Intel responds to EU's anti-trust statement
AMD puts the boot in as well
The European Commission today issued its statement of objections against chip giant Intel, accusing it of anti-competitive behaviour. As we reported earlier, the world's number one maker of processor chips had been awaiting the verdict of a long-running investigation into the firm's alleged anti-trust business practice against rival firm AMD.
Intel's senior vice president Bruce Sewell strongly defended the firm's position, and said in a statement: "We are confident that the microprocessor market segment is functioning normally and that Intel's conduct has been lawful, pro-competitive and beneficial to consumers."
He added that Intel would liked to have avoided being hit by hefty costs to prove its conduct had been legal, but said: "The commission's decision to issue a statement of objections means that at last Intel will have the opportunity to hear and respond to the allegations made by our primary competitor."
The commission has accused Intel of being guilty of abusing its dominant market position in at least three separate ways that it reckoned could be linked together as "a single overall anti-competitive strategy".
It said in a statement:
First, Intel has provided substantial rebates to various Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) conditional on them obtaining all or the great majority of their CPU requirements from Intel.
Secondly, in a number of instances, Intel made payments in order to induce an OEM to either delay or cancel the launch of a product line incorporating an AMD-based CPU.
Thirdly, in the context of bids against AMD-based products for strategic customers in the server segment of the market, Intel has offered CPUs on average below cost.
Meanwhile, AMD voiced its opinion on the Commission's statement: "Intel has circled the globe with a pattern of conduct, including direct payments, in order to enforce full and partial boycotts of AMD.
"The EU [European Union] action obviously suggests that Intel has, once again, been unable to justify its illegal conduct," said AMD legal affairs executive vice president Thomas M McCoy. ®
Re: Antitrust and IE
Tom said: "... And it should be considered common knowledge that MS Internet Explorer as we know it today was born in the courtroom, not from quality or even legal programming. It is, in point of fact, and by design, a security risk because it had do be integrated into the Windows OS to comply with the guilty anti-trust verdict.
Anyone who argues otherwise is biased and stubborn as a mule."
IE integration into Win95 was touted as one of the "great features" of the OS BEFORE the antitrust suits saw light, you numpty.
Kinda reminds me of the anti trust against General Electric of the 1950's, Only in this case the Big Bad Guy gets away
Microsoft got raked over the coal ?
Oh did it ? Is that actually the impression that is left from all the frothing and hot air around the DoD vs MS case ?
Well it's a sad thing if it is, because as far as raking is concerned, Microsoft probably feels it mostly got a nice little back-scratch. I'll bet a lot of companies would have liked to get the treatment MS got from such a high-profile case which dwindled to not much after the DoD emasculated itself in its decisions.
With all the posturing, FUD and outright lies that MS lawyers gave at the proceedings, one would have thought that the judge would have ordered 50 lashings for everyone and a total breakdown of the company. Instead, MS was ordered to set up an internal review department and was left to its own devices while pretending to listen to the DoD.
Raked over the coals ? I think not.
Let's get a few things straight ...
to Don Mitchell: Agreed ... And it should be considered common knowledge that MS Internet Explorer as we know it today was born in the courtroom, not from quality or even legal programming. It is, in point of fact, and by design, a security risk because it had do be integrated into the Windows OS to comply with the guilty anti-trust verdict. (Firefox is better by FACT). Anyone who argues otherwise is biased and stubborn as a mule.
Alan Donaly: I don't entirely disagree with your statement but WTF are you trying to say?? Are you anti-punctuation or just sloppy? And as to what I *did* gather from your gobbltygook ... "Intel makes good hot chips so can AMD" -- Allow me to clarify: Intel *made* good chips, now they only reverse engineer and deceptively miss-market inferior technology. Case in point: There is no such thing on the market as a "Quad-Core" Intel CPU, that would be a "Double Dual-Core CPU" or a Multi-Chip Module. "so can AMD" -- you might have at least said "so *does* AMD... where do you think Intel gets all it's good ideas?
Intel's entire roadmap certainly wasn't born from inside Intel. They avoid innovation and are driving down AMD's roadmap and cutting every hair-pin corner they can, in an effort to win the race at any cost. Make no mistake, Intel's current roadmap was born from AMD's innovation. Intel had to entirely restructure and abandon their previous plans just to compete and avoid hemorrhaging money. Intel has been bullying their OEM buyers for years and it's no secret. I'm not sure how it exactly went down, but Dell finally found a way to dislodge their brown nose out of Intel's blue ass and mix in some green.
And for anyone that thinks Intel has no reason to play dirty in the global market, read this: "Intel’s revenue decline will leave the company with its lowest share of the market since before 2000, at 12.1 percent" -- http://www.isuppli.com/news/default.asp?id=7061&m=12&y=2006
Here I was thinking that when you have a business in the capitalist society, you keep your customers with "sales incentives" , ie: discounts, rebates, exclusivity deals etc. The governments want to promote successful business, as long as it's not too successful. Make up your minds.