Earlier this year, the European Commission imposed a massive fine upon Intel for its anti-competitive practices in the OEM space. Intel has been given the opportunity to respond, as is usual in cases like this, and the chip maker is claiming that the fine should be thrown out, because the EC did not prove that Intel's practices hurt the competition.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2009-07-18
As you mentioned, this is just like dealing with parking tickets. If you plead guilty, you pay it. If you disagree, you fight it in court. Where exactly does the defendant lose his rights for a fair trial? The system works and it works fair.
Your comparison to totalitarianism is unfounded and your fear for anything that remotely looks like socialism is based on ignorance. I recommend you to check for "social democracy" on wikipedia, especially the ideology section which gives you a nice overview. It doesn't sound that bad now, does it?
Capitalism has one big flaw: it encourages companies to crush the competition. This would be a good thing if that happened by simply creating a better product. However, sometimes huge companies with a lot of cash and power are using their weight on the market to destroy the competition in a different way. Not by delivering the best product, but simply by using their cash to keep the others away. That is what the EU is trying to prevent and as a concerned citizen, I applaud their efforts and I trust the justice system to keep the government in check. If your companies were indeed punished for being successful, they would have won in court and wouldn't have had to pay any fine at all, but apparently that wasn't the case. Those companies were fined for abusing monopolies or for creating cartels to divide the market and to lock out any smaller competition.
I don't mind you preferring an economic model that favours corporations above consumers, but at least make sure you are informed about its pro's and con's because right now it looks like you're blindly giving up your rights as a consumer only because that's the system you grew up with. It's the same thing for your healthcare system by the way. So many Americans swallow all those ridiculous rightwing ideas and plain lies about the new healthcare system. I feel sad for all those people who are just brainlessly repeating their leaders while those only care about protecting the insurance companies' greed. You know, in the new system those companies will actually have to pay for once.
Ultimately, you may want to ask yourself these questions:
- Do we serve the government, or is the government created to serve us?
- Do we serve companies, or are companies created to serve us?
Give the second one a thought as well.
Edited 2009-09-16 03:26 UTC
Member since:2008-08-25
- Do we serve companies, or are companies created to serve us?
Fining Intel does not serve the consumer. It does not serve the citizens of the EU. It only serves the EU bureaucracy, who get to levy the fines and pick the winners.
I am employed by a company. Are we now subject to your arbitary definition of 'service'?
Member since:2006-01-10
"- Do we serve the government, or is the government created to serve us?
- Do we serve companies, or are companies created to serve us?
"
The answer is neither and the question is a bit odd.
First of all, who is this 'us' you speak of.
Both government and companies are composed of people... Yep, the guy in the cube next to me looks human. Regular people living regular lives.
People look out for their own interests.
Ask me of government and I'll tell you that government serves those in government.
Given the power in government, who could resist using government for their own benefit?
Last I checked, companies are composed of people.
So of course those in companies look out for their own interest. They will try and charge the most for the product and have as little competition as possible.
It helps the people in the company. They are some of 'us'
The difference being of course that you voluntarily give money to companies whereas government just takes it.
And of course great legal battles help lawyers and bureaucrats. Not hating on them, they are also part of 'us'. They will do the most to secure their benefits by convoluting the law, creating crimes where none exist (war on drugs...).
In short... there is no 'us'. Just independent people who form groups who then try and maximize their gain and power in society.
The only ideal case for 'us' is for no group to have 'power'. especially government back legal power. Which means more of a libertarian society.
Member since:2005-07-12
Absolutely terrifying actually, since it puts too much power into the governments hands and is exactly the type of asshattery that made the people of the Soviet Union live as if they were in a developing country inside what was ranked as an industrialized nation just because of it's military might.
Socialism in all it's forms generally penalizes the successful. Rah, rah, fight the power, down with the big evil corporations... At which point socialists should do the rest of us a favor, go back to the drum circle and rant about how their crunchy groove is really going to show those Eichmann's.
It is why Marx's statement of Capitolism leading to Socialism leading to Communism should be taken more as a warning, than a path we should voluntarily follow.
... and this applies to Intel how exactly? Core 2 pretty much left AMD in the dust, and frankly AMD is still eating dust at the product level. This is much like the EU going after Microsoft for media player when in terms of product quality the 'competition' - Quicktime and Realplayer, were and remain inferior products (at least on windows). We were supposed to believe that it was entirely because it came bundled with the OS? How about that the alternatives both hijacked the host OS, locked you into their product to play their formats with no alternatives even CONSIDERED - but no, instead of making their products not suck they go pissing and moaning to the government "We suck, make them suck too!" - and we give them all trophy's.
"Social Democracy" - it's much like the FSF's rheotoric of taking about freedom without understanding the word... Using the words liberty, freedom and injustice while abusing contract law, levying fines, taxes and imposing far-reaching laws and legal precedents - well, does the term 'snake oil' ring a bell?
I'm reminded of the words of Edward Rutledge - A poor man would rather stay poor, than lose the opportunity to ever become rich. - in the end socialist overregulation ends up little more than that - penalizing anyone who dares become more successful than their competitors.
Assuming you trust the courts to be anything more than a rubber stamp for your government... I'm a Libertarian - we don't trust ANY government - EVER. Hell, my ancestors came to this country to get the **** away from European governments. As we say here in New Hampshire, name for us one thing a government got involved in that didn't turn into a colossal money pit that only made things worse.
Something I love to point out to the CESM's and Hun, my ancestors came here to get the *** away from your ancestors... Especially the frogs since I know we actually had to fight through them in North Africa to get at the damned Hun during Torch.
Maybe that it's I observed REAL abuses first hand when I was in the Air Force, visiting first world nations that should have been downgraded to developing nation status. You will excuse me if having travelled outside the tourist zones contintental europe didn't exactly blow my skirt up on the concepts of sound economics, quality of life, or even basic sanitation. Lands sakes I saw better integration of such concepts in southeast asia than I did in France, Spain or Greece... All three of which need to hand over their developed nation status.
Which is why people from all over the world flock to Boston to learn medicine, and clamor to get to Boston, Texas and Maryland for care...
Well, you might have me on insurance - since I'm anti insurance. I believe insurance in all it's forms should be illegal since it is little more than gambling. You are betting the insurance company you will pay them less money now than they will pay you in the future... Am I the only one that thinks this screams SCAM from top to bottom? "Oh, but I need fire insurance!!!" - no, you need to stop smoking in bed, leaving the stove on unattended, and thinking that 10 amp outlet can handle having ten or so two dollar power strips daisy chained off it. "Oh but I need car insurance" - no, people need to slow down, stop drinking and driving, and pay ***** attention to what they are doing and where they are going. (Ever notice non-manditory insurance states have lower collision rates than the manditory ones?)... "But what about my children? I need life insurance!" - no, what you need to do is pay off your debt and put money in the bank so your children actually get something instead of having the insurance go entirely into paying off your two mortgages, your car, your eight grand in credit card debt, and the lawyer fees for settling all of the above.
Which of course brings us to where a REAL problem is - Credit. Obama has the unmitigated gall to call credit the "Lifeblood of the Economy", fully illustrating he doesn't know enough about economics to even open his mouth on the subject. Peter Schiff rightly took him to task for this as credit is NOT the lifeblood, it's Cancer.
That people are even DUMB ENOUGH to pay more later for something they cannot afford now, usually for WANTS and not NEEDS is why the economy is being flushed down the toilet. Can't afford that 42" Plasma? CREDIT! Can't afford a new car? CREDIT! Can't afford a home? CREDIT! Can't afford a war on two fronts and health care reform? Well...
Instead of building up a savings to use as a 'what if' fund, people turn towards their credit limit, and it's gutting the economy as people who produce nothing to add to the GNP (bankers/insurers/creditors) leech off the top... Worse, paying more for something than it's outright cost inherently CREATES INFLATION!
Want to save the economy worldwide? STOP buying things you don't need on credit, STOP using credit like it was a savings account, and actually start building a REAL savings... Hell if people did that we could probably go back to having savings banks pay five cents on the dollar instead of the pennie and a third they do now...
Oh, and if you have a savings AND a debt, you've already ****ed up.
Companies are created to serve their owners and/or shareholders - though it is in their best interest to serve us, otherwise we might go off and use some other company.
Member since:2007-02-17
Probably why if I ran Intel or Microsoft, I'd just cut my losses, give Europe the finger, and close shop liquidating assets in the entire region.
Where does this sort of attitude come from?
If business was actually democratic ... what would be wrong with simply producing some good quality goods and offering them for a profit to the public at a reasonable and competitive price? Intel would get well ahead in the market by simply doing that (at current prices). Why does Intel seem to have found it necessary to pay other busnises to not use AMD?
That is the $64 million question.
Would it possibly be that Intel is looking to be a monopoly supplier of x86? Perhaps to force AMD out entirely of business through lack of sales?
If people could only buy x86 architecture chips from Intel and nowhere else, what do people imagine would subsequently happen to the price?
If that all happened, exactly how "democractic" would it be?
Edited 2009-09-16 03:25 UTC
Member since:2005-07-22
Probably why if I ran Intel or Microsoft, I'd just cut my losses, give Europe the finger, and close shop liquidating assets in the entire region. No matter how large the target audience is, there are times where it's just not the hassle - and the EU seems to want to convince international corporations that they are not worth dealing with.
As much as many people would like it, the likes of Microsoft (especially them IMHO) & Intel won't give Europe the finger as you so eloquently put it.
Why?
The market for their goods in the EU is bigger than in their home territory. Yes folks, there are more potential customers in the EU than in the USA. Couple that with the 1 Euro == 1 GBP == 1$ exchange rates they seem to use (on the FX market, 1GBP = approx $1.60) and guess what, there is a lot of profit to be made in the EU.
How would you like to explain that at the next shareholders meeting eh?
Member since:2008-08-25
Member since:2009-05-19
Intel broke the law
And the law states, that there is no need for a court.
For those of you here in the Colonies, the Commission handing out fines would be like the American executive branch being able to do same. This **** should be coming from the ECJ, not from the Comission - and if the layout of the EU was not a stepping stone to totalitarianism, it would. The Commission seems to want to be able to hand out multi-billion dollar fines like they were parking tickets.
Last time I checked, police force in US is also executive branch, and can hand out fines. Witch you later on can dispute in the appropriate court. The exactly same thing here.
And don't throw totalitarianism into the mix, since you have not lived or ever been close to one, so you don't know any non democratic regime when it' biting on your own ass.
Sad part is it's not just the computer industry under attack with multi-billion Euro fines - Peugot, Daimler-Chrysler, Auto Glass sellers, Austrian Banks, the past four years they've issued almost as much in fines as they collect in TAXES.
A) Multi-billion? Was it painful getting that number out of your ass? Highest ever was just over one billion euros.
B) Cartels are as bad as monopolies and last time I checked, US had a law against cartels. So far only the US companies actually create this hype over fines.
Enough to make one wonder if the Brits weren't right in keeping their own domestic currency in addition to recognizing the Euro... But what does one expect when half the nations in the union are still under what is for all intents and purposes socialism in democracy's clothing.
A) Last time I checked UK was not in the monetary union, so what do you mean of recognizing Euro is beyond my comprehension.
B) Brainwashed chimpanzees over the pond, think that socialism is somehow related to non democratic regimes. See Sweden, where people, arguably, get more representation and voice in their country than in US.
Or Switzerland, where they practice almost direct form of democracy.
Probably why if I ran Intel or Microsoft, I'd just cut my losses, give Europe the finger, and close shop liquidating assets in the entire region. No matter how large the target audience is, there are times where it's just not the hassle - and the EU seems to want to convince international corporations that they are not worth dealing with.
That is exactly why you do not run any big corporations.
Member since:
2005-07-12
I hate the EU's method of 'hearsay litigation' which MOST of their legal cases against companies seem to boil down to - Notice Intel's filing points out a damned near complete lack of evidence.
Intel broke the law - fine, run them through the courts. Having the 'commission' be able to levy fines without production of evidence pretty much at their whim, so it's only natural Intel take this where it BELONGS, the court system.
For those of you here in the Colonies, the Commission handing out fines would be like the American executive branch being able to do same. This **** should be coming from the ECJ, not from the Comission - and if the layout of the EU was not a stepping stone to totalitarianism, it would. The Commission seems to want to be able to hand out multi-billion dollar fines like they were parking tickets.
But then, don't ask for innocent until proven guilty in Europe. They still run it like post apocalypse Star Trek - "Bringing the innocent to trial would hardly be fair."
NOT that equality of law or procedural rule is anything to expect out of your anti-trust whackjobs - Especially so far as the EU is concerned since so far their cases have been more about slapping down companies for being successful - quite often while allowing the competitors to continue the same 'evil' practices. For a law to be fair it MUST be applied equally, failing to do so is nothing more than petty favoritism.
Sad part is it's not just the computer industry under attack with multi-billion Euro fines - Peugot, Daimler-Chrysler, Auto Glass sellers, Austrian Banks, the past four years they've issued almost as much in fines as they collect in TAXES.
Enough to make one wonder if the Brits weren't right in keeping their own domestic currency in addition to recognizing the Euro... But what does one expect when half the nations in the union are still under what is for all intents and purposes socialism in democracy's clothing.
Probably why if I ran Intel or Microsoft, I'd just cut my losses, give Europe the finger, and close shop liquidating assets in the entire region. No matter how large the target audience is, there are times where it's just not the hassle - and the EU seems to want to convince international corporations that they are not worth dealing with.