Why doesn't europe just create their own operating system (microsoft) and processor (intel) instead of filing lawsuit and fining american companies and trying to profit from extortion??

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.

This is true to a point, but Dell and the other manufacturers are ALSO US and non-EU companies...the key point is that EU elctronics retailer...but I'm curious as to the specifics of what was given to them...Fairness would call for EU to punish them to some degree as well for complicity to the "crime", but chances are slim for that. At this point, there's not much to say, other than we will have to see what happens in 6-8 months, but you can expect some Quad Pro Quo imho.

I can't believe the amount they have been fined! £948 million!!

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...

 

 

@crumas2: Maybe I shouldn't have put it that way, but I was dismayed to see someone say the EU has nothing to do with this because it's between two American companies. When clearly these things were happening under EU's jurisdiction, making it trivial to say it's EU law to be applied.

I'm not sure why they're not going after the retailers. It depends on what the law is, perhaps this is not considered a real bribe so Intel only got nailed for it because they're already a monopoly, so the rules are more strict on them. But I'm just guessing here.

NJ5 said: @crumas2: Maybe I shouldn't have put it that way, but I was dismayed to see someone say the EU has nothing to do with this because it's between two American companies. When clearly these things were happening under EU's jurisdiction, making it trivial to say it's EU law to be applied. I'm not sure why they're not going after the retailers. It depends on what the law is, perhaps this is not considered a real bribe so Intel only got nailed for it because they're already a monopoly, so the rules are more strict on them. But I'm just guessing here.

NYTimes has a little more in-depth  article on the topic today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/business/global/14compete.html?ref=business

And Intel is smart to not frame this as a Anti-American witchhunt (nevermind that AMD is a US company):

"Mr. Sewell, Intel’s lawyer, did not see “an inherent anti-U.S. bias in the commission’s enforcement practices” in its decision to impose its highest ever fine on Intel."

But, imho the fact of the matter is this smacks of a backdoor tax on US companies who have any operations in EU zone:

"The commission can levy fines of up to 10 percent of a company’s annual global sales. Intel’s sales were $37.6 billion in 2008; thus, the company could have faced a penalty of close to $4 billion. Money collected in antitrust cases is added to the trade bloc’s annual budget of around 130 billion euros."

Considering the fact that they are looking at Apple, Cisco, Google, Rhambus and Qualcomm...all I'm saying is that this is the kind of behavior that lead to trade wars.  Taxing Foreign companies and adding it to your annual budget is a TAX...call it a fine or whatever you want...it's like giving out a riddiculous amount of traffic fines to boost your municipality's budget...imho of course.

 

@heruamon: It would be called a tax if it was applied equally on all companies. As it stands, these companies can avoid getting fined if they follow the law, which Intel didn't if you believe that those damning emails were found as claimed.

Of course Intel isn't framing this as an anti-USA thing, because they would look ridiculous given all the evidence of European companies getting fined when they screw up as well. That plus the fact that Intel has been fined in Korea and Japan as well.

 

NJ5 said: @heruamon: It would be called a tax if it was applied equally on all companies. As it stands, these companies can avoid getting fined if they follow the law, which Intel didn't if you believe that those damning emails were found as claimed. Of course Intel isn't framing this as an anti-USA thing, because they would look ridiculous given all the evidence of European companies getting fined when they screw up as well. That plus the fact that Intel has been fined in Korea and Japan as well.

 

 And my point is this...what are the rules for rebates:

"

But he insisted that antitrust agencies in Europe, Japan and South Korea had not yet established a consensus about what forms of rebates were permissible.

“The law is in now flux,” Mr. Sewell said. Referring to the flurry of investigations into Intel’s business practices in recent years, he added “I think what you see here are agencies beginning to test the boundaries of the law.”

"

I can't speak for European consumers, but at NO TIME during the period in question, did I ever have a problem getting access to a AMD-based computer.  In fact, I had 2 desktops in my house during that period, and  one was a AMD PC I bought, and one that I built.  It was cheaper and delivered better results, so I bought those.  I'm ojust an individual, so that's all I can speak to, but if Intel (whose chips are more expensive than AMD's) wants to give rebates to big buy customers, to compensate them and make up the difference of price with AMD cheaper chips...how is that anti-competitive?  I guess I don't know the extent of the rebates, and the EU isn't making the details public, so it's hard to gauge the exact  point by point issue.  At this point, I don't understand the specifics of the rebates, so it looks like any other mass-market rebate that anybody gets in a volume buy, from my limited perspective

@heruamon: Maybe you missed this post with the specifics of the deals Intel made:

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/post.php?id=2151200

Considering some Americans here feel Europe has nothing to do with this Intel should just pay back all profits it ever made in the EU instead of paying the fine.