. It doesn't appear to me given the evidence that even that has occurred.

Edited 2009-05-13 15:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[3]: This is bull
by tryfan on Wed 13th May 2009 16:14 in reply to "RE[2]: This is bull"
tryfan Member since:
2006-12-16

@bile: I'm sorry, but your post makes no sense whatsoever. Do you mean 1) that there is no law against bribery, thus noone can be punished, or do you you mean 2) that the law against bribery is wrong, and thus should be ignored?
If you mean 1), well then you're just wrong, and if you mean 2), then it's a matter of working for better laws.
Or do you mean something else altogether?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: This is bull
by ichi on Wed 13th May 2009 17:56 in reply to "RE[2]: This is bull"
ichi Member since:
2007-03-06

They are not being fined for bribery, but for anticompetitive behavior from a monopoly, which just happened to have been committed (partially) through bribes.

Reply Parent Score: 3