Intel Reportedly to Receive Heavy EU Fine

jimmyb said:
The license agreement can only be terminated if there is a breach of contract. Intel making the personal decision to leave the European market does not constitute breach of contract.
Click to expand...

Contracts needs to be renewed.
 
Ockie said:
lol.

EU must be running short on operting cash...


EU trolls posting in 3...2...1...
Click to expand...

You take every change you get to bad-mouth, insult and flame the EU and everyone from Europe. So really, who is the troll again?

Idiot.
 
Raudulfr said:
You take every change you get to bad-mouth, insult and flame the EU and everyone from Europe. So really, who is the troll again?

Idiot.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the insult and welcome to the party that was started without you :rolleyes:

And I flame everyone from Europe? lmfao.
 
Ockie said:
Contracts needs to be renewed.
Click to expand...
What makes you believe this?

AMD-Intel Cross-licensing agreement said:
EFFECTIVE DATE, TERM AND TERMINATION FOR CAUSE

6.1. Term. This Agreement and the rights and licenses granted hereunder
----
shall become effective on the Effective Date, and shall continue in
effect until terminated by a party pursuant to Section 6.2.
Click to expand...

And if you continue to read 6.2, you'll note there needs to be an explicit cause for termination.
 
Raudulfr said:
You take every change you get to bad-mouth, insult and flame the EU and everyone from Europe. So really, who is the troll again?

Idiot.
Click to expand...

Reading comprehension should be required in public forums. He said EU trolls, not Europeans. Do you know what an EU troll is? It's someone who blindly defends the EU no matter how good or bad they are.

Do you blindly defend the EU courts in everything? Then yes, he was talking about your kind (note, I said your kind, not you specifically). Don't take it personally.
 
That may be the case. I know there have been previous court orders that have changed the licensing situation.

Nonetheless, that doesn't change the fact that the current contract "shall continue in
effect until terminated by a party pursuant to Section 6.2".
 
This internet battle is epic. The battlers have run the gamut from European anti-trust law to contract law to international business strategy. I hope no one breaches section 6.2 and thus terminates this battle.
 
ah another intel loss in the antitrust arena and another win for amd i wonder how the us will rule
 
so basically €212Million for every year they were breaking the law
 
Likewise

1) this ruling has the backing of the US gov'n
2) is 4.15 % of Intels turnover for 2008

still seems reasonable
 
According to the EC the fine represents 4.15 % of Intel's turnover in 2008.
 
Likewise the money will go into the EU pot ( €139bn for 2010, so 1Bn 0.7% of one year budget for the EU, where the EU != European states ) to reduce member states contributions. This pot is used to fund research, investement by industry and urban developement
 
eeyrjmr said:
Likewise the money will go into the EU pot ( €139bn for 2010, so 1Bn 0.7% of one year budget for the EU, where the EU != European states ) to reduce member states contributions. This pot is used to fund research, investement by industry and urban developement
Click to expand...

Of course it is. Don't you see the irony in this? They can't do their own shit that they have to steal from Intel in order to do researches of their own.

This is another way of saying "well we know Intel's breaking the law *ahem* but we don't know how to make our own processor as well as they, so uh, we'll take their money to fund researches because we know we can't do it ourselves" :rolleyes:

/dons flame suit - I know you guys are gonna eat this up lol
 
Azhar said:
Of course it is. Don't you see the irony in this? They can't do their own shit that they have to steal from Intel in order to do researches of their own.

This is another way of saying "well we know Intel's breaking the law *ahem* but we don't know how to make our own processor as well as they, so uh, we'll take their money to fund researches because we know we can't do it ourselves" :rolleyes:

/dons flame suit - I know you guys are gonna eat this up lol
Click to expand...

What processor? Like ARM, which Intel had to goto to sort out their product line?
And steal? like Intel "stole" from EU member?
The EU doesn't fund research project's, member states and companies (even american companies...) start research project and ask the commision for some contribution
Normally the EU will give 50% (for a research project it see's fits in with the EU direction) of whatever a company puts in

But hey you keep living in your dream world TROLL where everyone hates American companies and American companies should be allowed todo what they like and American way is the only way, everything else is Communist and needs to be destroyed, by force if needed


Intel broke the law repeatedly, got caught and must be punished FACT.
The US gov'n backs this case and the ruling FACT
Ergo you must disagree with your governement

If you really think Intel are innocent wtf are you doing posting on this board and NOT on Intel Lawyer payroll. I mean you must have some class defence that would mean Intel would get off completly based upon your continued defence of their practices
 
eeyrjmr said:
What processor? Like ARM, which Intel had to goto to sort out their product line?
And steal? like Intel "stole" from EU member?
The EU doesn't fund research project's, member states and companies (even american companies...) start research project and ask the commision for some contribution
Normally the EU will give 50% (for a research project it see's fits in with the EU direction) of whatever a company puts in

But hey you keep living in your dream world TROLL where everyone hates American companies and American companies should be allowed todo what they like and American way is the only way, everything else is Communist and needs to be destroyed, by force if needed


Intel broke the law repeatedly, got caught and must be punished FACT.
The US gov'n backs this case and the ruling FACT
Ergo you must disagree with your governement

If you really think Intel are innocent wtf are you doing posting on this board and NOT on Intel Lawyer payroll. I mean you must have some class defence that would mean Intel would get off completly based upon your continued defence of their practices
Click to expand...

Amen to that! Finally someone is standing up to Intel and the bullshit they pull. Perhaps our government will grow some balls and do the same.
 
Reus said:
Amen to that! Finally someone is standing up to Intel and the bullshit they pull. Perhaps our government will grow some balls and do the same.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

I'm not defending Intel's practices during the period in question, all I can say is..

If you are a European, and you want to purchase an Intel product, thank the EU courts when the premium on said product just rose by 20%.

In the end, the Europeans are going to be paying more for Intel products, and they will, because as we all know here, Intel's CPUs, etc, are far superior to AMD in this round.

That new shiny i7 is going to be going up in price, and if you want to get into the game, you better buy now. :)
 
crackbone said:
Nonsense.

I'm not defending Intel's practices during the period in question, all I can say is..

If you are a European, and you want to purchase an Intel product, thank the EU courts when the premium on said product just rose by 20%.

In the end, the Europeans are going to be paying more for Intel products, and they will, because as we all know here, Intel's CPUs, etc, are far superior to AMD in this round.

That new shiny i7 is going to be going up in price, and if you want to get into the game, you better buy now. :)
Click to expand...

Somehow I doubt prices will be changing. That whole issue where Intel failed to destroy AMD means that they still have competition. Had Intel NOT been stopped prices would have been going up, but since AMD still exists any rise is prices just pushes sales and profits over to AMD.
 
A new Intel - EU report, from the EU.

I am going to break it down and comment on the individual things on this report. Keep in mind, these are the things I've been bitching about.

"Intel has harmed millions of European consumers by deliberately acting to keep competitors out of the market for computer chips for many years," said EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes. "Such a serious and sustained violation of the EU's antitrust rules cannot be tolerated."
Click to expand...

I thought it harmed AMD? Anyways...


Kroes joked that Intel would now have to change its latest global ad campaign — "sponsors of tomorrow" — to proclaiming "the sponsor of the European taxpayer."
Click to expand...

Neelie Kroes is the EU Commissioner. Interesting choice of words here, even he's starting to buy into the concept that it's a ATM for the EU.


EU regulators said they calculated Intel's fine on the value of its European chip sales over the five years and three months that it broke the law. Europeans buy some 30 percent of the euro22 billion ($30 billion) in computer chips sold every year.
Click to expand...

This is also what I've been saying. This is a calculated based on revenue for 5 years. These things always reminds me of the concept of waiting till the cow gets fat to get more meat.

They could have gone even higher as EU antitrust rules allow them to levy a fine of up to 10 percent of a company's annual global turnover for each year of bad behavior. Intel's worldwide turnover was euro27.9 billion ($38.8 billion) in 2007.
Click to expand...

Once again, like I have said, the EU looks at the global turnover or total sales over a period (gross sales) to push a fine, not what I call justified.


European consumers group BEUC welcomed the fine and said Intel should be held to account to consumers through civil suits in European courts. So far these are rare but the EU is urging victims of antitrust action to seek damages.
Click to expand...

Cool. Just as I suspected. This was all punitive, now here comes the compensatory. So wait, what? What was the punitive for?! I thought it was for the victims... cough... I mean I thought it was for the citizens?

So now the EU consumer stands to double from this. Talk about a nice windfall. What does this work out to per tax payer? 8 dollars or so?

"Intel should be liable to compensate the victims of its illegal practices," said Monique Goyens, head of the group. "Consumers have been paying too much for their computers and they should be compensated."
Click to expand...

I lol'led.

Compensate the victim like AMD? Sure. But then why is the EU taking the money and allowing its citizens to claim damages... what happened to the real victim (AMD)? Oh wait, it's an ATM, silly me.

I love the last line. Consumers have been paying to much. I mean really, I injured my back falling off the chair laughing so hard. Quite contradictory here.... Intel was selling processors UNDER cost and this was one of the anti-competitive practices.... so now they were paying too much? WTF?!
 
Please, more CAPITAL WORDS for emphasis. And UNDERLINING.
My, I'm feeling MIGHTY TIRED *multiple YAWNS in succession.*
AND there appears to be something stuck on my ceiling :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Top it off with a little misspelling of PREJUDICE and my class on how to be a forum douche is almost complete! :cool: All I need is a topic completely unrelated to my life to lather with soapbox, and....

Success! Made myself look smarter than 15 OTHER "people" *yawn* :rolleyes:
I rock the internet.
 
Inq said:
According to the EC the fine represents 4.15 % of Intel's turnover in 2008.
Click to expand...
The formula is based on 30% of the sales of the alleged illegal practices. So the EU thinks that about 10% of one years sales represents the "damages" Intel did to the marketplace by lowering prices over the infringing period, or about 1% of sales per year. :p

The Kroes quote posted here is classic: http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislat...ongress/technology/European-Protectionism.htm

MS had 95% of installed OS share in 2004 and still does now. :p I guess her planned marketplace didn't work out, but there's always the next ridiculous faux outrage over standard OS components.

I wonder if the US will do a little "economic patriotism" à la Reagan in the early 1980s to respond in kind.
 
pxc said:
The formula is based on 30% of the sales of the alleged illegal practices. So the EU thinks that about 10% of one years sales represents the "damages" Intel did to the marketplace by lowering prices over the infringing period, or about 1% of sales per year. :p

The Kroes quote posted here is classic: http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislat...ongress/technology/European-Protectionism.htm

MS had 95% of installed OS share in 2004 and still does now. :p I guess her planned marketplace didn't work out, but there's always the next ridiculous faux outrage over standard OS components.

I wonder if the US will do a little "economic patriotism" à la Reagan in the early 1980s to respond in kind.
Click to expand...

The EU has a provision for 10% of total global gross sales per year of violation. In this case it would be approx 3.7B x 5 Years. I read somewhere (I can't find the quote now) of an EU commissioner stating that Intel was lucky that it was only so "little". Keep in mind that the EU is requesting victims and citizens to now file compensatory damages.
 
Shlomo said:
Or just maybe he wanted to know if you had any proof or if you're just spewing bullshit.
Click to expand...

Then as I told the other EU trolls, enlighten us with words of wisdom so I won't make the same mistake the next time. Trouble is you guys haven't and can't. My words might be broad generalization, but it's closer to the truth. EU courts are crooks.
 
Ockie said:
I love the last line. Consumers have been paying to much. I mean really, I injured my back falling off the chair laughing so hard. Quite contradictory here.... Intel was selling processors UNDER cost and this was one of the anti-competitive practices.... so now they were paying too much? WTF?!
Click to expand...

Yeah, that....doesn't make sense. "We're fining you $1.45 billion for anticompetitive practices by selling your processors cheaper than it cost you to make them. Oh, and we're encouraging all Europeans out there to sue you for compensation after having to pay too much." /boggle
 
eeyrjmr said:
What processor? Like ARM, which Intel had to goto to sort out their product line?
And steal? like Intel "stole" from EU member?
The EU doesn't fund research project's, member states and companies (even american companies...) start research project and ask the commision for some contribution
Normally the EU will give 50% (for a research project it see's fits in with the EU direction) of whatever a company puts in

But hey you keep living in your dream world TROLL where everyone hates American companies and American companies should be allowed todo what they like and American way is the only way, everything else is Communist and needs to be destroyed, by force if needed


Intel broke the law repeatedly, got caught and must be punished FACT.
The US gov'n backs this case and the ruling FACT
Ergo you must disagree with your governement

If you really think Intel are innocent wtf are you doing posting on this board and NOT on Intel Lawyer payroll. I mean you must have some class defence that would mean Intel would get off completly based upon your continued defence of their practices
Click to expand...

You're amusing. You keep repeating the same line over and over and over again. "the US government did it, so thus the EU could too." I mean, who gives a shit what the US government did. Most Americans, myself included, don't agree with our government's method.

Intel sold their processors at low cost and harmed AMD in the process, so the EU claims. Yet as Ockie points out, the EU also claims the European customers are being harmed by paying too much. Which is it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ockie said:
I love the last line. Consumers have been paying to much. I mean really, I injured my back falling off the chair laughing so hard. Quite contradictory here.... Intel was selling processors UNDER cost and this was one of the anti-competitive practices.... so now they were paying too much? WTF?!
Click to expand...
Intel wasn't selling below cost. AMD complained that in some instances, Intel sold "below average cost" to gain customers. It's still a laughable claim since AMD does that and more -- it regularly sells far below cost.
----

More Kroes funnies: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/EU-fines-Intel-145-billion-apf-15228311.html?.v=22

article said:
Kroes joked that Intel would now have to change its latest global ad campaign -- "sponsors of tomorrow" -- to proclaiming "the sponsor of the European taxpayer."
Click to expand...
 
It's pretty much been public/industry knowledge that Intel has been strong-arming the industry for eons. I used to be an Intel Partner and was offered all sorts of juicy rewards/discounts for selling mostly/exclusively Intel. I can only imagine that on the level of Dell, etc!

I do *not* agree with the massive fine, it's 2.5x what Microsoft got nailed for. Intel does need to change their business practices, but this extortion, er fine, isn't going to help.

I changed an old military marching cadence a little for this occasion LOL:

"Here we go again...
same ole' shiz again...
EU fining out the wa-zoo-zoo...
Now with Microsoft, that makes two..."
 
Tell the EC to shove it up their collective ass. I'm all for fairness but AMD needed to get out a competitive part, which they did in the Phenom II, which then saw their market share rise this quarter. I guess if you have nothing to compete with a US company you fine the shit out of them or stick a ridiculous tarrif on it.
 
Ualdayan said:
Yeah, that....doesn't make sense. "We're fining you $1.45 billion for anticompetitive practices by selling your processors cheaper than it cost you to make them. Oh, and we're encouraging all Europeans out there to sue you for compensation after having to pay too much." /boggle
Click to expand...

Wayyy to much logic for this thread. Didn't you check this forum this thread was in? It clearly says "soapbox" up there.
 
lmfao at all of you arguing and trolling against each other :D

FACT = Intel guilty of anti competitive measures. Fined 1.06 billion euros.

Americans should stop whining and Get Over It
 
fps4ever said:
Tell the EC to shove it up their collective ass. I'm all for fairness but AMD needed to get out a competitive part, which they did in the Phenom II, which then saw their market share rise this quarter. I guess if you have nothing to compete with a US company you fine the shit out of them or stick a ridiculous tarrif on it.
Click to expand...

Ummm... This all took place back when AMD was killing Intel on price/performance and still couldn't sell shit because Intel was paying businesses not to buy from AMD. :rolleyes:
 
Ok, The EU (the government, not the citizenry) are really beginning to embarass themselves now. No other plan for economic recovery than continuing to mine the pockets of large American business?
 
if they put it off long enough the USD wont be worth suing over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top