By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
crumas2 on 13 May 2009
Edit Thread
NJ5 said:
crumas2 said:
NJ5 said:

@crumas2: The EU is supposed to regulate the European market. So when a company engages in anti-competitive behavior with European companies (remember that retailers and other computer companies are involved in this), the law says an investigation must happen.

It also happens that this behavior from Intel hurts European consumers, by denying them access to the competing products from AMD. Not only that but it also means Intel could keep their products at a higher price by eliminating the competition from the European market.

So tell me again, why should the EU ignore what Intel did here?

 

It's really none of the EU's business if one American company is demonstrating anti-competitive behavior against another American company.  They have an *interest* (it could ultimately lead to a monopoly and higher prices), but not a mandate, except in their own minds.  How would the EU respond if the US government fined BMW because it was being anti-competitive against Saab?  Our government tends to fine foreign companies that are improperly competing with American companies, but I'm unaware of scenarios where we levy gigantic fines against foreign companies for unfairly competing with each other.

When fines of that magnitude are levied, it's usually to restore a local competitor or to compensate consumers.  In this case, it's simply a tax considering EU customers most likely would NOT have paid significantly less for those processors had the behavior not existed.

You're clearly uneducated about these matters. If an American robs an American on European soil, the applicable law is that of the country where the crime happened. The same is true in regards to companies' activities, which were done in EU territory.

For similar things, Intel was fined in Japan and Korea. If Intel doesn't want to get fined, they can either leave these markets (which they won't) or comply with the law.

 

I work in the legal department of a fortune 100 company.  What are your credentials for being "educated" in these matters?  What a cheap shot you took... it's beneath what I typically see in your postings.   And what I did was called "brow-beating", which isn't much better. 

Tariffs have historically been employed by governments to restore trade balance.  Fines in the $1b+ range is an outrageous act that implies that the EU has the ability to strong-arm foreign companies into complying with whatever abstract laws of fairness or equality they come up with.  If they have a mandate to stop Intel from "bribing" EU retailers/etc, then why are they not going after those who accepted bribes?  Hmmm.

This isn't something that used to occur decades ago... it's a new twist on a governing body's out-of-control desire to make everything "fair", at least according to their ideals (and why I have such a tough time stomaching what California does on a regular basis).  Also, try not to mix trade and/or corporate law with laws designed to protect individuals against crimes committed by other individuals... they're dramatically different in many ways.

Even EU members experience the EU's grip on everything from markets to the environment:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4674885.stm

I'm seriously worried that the EU is heading toward an Orwellian future, where everyone is monitored 24x7 and appropriate societal behavior is tightly controlled...