Intel has to pay within 3 months, whether or not they appeal. The ruling hasn't even been translated into English yet.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Intel Reportedly to Receive Heavy EU Fine
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
They have to pay in Euros, which complicate things a little bit. One could only hope Intel gets a good exchange rate
BladeVenom
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2005
- Messages
- 7,707
The money should go to AMD and the consumers.
GotNoRice
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2001
- Messages
- 11,994
I'm guessing if this had been an EU based company, things would have been different.
Nothing like squeezing easy money from a profitable US company.
Nothing like squeezing easy money from a profitable US company.
the money should be going to the people/companies affected, no questions asked, if it doesn't than its nothing more than EU making a cash grab at other peoples expense and should be thrown out and then have intel forced to pay the people affected directly, and it probably wouldnt cost them as much either
how cant they charge someone for doing something that affected other companies or people, but keep the money them selves? if thats the case both sides are fail.
how cant they charge someone for doing something that affected other companies or people, but keep the money them selves? if thats the case both sides are fail.
The EU has already handed down big fines against EU companies. In fact that's what they have done here, Intel subsidiary companies in all EU countries.
As to giving the money to AMD, this is the wrong case, this was about harming EU consumers not AMD. As the money is going into the EU coffers this reduces the money from EU member states to fund the EU, which in turn should reduce taxation and alleviate the people who were directly harmed.
As to whether individual member states will reduce taxation, well it's unlikely a $1.5B is a pittance in taxation terms.
As to giving the money to AMD, this is the wrong case, this was about harming EU consumers not AMD. As the money is going into the EU coffers this reduces the money from EU member states to fund the EU, which in turn should reduce taxation and alleviate the people who were directly harmed.
As to whether individual member states will reduce taxation, well it's unlikely a $1.5B is a pittance in taxation terms.
Can we see the real charges and evidence please? Selling at a loss isn't illegal. It may be underhanded, but not illegal. Retailers do it all the time, it's called a loss-leader.
Until they actually produces charges and evidence, I'm going to keep my original stance: this is just a protective measure to keep poor little precious AMD (who also happens to be a European company) safe and sound. Hey, that's how it works isn't it? When you can't compete, go buy some legislators.
/me walks in
ok 1st off AMD IS A US COMPANY HEADQUARTERED IN SUNNYVALE CALIFORNIA DONT BELEIVE ME LOOK IT UP.
2nd off intel has been found guilty in 2 other countries of pulling this shit it all goes back to the p3/k-6 to7 era threw the k8/netshit era and still continues today.
with the k8 amd should of cleaned intels clock and made a shit ton more cash than it did we all knew that the netburst p4's sucked ass but system intergrators dell / hp / ibm were kept on a tight leash to not use amd chips for thir respective products how the fuck can that be fair explain it to me
So the company that was harmed the most (AMD) doesn't get squat. Bottom line is consumer's were NOT harmed the way AMD was out of profits and market share. If it's anything like a U.S. organization I bet almost 40%+ will got towards administration costs to the EU commission...
So the company that was harmed the most (AMD) doesn't get squat. Bottom line is consumer's were NOT harmed the way AMD was out of profits and market share. If it's anything like a U.S. organization I bet almost 40%+ will got towards administration costs to the EU commission...
Does this have anything to do with AMD legally? Can they not now sue Intel for lost profits using this as a basis?
Why?
So the loser can stay afloat another 3 quarters.
If the collected fine monies were then handed over to the alleged victim, such actions might be deemed noble. Lacking that outcome, one wonders: where is justice?
I am missing something here. When an American gets fined for something in court, in the US of A, where does the money go, to the victims. I don't think so. Maybe you can enlighten me. Eg :A drunk gets fined a thousand for a DUI. A Vandal gets a --- get my drift. Last time I heard a fine went to state or federal coffers depending on which court system one used.
faugusztin
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2008
- Messages
- 2,668
Hm, seeing all this anti-EU propaganda here, i just wonder what will you then do when they will get same or bigger fine in US, plus they will lose their lawsuit with AMD...
The fine is because broken laws, not because AMD.
The fine is because broken laws, not because AMD.
Monkey God
Mangina Full of Sand
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 6,723
Criminal court <> civil court
propaganda?
Man I love it when people throw words around and have no idea on the use of the word.
The EU gov't sure knows how to make a paycheck, eh?
Did they offer this money to AMD, who is so broke they are about to go under?
Nope! This wasn't about any Robin Hood'esque robbing the rich to feed the poor. This is about the EU rulers driving 100,000 Euro cars and getting those nice fat paychecks. You think Siemens hasn't been guilty of "monopoly"? They wouldn't dare sue Bayer, or Siemens, British Telecom, or any of a zillion companies that use illegal behavior to further their business goals. AMD can crash and die and they don't care as long as Intel paid them their fat bonus.
I'll say it again. It's high time we returned the favor and started dragging a few EU companies into the courts, started prosecuting for EU based tax evasion schemes and the like. Give 'em a taste of their own medicine and drag a few billion Euro back over to the US for once.
Did they offer this money to AMD, who is so broke they are about to go under?
Nope! This wasn't about any Robin Hood'esque robbing the rich to feed the poor. This is about the EU rulers driving 100,000 Euro cars and getting those nice fat paychecks. You think Siemens hasn't been guilty of "monopoly"? They wouldn't dare sue Bayer, or Siemens, British Telecom, or any of a zillion companies that use illegal behavior to further their business goals. AMD can crash and die and they don't care as long as Intel paid them their fat bonus.
I'll say it again. It's high time we returned the favor and started dragging a few EU companies into the courts, started prosecuting for EU based tax evasion schemes and the like. Give 'em a taste of their own medicine and drag a few billion Euro back over to the US for once.
Thanks for the enlightenment. My next statement isn't directed at you.
Theirs a saying: When in Rome do as the Romans do. Intel wants to sell chips in Europe, they have laws that have to be followed. Intel broke European law and is fined. Whats the problem. The Japanese found them guilty of the same thing. I'm sure that if one comes to the US of A and brakes the law, they will go to court and get their due justice.
I'm sure if the companies were acting in a criminal way here in the US of A they would get nailed. Your not saying that their is some collusion going on amongst these giants such as : A Tit for a Tat , or We'll turn a blind eye if you do.
This is from a quote in the New York Times.:
The NYT reports that the EU is so much tougher on antitrust that U.S. firms often file allegations in Europe rather than in America.
See things arn't so bad in the US of A, there is an out, they can go to Europe and fight the fight if they find US law weak. I give the EU a plus one for allowing the US of A companies a place to fight it out fairly.
The NYT reports that the EU is so much tougher on antitrust that U.S. firms often file allegations in Europe rather than in America.
See things arn't so bad in the US of A, there is an out, they can go to Europe and fight the fight if they find US law weak. I give the EU a plus one for allowing the US of A companies a place to fight it out fairly.
BettiePage
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 315
Weak ass fine. Only 4% of their revenue... EU law allows up to 10%! Now if only the Justice Dept would get off its lazy ass and follow up.
Sorry but any rebates tied to not buying or limiting the purchase of your competitors product is ass. And threatening to delay or without shipments of CPUs for buying AMD is also ass.
Selling current product at below cost to drive your competitor out of business isnt good for the consumers.
Sorry but any rebates tied to not buying or limiting the purchase of your competitors product is ass. And threatening to delay or without shipments of CPUs for buying AMD is also ass.
Selling current product at below cost to drive your competitor out of business isnt good for the consumers.
Monkey God
Mangina Full of Sand
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 6,723
True enough.
Im hesitant to cast judgment on the EU or Intel or anyone else until we have the facts.
In the US it is cheaper to hire a lobbist to fix things than pay fines so many companies simply avoid issues that way. So fining EU/US companies to make money would fail.
The other issue is that in the EU they punish with large fines, in the US it is (realistic)fines plus jail time instead.
In the US you pay fines based on court costs and the rest of the money goes to the court that fined you. So the EU is not really doing anything different in where the money goes they are different in how they justify the amount of money. One it is based on gross rev not profit, which is really questionible since if they are not competing fairly they should be making money. Two it is based on world market sales and saying that the EU buys 30% instead of looking at what they made in the EU, ie they made 30,000 Million (30 Billion US) profit in the EU lets take some portion of that. This is significant for the point that they made far less profit in the EU than anywhere else.
Third and this is most interesting one is the EU was set up to prop up banks in Europe and the new currency was created because very few banks in europe had dependible currency, joining the EU and the EU setting that it's euro was worth x vs the USD allowed many of those banks that had issues to trade on the dollar value weaking the USD. One of the major tricks was to buy into the US housing market and gas price speculation. Both of those just crashed taking many EU banks down, which forced the EU comission to pay x amount of money to prop them up, and now suddenly Intel has the judgement that the EU has been waffling over for 5 years, and Intel has to pay 2 billion dollars in the next three months. Appealed or not, which I'm sorry does not sound like a court case but EU needing money as they know they will have more money later even if the appeal wins that money will be worth more today than in a year once the appeal gets done. Last food for thought the appeal will be based on the size of the judgement not that were guilty as that was pretty much there.
So far there have been rational people in here, as I think everyone agrees Intel did and probally continues to do some shady marketing, the thing people are questioning is if the EU comission is being very shady it self due to a couple very questionible things from the recent sentencing. Which the big one is EU cosumer being harmed by current & past pricing due to sellling at cost. The money going to a general fund instead of a trust for cheaper computers or something to that effect etc.. General funds are generally used as slush funds if the money is not earmarked. I also have to ask is the EU a country now, since it has the power of taxation, regulation, law making and judical review?
The other issue is that in the EU they punish with large fines, in the US it is (realistic)fines plus jail time instead.
In the US you pay fines based on court costs and the rest of the money goes to the court that fined you. So the EU is not really doing anything different in where the money goes they are different in how they justify the amount of money. One it is based on gross rev not profit, which is really questionible since if they are not competing fairly they should be making money. Two it is based on world market sales and saying that the EU buys 30% instead of looking at what they made in the EU, ie they made 30,000 Million (30 Billion US) profit in the EU lets take some portion of that. This is significant for the point that they made far less profit in the EU than anywhere else.
Third and this is most interesting one is the EU was set up to prop up banks in Europe and the new currency was created because very few banks in europe had dependible currency, joining the EU and the EU setting that it's euro was worth x vs the USD allowed many of those banks that had issues to trade on the dollar value weaking the USD. One of the major tricks was to buy into the US housing market and gas price speculation. Both of those just crashed taking many EU banks down, which forced the EU comission to pay x amount of money to prop them up, and now suddenly Intel has the judgement that the EU has been waffling over for 5 years, and Intel has to pay 2 billion dollars in the next three months. Appealed or not, which I'm sorry does not sound like a court case but EU needing money as they know they will have more money later even if the appeal wins that money will be worth more today than in a year once the appeal gets done. Last food for thought the appeal will be based on the size of the judgement not that were guilty as that was pretty much there.
So far there have been rational people in here, as I think everyone agrees Intel did and probally continues to do some shady marketing, the thing people are questioning is if the EU comission is being very shady it self due to a couple very questionible things from the recent sentencing. Which the big one is EU cosumer being harmed by current & past pricing due to sellling at cost. The money going to a general fund instead of a trust for cheaper computers or something to that effect etc.. General funds are generally used as slush funds if the money is not earmarked. I also have to ask is the EU a country now, since it has the power of taxation, regulation, law making and judical review?
Can anyone point us out to a list of all the EU anti-trust cases from the last 9 years? I'd like to see how many cases were against European companies vs. American companies. I'm guessing more are going to fall under the European umbrella. I'd also like to see how severe the fines are that are levied against the two groups. It'd be interesting if EU companies are fined in the tens of millions vs US companies being fined in the hundreds of millions or billions. I'm not saying that's the case, but it'd be interesting to see.
faugusztin
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2008
- Messages
- 2,668
No one forces Intel to sell things in Europe. But i guess they want to, so they should respect laws. I guess the reason is this :
Q9400 in USA - $229.99 - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115131
Q9400 in Germany - 191,58 (cheapest) - http://www.heise.de/preisvergleich/a334458.html
Q9400 in Slovakia - 213,26 - http://www.alza.sk/procesor-intel-core-2-quad-q9450-box-d97194.htm
$230 in USA vs $260 in Europe. No wonder they want to sell in Europe. You all act like if it would be a anti-US move, yet it was Intel who made a bad move by doing the anticompetitive thing at first. The hand of justice is slow, but hits hard. And as i said previously, i wonder what will you all say when Intel will get another $1 billion fine from USA, AMD will also get sum like that - who will be you targetting with your hate then ?
Quote
"if you weren't so busy flag-waving and actually learned about these things, you would find out that most of the antitrust-cases and fines EU decrees are targetted against European companies. Of course those cases aren't usually reported in the USA, but still.
For example, ten biggest cartel-cases (measured in fines):
2008 Saint Gobain Car glass 896.000.000
2007 ThyssenKrupp Elevators and escalators 479.669.850
2001 F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG Vitamins 462.000.000
2007 Siemens AG Gas insulated switchgear 396.562.500
2008 Pilkington Car glass 370.000.000
2008 Sasol Ltd Candle waxes 318.200.000
2006 Eni SpA Synthetic rubber 272.250.000
2002 Lafarge SA Plasterboard 249.600.000
2001 BASF AG Vitamins 236.845.000
2007 Otis Elevators and escalators 224.932.950
Of those listed companies, I believe ONE is American (Otis, at number 10).
The argument that "EU is just picking on American companies!" simply does not hold. "
Sshh stop bring facts to the USAUSAUSA ranting
Wait, so let me get this straight. They have managed to fine the 2 largest elevator companies in the world for anti-competitive behavior against each other? I need to get in on thier scheme.
Technically Pilkington and Saint Gobain are fines originating from the same case; fines which totalled 1.383 billion Euros.
AaronP
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2005
- Messages
- 11,527
...AMD is based in the US.
Also (and btw what happened to edits? I would love to just throw this back into my last post) the reason the Saint Gobain Car glass fine is as large as it is is because Saint Gobain is a repeat offender. Meaning the EU raised the fine by 60%, meaning the original fine was 560 million Euros. Intel was not a repeat offender in the EU (at least as far as I've seen) and they were fined 1.08 billion Euros, nearly double the Saint Gobain case.
My point was that it is not just poor little US companies such as MS and Intel that are getting nailed for braking the law. If one converts 1.383 =1.883 into a shrinking US dollar, MS and Intel recieved fair treatment. Before you get your panties in a knot, I combined the two because they colluded together.
I'm curious to know which part of your ass you pulled this out of?
Where is Intel, where is Microsoft? DuPont? Dow? Guardian Industries?
Also, I find it humorous that you used some of those years when the EU was still taking shape.... hell, they didn't even have a .eu domain name till 2005. lol
Well thanks for the heads up, I'm glad you brought up a few more American companies that have been fined, some people might think I was biased. Besides my answer was directed to the gent who wondered why only Americans were being fined. that was just a partial list so he wouldn't feel picked on.If you would like to add to the list be my guest.
Nemesis999
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 2,763
Come back when you know what a Cartel is.
Euro trash looking for a handout...if the ruling was FAIR you would give most of the money to AMD but I doubt that will happen...
Ahhh finally the bigotry running through this thread raises its ugly head