Intel is still fighting a 10-year-old €1.06 billion antitrust fine for CPU rebates

Zarathustra[H] said:
That is nuts. There is no way they are going to win. They are just throwing away their money on attorneys fees.




What is your source for this? I was under the impression Intel's settlement with AMD was paid back in 2010.
Click to expand...
1.25 billion back in 2009 to settle this out of court.
 
dgz said:
Dude, how about some basic URL hygiene. You're a little step away from posting the FB link.

On topic: Can't believe they still haven't paid their due. Burn in hell, you evil bastards. Die.
Click to expand...

remember redeeming these bad buys to get some extra cores and cache that you already owned in the hardware?

1583967203792.png
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
That is nuts. There is no way they are going to win. They are just throwing away their money on attorneys fees.
Click to expand...

From an economic standpoint is brilliant. Inflation has already knocked off 20% of the value of this settlement, additionally Intel has been able to use this money or simply invest it to make more money while it stalls. Even if it invested the money and made a modest 5% interest, compounded yearly they would have made over 600 million. In 5 more years this settlement will be paid for by the money they didn't pay lol.
 
Kardonxt said:
From an economic standpoint is brilliant. Inflation has already knocked off 20% of the value of this settlement, additionally Intel has been able to use this money or simply invest it to make more money while it stalls. Even if it invested the money and made a modest 5% interest, compounded yearly they would have made over 600 million. In 5 more years this settlement will be paid for by the money they didn't pay lol.
Click to expand...

Article says Intel paid the settlement already. They are challenging the case to try and get it back.
 
It makes sense they challenge because it increases the cost and time involved taking them to court. The case for future issues needs to be stronger when the difficulty is higher.
And there is a chance they will get a concession.
 
The Mad Atheist said:
The fuck!? They restricted the CPU that had the features and made you pay more to unlock it?
Click to expand...

Yup! That's an old mainframe trick. Buy a license for a CPU speed increase, the tech comes out, opens up the case, and flips a switch. Boom! Faster CPU.

Note that in this case it went over so well they abandoned it. I think there were only 2 CPU models from that one generation that were upgradable.

Bear in mind it was sold as the lower-specced unit. You could buy a Celeron at Celeron prices and pay to upgrade it to a Pentium (or however you want to look at it.)
 
There need to be provisions with these cases that if defendant fights and appeals and does everything in their power to drag it on, there will be stricter penalties that kick in and drastically increase fines.

This is ridiculous system abuse and utterly goes against common sense to defend tho sort of business practices they employed in this scenario. (And have no doubt employed by other means since.)

Corporations should not be allowed to use legal loopholes, delay judgements or paying restitution indefinitely if there is no counter-balance to prevent them from abusing the system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top