Intel to EU watchdogs: 'It's AMD's fault'

Surprising no one, Intel contends that European Union market watchdogs erred when they fined the chip-baking giant €1.06bn for anti-competive practices. According to a report today by the Associated Press, Intel has filed a plea with the European commission to either reverse its decision entirely or - at minimum - reduce what …

[Sly]

riiiiight

"It's hard to imagine how consumers were harmed in an industry which has lowered the cost of computing by a factor of 100 during the term of this case, and at the same time that happened, AMD claims it's more vibrant than ever. So I don't see consumer harm or competitor harm happening here."

yeah... when Intel stopped those practices because of the scrutiny, AMD started doing better. Go figure. It always amazes me the dirt some companies want us to swallow.

The EU should double the fine for badgering the courts.

[JohnG]

Our cheating didn't work that well - so we're innocent

Intel don't seem to understand how laws work. They claim that their actions did not have "immediate, substantial, direct and foreseeable effects" on AMD's EU sales. Even if that were true, their actions were not legal and that is why they are being fined.

[Nate Amsden]

fine was too small

any fine like this that a company can pay off in a single quarter is too small. Intel is a big company, should be sized to make more of a dent, perhaps 5-6-10x the original amount. They don't need to pay it all at once, spread it out..

Courts seem to hand fines down to individuals on a fairly regular basis it seems like that would take many, many years to pay off.

[Anonymous Coward]

@Nate

I'm not sure if I agree or not. In principle I guess I do, but my practical side says that they should cut the ridiculous fines for individuals. Some of the fines you can get are utterly disproportionate and just fuelled by people frothing at the mouth about the topic of the week.

Actually, screw it. 10Bn over, say, 10 years. Or £1Bn fine with £500Mn going to AMD. Even the existing £1Bn fine + a thorough scouring of the IP banks of AMD and Intel with fines for each violation.

[Wade Burchette]

Earth to Intel

I remember a time when major motherboard makers had to sell their product unlabeled else they would have to face Intel's wrath. When you prevent a company from succeeding, how on earth will that company be able to compete. It is like holding someone under water and asking why they can't swim. How can you explain it when AMD had a far far superior product called Athlon 64 and Opteron that ran circles around your Pentium 4 and Xeon but still could not gain major marketshare? How else can you explain how your lapdog called Dell only started to sell AMD products when Core 2 came out? Why did you adopt AMD's 64-bit technology? Why did you adopt AMD's concept of the CPU memory controller?

All of these fines should go to AMD and not to some EU bureaucrat. Lets see what AMD can do with a huge R&D budget. Intel has the superior product now. But something tells me AMD will finally use the ATI engineers to really expand the math ability of their CPU's very soon. The ATI acquisition hurt AMD in the short-term, but everyone knew it was a long-term purchase.

[Anonymous Coward]

Intel is right

The fine should really be 500 BILLION Euro for their criminal acts.

[JC 2]

So Being The Enforcers Of Justice That They Are...

Certainly they're about to turn over the proceeds of this fine to AMD any day now.

[amanfromMars 1]

Stop Press ...... Intel Revised Declaration

"Intel isn't buying that rationale. According to the new plea, AMD's lower market share was due to that company's "own shortcomings"".

That reads better and is more consistent with the facts presented to the investigation when it is rewritten .... Intel isn't buying that rationale. According to the new plea, AMD's lower market share was due to that company's "own crooked shortcomings".

[John Chadwick]

I'm surprised it isn't the consumers fault.

Intel, Microsoft, IBM and Oracle, all to quite a substantial degree owe their success to the consumers of their products, not just to their marketing tactics. Intels practices might have been acceptable whilst there was still competition between TI, Zilog, Motorola and others for the desktop market, but once Wintel took the market, those tactics have become manifestly unfair and monopolistic. Long ago Intels competitors could afford to use the same tactics to win market share, but now, they just can't compete on those terms.

In business we buy stuff that we can defend our decisions on, so the old "You won't get fire for buying ....." still holds true. I actually, when I can take a longer view, I want AMD, SUN, Apple and others in the market because I can see the market stagnating if they aren't there. The big companies have no incentive to innovate, or buy innovation, if there is no competition.

However CEOs and CFOs don't care about these long term goals, only that their costs are lower than their competitors this year. IT is also generally viewed as a cost, not a benefit, so if IT costs go up for everybody, because IT is not competing, then it's not a big problem.

This is a bit simplistic, but as a basic model it's true.

[Ami Ganguli]

It has to be big enough to hurt

If the fine is to act as a deterrent, it has to hurt. And since it's a company and not an individual, it has to be big enough to cause real anguish for the executives, who make the decisions even though they're not personally paying the fine.

So how big is big enough for the CEO and the board of directors to think "wow, that was really stupid, I could lose my cushy job over this, and other companies will be afraid to hire me because I do stupid shit"? Certainly more than a billion. Maybe 10 billion would be enough to get some of the top management fired and put a good scare into the ones who are left.

[Fred 1]

Absolutely Fine

I expect that the fine is probably too low. It should work out at more than the profit they made over several years of illegal anti competitive behaviour to act as an effective deterrent.

[lukewarmdog]

scapegoat

Someone has got to be one. Clear message to stop anti-competitive practices.

As for the fine.. it should ALL go to AMD. Again a clear message.

As a knock on effect maybe that would make the US sit up and overhaul their patent system.

[Fred Flintstone]

Ah, so that will be Google's defence then too..

After all, Google does not have "immediate, substantial, direct and foreseeable effects" on your privacy. Only the Swiss had the nerve to examine the substance of their offering and simply ask them to have some respect for privacy laws (well, and Japan). Ditto Farcebook.

Erosion never happens all at once - that's why it's called "erosion" and not "removal". Keep sleepwalking - that's how you got a CCTV based Panoptikon.

The best entertainment is watching the Google fans: somehow you're paid by MS if you voice concern about what they're doing - fantastic..

---

This was an offtopic message There is no cause for alarm. Read the prescription. Owner may sue, contents may settle. If you have received this message in error, well done.

[Field Marshal Von Krakenfart]

Waah Waah

Other suitable excuses:- The dog ate my homework; the bold boy next door broke the window and ran away; somebody else shit in my pants; etc. etc.

Still, it would explain why chipzilla is willing to spend €1/2M promoting a "yes" vote on the Lisbon treaty, which is only 0.00005% of the fine. That shows Intel’s contempt for the ordinary consumer and the EU. Do that really think that Intel’s fake “we’re good Europeans, please don't punish us for being naughty” act is going to fool anyone? ,

Instead of getting a €1Bn slap on the wrist, Intel should be asked to bend over and assume the position. They tried to fuck up the market with their tactics; the EU should now return the complement.

Paris, she knows how to assume the correct position.

[Anonymous Coward]

So if Microsoft....

...was responsible for the Toshiba NB200 being rebated if it has Windows pre-installed on it, is that anti-competative?

I talked with Toshiba sales people when trying to buy my NB200 saying I didn't want Windows because I intended to run Linux and didn't want to pay the Windows tax. I was told that the machine was being discounted by Microsoft and if I didn't want Windows on it, I'd have to pay more for the machine.

Ironically, although one or two of the NB100 range came with Linux, none of the NB200 range do. Strange, that.

Is this kind of behaviour in the same ballpark?

[Graham Bartlett]

Ad-hominem? Not exactly

Up to the point you're found guilty, you're due a fair trial on the evidence. But once you're found guilty, sentencing is necessarily based on whether you've done it before. If you've already been found guilty of something three times, and you do it again and are found guilty again, you can expect the results to be harsher next time.

And then suppose you moan about the fact that you've had a harsher result, without accepting that you did anything wrong, after having previously been done for it three times. Commenting on this apparent inability to accept the rule of law isn't an ad-hominem attack, it's a valid observation that the person/organisation has a well-established pattern of behaving this way.

[Stephen Jenner]

So the bribery hasn't worked then!

Intel have interfered in the politics of Ireland, they have invested several hundred thousand euro's into the "Yes" campaign in the somewhat anti-democratic second vote on the Lisbon Putsch (treaty?). Usually in a democracy, the majority wins, in the EU, a second vote is required if the "people" vote the "wrong" way.

So, what next?

Turkey is nice I believe, and not in the EU yet.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Intel, AMD and EU are asses.

Intel - Asses for carrying on bleating about it. Learn from M$ lesson - you'll not beat the EU bureaucracy. It has inherited a couple of thousand years of the finest traditions of stubbornness, blinkered narrow mindedness and arrogance that has infected government in europe since the Roman empire, and probably before. Stop wasting yours and our time (and tax payers money) - you got caught, move on, it's not like you've gone bust over it.

AMD - asses for bleating to the EU in the first place. Another company wanting a welfare state for anyone NOT in the top spot. It is human nature to try and shoot down the top dog (regardless of how they got there), but having to resort to such legal excess? And besides, they got caught this time - First, do you think it'll put them off and play fair? Second, who's to say it won't be someone after you next time (in a company of AMD's size, I doubt everyone is completely clean....)?

EU - Just plain asses anyway. Remember, business is not about social equality, it's about making money - and trying to shoot down the biggest player harms things for all of us. Who do you think will pay the fine that you levy? It'll be the tax payer, when prices at Intel rise (or don't fall as fast), the users (business, public sector and home users) suffer. AMD will probably continue to undercut Intel, but not by much - so they can scrape in more profit, that's how business is played after all.

[Greg 10]

The fine should definitely NOT go to AMD

Competition law does not work that way, nor should it.

Competition Law is meant to detect harm to the CONSUMER, not to competitors.

Preventing a competitor from doing business is bad for consumers if it raises the price, or decreases the quality, in the long run.

For this reason, the anti-competitive companies are fined and the money goes to the representatives of the consumers, that is, the states.

The competitor can also sue for damages, but that's a different point entirely, and you should not get confused between the two.

It would be of the utmost ultra-liberal stupidity to say that when customers are hurt, companies should get the money for it.

*I* ended up paying my processing cycles more because of the reduced competition, so *I* should get the money back, for instance by paying less taxes thanks to the billion the states get back (or to the billion less in deficit that I'll end up paying for because governments can't control spending, but at least, they'll borrow one less billion this year, and that's an other issue anyway).

I'm very happy if, in addition to that, AMD investors (through AMD itself) can also get some money from Intel investors (through reduced Intel earnings), but I fail to understand people here who would consider the harm to society should be ignored and only the harm to AMD investors should be considered.

[Field Marshal Von Krakenfart]

@Greg 10

"paying less taxes thanks to the billion"

Eh! This the EU we are talking about, the only thing this is likley to change is the running costs of the EU, upwards by 1Bn.

[Andy 99]

@Michelle Knight

As I understand it, Intel were offering incentives for suppliers and OEM's to *not* buy AMD CPU's\machines - even going as far as saying "you can only have this many CPU's if you don't use x amount of AMD's". I think at one point AMD couldn't even give away a batch of CPU's for free to Dell (I think) because of the agreement they had with Intel. It's all reported right here on the reg :)

Microsoft aren't really doing that in your example, just offering incentives that Linux can't really beat. That's not unfair business practices, just really annoying!

[Aitor 1]

Greg10 -> 10 for you

You certainly hit the point here..

Claerly Intel used illegal actions to protect its marketshare, and with these practices has prevented AMD from gaining marketshare and got time to refine their processors.

The damage to AMD is clear, as should be the damage to the consumers: we got ripped off.

[amanfromMars 1]

Reality check

"*I* ended up paying my processing cycles more because of the reduced competition, so *I* should get the money back, for instance by paying less taxes thanks to the billion the states get back (or to the billion less in deficit that I'll end up paying for because governments can't control spending, but at least, they'll borrow one less billion this year, and that's an other issue anyway)." .... By Greg 10 Posted Wednesday 16th September 2009 09:57 GMT

And if you believe you'll benefit from any windfall, Greg 10, rather than the "representatives of the consumer" sqirrelling it away somewhere for their own benefit, I suppose you would also be believing in the tooth fairy.

And when that is the case, Intel will probably tell them to whistle "Dixie"... or they could even do the right thing and pay AMD direct....... after all, the EU have already been paid for all their work in bringing the prosecution by virtue of their generous salaries.

[Anonymous Coward]

Pay that to AMD

Fine is too low. Should be "payable to AMD". Shame on you monopolous Intel.

[Al Jones]

ATI graphics on intel motherboards

When I was building a PC last year, I decided that on-board graphics would be good enough for my needs, and be more power efficient. I knew that i wanted an Intel CPU, because at that point, the Core 2 Duo's had clearly taken the performance mantle from AMD, and given my druthers, I'd have preferred an ATI graphics chip.

But try as i might, I couldn't find an LGA775 motherboard with up to date ATI graphics on board. I could have Intel or NVidia graphics with my Intel CPU or and AMD CPU with my ATI onboard graphics.

I got the impression at the time that this was AMDs doing, but I don't know for sure. Even today, I can get Intel socketed motherboards with Intel, NVidia, S3, Trident or Via IGPs, or ATI socketed motherboards with AMD or NVidia IGPs. Was there any ant-competitive behaviour going on there, because as a consumer, I definitely felt harmed by this.

[Paper]

Tut!

If a person tries to murder someone, we don't just let that person back on to the streets. Why does Intel think it is an exception?

[Anonymous Coward]

Intel was guilty of antitrust issues with AMD

Hi, I been a AMD/Intel reseller online for 11 years. What the charges are about were true. Computer manufacturers getting better Intel prices if they don't buy AMD. Intel authorized distributors got better prices if they didn't sell AMD cpus. Motherboard companies getting better Intel part pricing if they didn't make AMD motherboards. Intel has been found guilty in all the antitrust lawsuits in the world, Japan, Korea, EU etc. The USA justice dept is still investigating....Wait until you see the fine the USA will make Intel pay. When the antitrust suits started, soon everyone was playing dumb and started selling AMD cpus. Like they didn't know for years that AMD was better...By the way the Phenom II 965 is the fast desktop quad core, it beats Intel.

Note to writer, my last post was deleted, it was on topic, etc. Please do not delete this one or I will file a complaint with your editor.