PDA

View Full Version : EU fines Intel $1.45 Billion


Hans Jaeger
05-13-2009, 10:13 AM
Does this put you in mind of socialism putting a damper on capitalism, or of excess capitalism being reined in?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090513/bs_nm/us_eu_intel_9
Ease
05-13-2009, 10:18 AM
WTF is an "illegal rebate"?
Hans Jaeger
05-13-2009, 10:41 AM
Here's one example...

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/illegal-rebates-to-pharmacies-an-eye-opener-43867087.html

Creative, isn't it.

Here's another one...

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2007/08/27/daily31.html
CybrSlydr
05-13-2009, 11:10 AM
Well, reading the article, it certainly sounds like Intel used their money and buying power to try and push AMD out of the market - how much of it is trumped up, I don't know.
Panthera Pardus Nigresco
05-13-2009, 02:06 PM
Well, reading the article, it certainly sounds like Intel used their money and buying power to try and push AMD out of the market -

After reading the article,
This is also my general conclusion too....
Hans Jaeger
05-13-2009, 02:44 PM
...it certainly sounds like Intel used their money and buying power to try and push AMD out of the market

But that's capitalism. Capitalism is good, no?
Panthera Pardus Nigresco
05-13-2009, 02:58 PM
But that's capitalism. Capitalism is good, no?

Do you think capitalism thrives on competition or should all products/goods be represented by a single source :confused:
Toastmaker
05-13-2009, 03:46 PM
Ultimately, it will boil down to quality/pricing. Who's chipsts represent a better value for the cost. Intel, AMD, XYZ. . . ?

That's the one you buy. If you can't (or won't) keep the competition from shouldering you out of your market - you lose.
CybrSlydr
05-13-2009, 04:42 PM
That's not the point - the product quality isn't in question.

The problem is that Intel unfairly used it's money and the like to try force AMD out of the market - Intel was trying to create a monopoly.

Last time I checked, monopolies were bad - and illegal.

Monopolies are the antithesis of capitalism and free markets.
Hans Jaeger
05-13-2009, 04:50 PM
Ultimately, it will boil down to quality/pricing. Who's chipsts represent a better value for the cost. Intel, AMD, XYZ. . . If you can't (or won't) keep the competition from shouldering you out of your market - you lose. ?


Actually there's more to it than that. Say the powerful Intel Corp. muscles AMD entirely out of the market by selling at a very narrow margin, or even by selling at a temporary loss. AMD goes out of business, or Intel takes it over, and Intel gets 100% of the market (a monopoly). Then guess what happens to chipset prices.

It's called unfair market practices.

Competition is good for a market and for consumers. Monopoly (or cartel i.e. OPEC) is not.

Teddy Roosevelt is the most famous trust- (monopoly-) buster, but as you can see from the article it's not only the EU that is anti-monopoly in this day-and-age, the US is too.

The point to my original question is that IMO unregulated capitalism is bad, and government has a role to play.