$400M = $0.4B, how much did they profit from their anticompetitive practices? It appears their profits are in the tens of billions per year, so if it increased their profits by 1% for the decade...
$400M = $0.4B, how much did they profit from their anticompetitive practices? It appears their profits are in the tens of billions per year, so if it increased their profits by 1% for the decade then the fine was just the cost of doing business.
Correct, a better ruling might also ban them from selling in the EU for 5 years. See how well they compete after they're not quite so deeply entrenched. When a basketball player fouls an opponent,...
Correct, a better ruling might also ban them from selling in the EU for 5 years. See how well they compete after they're not quite so deeply entrenched.
When a basketball player fouls an opponent, the opponent gets a free throw.
Or possibly levy a 50 euro surcharge on all their products going forward for 10 years, splitting half with the party that was provably harmed.
The EU wouldn't do this because it would cause so much harm to them – for one, Intel would probably scrap all its planned European chip fabs. The other issue is that EU companies in technology are...
The EU wouldn't do this because it would cause so much harm to them – for one, Intel would probably scrap all its planned European chip fabs. The other issue is that EU companies in technology are already far behind their US competitors – being unable to buy Intel chips isn't exactly going to help. It would alsog give AMD a total EU monopoly.
5 years of a ban is a drop in a bucket. Intel may lose their dominant marketshare but it wouldn't hit 0. Especially in this age where laptop lifespans of 10 years is perfectly viable. 10 years...
5 years of a ban is a drop in a bucket. Intel may lose their dominant marketshare but it wouldn't hit 0. Especially in this age where laptop lifespans of 10 years is perfectly viable. 10 years with an additional tax gives AMD some headroom but if Intel can still compete, well, they get a taste of being on the recieving end of an anticompetitive policy,
And yea, companies being hit with proper punishments will probably retaliate. Not handing out proper punishment all the time is what gives them the clout to do this.
But I'm sure TSMC or Samsung would be happy to prop up some new fabs at subsidized rates if they see a void in the market that Intel is pushed out of.
Most businesses wouldn't say that a "5 year ban is a drop in a bucket", they'd say it's a risk to the long-term viability of the business. As in TSMC would subsidise a fab in the EU, or would...
5 years of a ban is a drop in a bucket. Intel may lose their dominant marketshare but it wouldn't hit 0. Especially in this age where laptop lifespans of 10 years is perfectly viable. 10 years with an additional tax gives AMD some headroom but if Intel can still compete, well, they get a taste of being on the recieving end of an anticompetitive policy,
Most businesses wouldn't say that a "5 year ban is a drop in a bucket", they'd say it's a risk to the long-term viability of the business.
But I'm sure TSMC or Samsung would be happy to prop up some new fabs at subsidized rates if they see a void in the market that Intel is pushed out of.
As in TSMC would subsidise a fab in the EU, or would receive subsidies from the EU to build one? I assume the latter, and I'm not so sure. TSMC broadly prefers to build things in Taiwan because it has the complete backing of the Taiwanese state (so special dispensations around water rights, friends in all the places – not even all the right places, literally everywhere in government). They also have an economy of scale in Taiwan because the same specialists can work on lots of different fabs. They've also said that they plan to remain a Taiwanese business and stated that it would be extremely difficult to replicate what they've build somewhere else.
Attempting to use anticompetitive practices to run your competitors out of business should carry a risk to long-term viability of your business. The entire point of the penalty is to be damaging...
Most businesses wouldn't say that a "5 year ban is a drop in a bucket", they'd say it's a risk to the long-term viability of the business.
Attempting to use anticompetitive practices to run your competitors out of business should carry a risk to long-term viability of your business. The entire point of the penalty is to be damaging to the point of making the company seriously rethink their behavior.
I think the correct way to prevent monopolies from emerging is to be proactive. Punishing companies later doesn't really make a difference, because most executives can jump ship right before the...
I think the correct way to prevent monopolies from emerging is to be proactive. Punishing companies later doesn't really make a difference, because most executives can jump ship right before the company sinks.
Foo Yun Chee and Bart H. Meijer ($1 = 0.9403 euros)
Foo Yun Chee and Bart H. Meijer
Intel was fined 376 million euros ($400 million) on Friday in an EU antitrust case stemming from the U.S. chipmaker's anti-competitive practice nearly two decades ago to block rivals.
An initial record fine of 1.06 billion euros in 2009 for the offence and other practices was thrown out last year by the Luxembourg-based General Court, Europe's second highest.
The court, however, agreed with the European Commission that Intel illegally excluded rivals from the market which prompted the EU antitrust watchdog to re-open the case.
The 2009 ruling accused Intel of blocking rival Advanced Micro Devices.
On Friday, the EU watchdog said it had re-imposed a fine for practices between November 2002 and December 2006 when Intel paid HP, Acer and Lenovo to halt or delay rival products.
"The General Court confirmed that Intel's naked restrictions amounted to an abuse of dominant market position under EU competition rules," the European Commission said in a statement.
Intel said it was assessing its options.
"We are analysing the decision and the amount of the fine to determine the possible grounds and prospects of success of an appeal to the European Courts.,"
Intel is currently awaiting the Commission's approval for nearly 10 billion euros in German state subsidies to build a chipmaking facility in Germany.
The Commission has appealed the other parts of the General Court's ruling last year related to conditional rebates offered by Intel at the EU Court of Justice, Europe's top court.
$400M = $0.4B, how much did they profit from their anticompetitive practices? It appears their profits are in the tens of billions per year, so if it increased their profits by 1% for the decade then the fine was just the cost of doing business.
Correct, a better ruling might also ban them from selling in the EU for 5 years. See how well they compete after they're not quite so deeply entrenched.
When a basketball player fouls an opponent, the opponent gets a free throw.
Or possibly levy a 50 euro surcharge on all their products going forward for 10 years, splitting half with the party that was provably harmed.
The EU wouldn't do this because it would cause so much harm to them – for one, Intel would probably scrap all its planned European chip fabs. The other issue is that EU companies in technology are already far behind their US competitors – being unable to buy Intel chips isn't exactly going to help. It would alsog give AMD a total EU monopoly.
5 years of a ban is a drop in a bucket. Intel may lose their dominant marketshare but it wouldn't hit 0. Especially in this age where laptop lifespans of 10 years is perfectly viable. 10 years with an additional tax gives AMD some headroom but if Intel can still compete, well, they get a taste of being on the recieving end of an anticompetitive policy,
And yea, companies being hit with proper punishments will probably retaliate. Not handing out proper punishment all the time is what gives them the clout to do this.
But I'm sure TSMC or Samsung would be happy to prop up some new fabs at subsidized rates if they see a void in the market that Intel is pushed out of.
Most businesses wouldn't say that a "5 year ban is a drop in a bucket", they'd say it's a risk to the long-term viability of the business.
As in TSMC would subsidise a fab in the EU, or would receive subsidies from the EU to build one? I assume the latter, and I'm not so sure. TSMC broadly prefers to build things in Taiwan because it has the complete backing of the Taiwanese state (so special dispensations around water rights, friends in all the places – not even all the right places, literally everywhere in government). They also have an economy of scale in Taiwan because the same specialists can work on lots of different fabs. They've also said that they plan to remain a Taiwanese business and stated that it would be extremely difficult to replicate what they've build somewhere else.
Attempting to use anticompetitive practices to run your competitors out of business should carry a risk to long-term viability of your business. The entire point of the penalty is to be damaging to the point of making the company seriously rethink their behavior.
I think the correct way to prevent monopolies from emerging is to be proactive. Punishing companies later doesn't really make a difference, because most executives can jump ship right before the company sinks.
Looks like EU politicians are too weak or bribed to make megacorporations pay for criminal activity.
Foo Yun Chee and Bart H. Meijer
($1 = 0.9403 euros)