The European Competition Commission has released more of the evidence that lay behind its decision to fine Intel over a billion euros for abusing its market position and undermining competion in the chip market. The Commission quoted emails from Dell executives which made clear that its rebates from Intel were conditional on …
Got caught...now just deny everything
Typical....there has to be some way to smack intel and ms and others who misuse their market power and hurt everyone...competition, customers, economy....you name it. slap 'em down hard.
A phrase like that coming from Intel is marketing gold for AMD, I would think.
The question is...
... which is more important : the top level "public" agreement, or the message that was handed down inside companies like Dell and HP? For what ever reason inside those companies they were being told that using and selling AMD meant lost subsidies from Intel... someone at the top must have started those "rumours" and I'm sure they didn't start down to some sort of mis-understanding.
Nice to read, but really...
it's nice to see it written about, it's even nicer to see Intel getting caught for their business practices, but really, they've been doing it for decades, and they've been told off before, and they've just carried on.
Intel Inside?Or maybe AMD Instead (where available, eg not from Dell or HP).
"Testimony given under oath by senior individuals"... the same senior individuals seeing 1 Billion flying out the window?
Call me a cynic, but I suspect that testimony is not worth the paper it's written in...
Fine is too Small
As was the case with MS the fines and punishment are disproportionately small when compared to the benefits to the companies received from their illegal activity.
At the least the fines should punish the violators to the extent of their benefits under their illegal scheme. At best they should be punitive and extremely so. Like the total value of their revenues in the relevant market. That way the punishment would suit the crime and would be a disincentive for such criminal behavior.
That's a refreshing reminder why I'm not buying their products any more.
Intel deserves to finally get bitch slapped!
Life is a b*tch, huh Intel?
Only FINE may change behaviour of corporates
I myself worked in similar corporation. ONLY PAID FINE can shift the behaviour. If they will manage not to pay the fine they will do the competitor abuses again, because it is profitable.
Decision of EU is correct. Now its time to pay the fine.
Intel should be slapped with a daily fine
100,000e a day sounds good to me.
Where does the money go when companies are fined this much? I'm guessing EU staff all get bonuses?
@ Intel should be slapped with a daily fine
I'd suggest adding another 2 zero's to the end of that as you're fine would only amount to 36.5m Euros a year - hardly a deterrent.
36,500,000 vs 3,650,000,000 - I know which one I'd rather bitch slap them with.
Plus I'd make it compound interest!
--Intel is committed to ethical business behavior
--at the same time, they ignored or minimized hard evidence of what actually happened
--overlooking or dismissing authoritative documents as “insufficiently clear” when they contradicted the Commission’s case.
WTF, do intel expect ANYONE to believe this bullshit, they have been caught and still continue to try and bullshit their way out of their guilt. It pisses me off to see wankers like intel getting caught, but it makes my blood boil when I see them continue to deny their guilt after been caught.
at least honest criminals admit their guilt when they have been caught and see the overwhelming evidence against them.
And a special message for people living in Direland... intel think that a yes vote to the Lisbon treaty is a good thing, and we know that we can trust them.... NOT.
Well I'm off to <insert name to high street chain of computer shops> to see if I can get a Dell, HP etc. with an AMD CPU, and when I can't I going to tell them that I am not buying anything because I want an AMD chipset.
Did the intel legal eagle actually use the word exculpatory in their press release? I had to look it up; adj. applied to evidence which may justify or excuse an accused defendant's actions, and which will tend to show the defendant is not guilty or has no criminal intent.
Does anyone else see irony in that definition, "evidence which may justify or excuse" as in "not evidence that proves innocence".
- Microsoft: We're hiking UK cloud prices 22%. Stop whining – it's the Brexit
- Thanks, IoT vendors: your slack attitude will get regulators moving
- Cabinet Office gears up to ink mega Oracle deal
- AWS budget tool update gives suits the control they crave
- Government Digital Service under review after rural payments cockup