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.
Contracts needs to be renewed.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
lol.
EU must be running short on operting cash...
EU trolls posting in 3...2...1...
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.
What makes you believe this?Contracts needs to be renewed.
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.
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.
And she is right, I fail to see how anyone can defend Intel for what they did over >5year (5years that can be proved)Neelie Kroes said:Such a serious and sustained violation of the EU's antitrust rules cannot be tolerated
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
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"
/dons flame suit - I know you guys are gonna eat this up lol
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
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.
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.
"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."
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."
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.
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.
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.
"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."
So basically you just like to disagree with me and side with the EU no matter what.
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.According to the EC the fine represents 4.15 % of Intel's turnover in 2008.
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.
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. 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.
Or just maybe he wanted to know if you had any proof or if you're just spewing bullshit.
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?!
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
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.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?!
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."
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
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.