The BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8047546.stm) reports that:
QuoteComputer chipmaker Intel has been fined a record 1.06bn euros ($1.45bn; £948m) by the European Commission for anti-competitive practices.
It dwarfs the 497m euro fine levied on Microsoft in 2004 for abusing its dominant market position.
The Commission found that between 2002 and 2007, Intel had paid manufacturers and a retailer to favour its chips over those of Advanced Micro Devices (AMD).
Intel has announced that it will appeal against the verdict.
"Intel takes exception to this decision. We believe the decision is wrong and ignores the reality of a highly competitive microprocessor market," Intel chief executive Paul Otellini said.
"There has been absolutely zero harm to consumers. Intel will appeal," he added.
The fine was welcomed by AMD, which had lodged complaints in 2000, 2003 and 2006.
"The EU decision will shift the power from an abusive monopolist to computer makers, retailers and above all PC consumers," said Giuliano Meroni, AMD's European president.
If it stands, and that seems likely to judge by the EU's attitude, that fine has to hurt Intel.
That's an astonishing amount especially when you take into consideration that their profits have taken a tumble due to the world recession. At a guess I'd say that's probably a year's profit gone west... or east, depending on your perspective :D
Is it justified? I don't really know.
The EU has to pay MEP expenses somehow...
Quote from: zappaDPJ on May 13, 2009, 15:53:22
That's an astonishing amount especially when you take into consideration that their profits have taken a tumble due to the world recession. At a guess I'd say that's probably a year's profit gone west... or east, depending on your perspective :D
Is it justified? I don't really know.
It's certainly got to make eyes water, hasn't it. That's a huge amount of money. I just wonder whether, in the long term, it will do consumers more harm than good?
Quote from: Lance on May 13, 2009, 15:58:04
The EU has to pay MEP expenses somehow...
Did you notice the remark later in the piece?
QuoteMs Kroes joked in her own news conference that Intel would now have to change its latest advertising slogan from "sponsors of tomorrow" to "the sponsor of the European taxpayer".
Not a joking matter, I would have said.
This kind of amount has got to hurt anyone. I'm not sure how much cash Intel have, but I'd still say it's going to be a significant chunk for them.
If they can afford it, they should give it to me, I'd waste much less of it than Brussels. :evil:
:rofl:
Quote from: Rik on May 13, 2009, 15:58:23
It's certainly got to make eyes water, hasn't it. That's a huge amount of money. I just wonder whether, in the long term, it will do consumers more harm than good?
Intel knew that the penalty for such behaviour is up to 10% of global annual turnover, they got off lightly really. The others involved are lucky not to be fined too.
Though, of course, Intel don't believe they've done anything wrong. I wonder how many MPs they employ? ;D
Quote from: Rik on May 13, 2009, 15:59:47
Did you notice the remark later in the piece?
I didn't see that :rofl:
Sour grapes from AMD for being behind the gameline for the last couple of years.
Couple, Steve? ;)
Quote from: Rik on May 13, 2009, 16:07:24
If they can afford it, they should give it to me, I'd waste much less of it than Brussels. :evil:
What annoys me about this is that AMD took a massive hammering over the last few years as a result of this, when they were the better CPU manufacturer, then they stopped improving their designs probably due to lack of money available for research. Intel get fined but do AMD get anything from that fine? Nope, not a bean. So Intel will be laughing as they'll no doubt be paying it back in a way that's easiest for them, still have the dominant market position and AMD will still be where they were before the case. Hardly fair.
I agree, Niall. AMD certainly were once better, though, like you say, they then stopped improving their designs and Intel are now much better. :(
It always used to be cyclical as to who made the best chips (I like Sue's, but I'm biased ;D), but it seems like a distant memory now, which is not in our best interests at all.
PPC chips were apparently once the best, so it just goes to show.
When Motorola was still a significant player, eh Seb. :) I have a soft spot for them, of course.
McCain Chips are the best ;D
Seriously the EU should just butt out. Whats it got to do with them? Surely it's upto the other CPU manufacturers to get their game face on and bring out better products.
But what Intel did was illegal...
note to self : read original posts properly.
;D