What do Standard Oil, AT&T and Intel have in common?
None of them were monopolies, but the government treated them as such.
Standard oil used unfair business practices to achieve its near monopoly. This included murder, extortion and blackmail and good old fashioned beat the crap out of people.
AT&T was huge and a near monopoly too. You cant deny that. At the time it was one of the biggest companies in market share and price in the world. Now I can agree the splitting up of AT&T was a waste of time, because instead of one big company now you have regional monopolies that have put the US back in the telecommunications world. Lack of competitors and lack of willingness to do anything about it has put the US in certain areas no better than an up and coming telecommunication nations in Europe and the 3rd world.
Intel is a near monopoly too. No matter how you slice or dice it, Intel can trounce its very few competitors if it wanted to. When you sit on 70%+ of the market then you in reality own that market up to a degree. And if the company in question is not watched like a hawk for exploiting this massive market advantage in an anti competitive way then the company will do so.. we have seen it before and will see it again. And for the record, I am an Intel man because they have the superior product (for now).
Monopolies or near monopolies are in no ones interest regardless if it is an EU company, Japanese company or an American company. But I guess the nationalistic cloud of stupidity triumphs over logic and common sense yet again.
Vich they were paying suppliers to not use AMD products.
Very anti competitive.
You forgot one:
5. a Board game from Milton Bradly played by evil rich kids.
Which of the above would be legal/illegal if you decided the rules in a capatilistic market? Why?
Paying distribution companies and retailers money so they delay the release of a competitors product.
Paying a company money to not sell a competitors product.
Paying a supplier money to inflate the price or deny components to a competitor.
Collaborating with a competitor to fix prices.
Lowering prices below profitable levels to force less sustainable competitors out of the market.
The Commission found that between 2002 and 2007, Intel had paid manufacturers and a retailer to favour its chips over those of Advanced Micro Devices (AMD).
What's wrong with that?
Blame the OEM, not Intel.
Intel Monopoly
Intel Playing Monopoly? - Industry News - Overclockers Club
Basically rulings like this are merely going to raise the price of computers for the rest of us.
GG.
Although at times I do think that if AMD is the better of the two then they will eventually prevail.
I like AMD because you get similar power without the Intel cost.
Pretty much. AMD offers for I'd venture 90% of people the raw processing power they need but at half the cost if not more. I don't know anyone who actually uses the full extent of a 775 pin Quad Core. But they pay for it though the nose when they could have gotten a Quad Core from AMD or even a Triple Core for much, much, much less. I have Intel stock, but AMD is a much better value for most users. Not for those running Crysis at 70 FPS, but most folks.
Pretty much. AMD offers for I'd venture 90% of people the raw processing power they need but at half the cost if not more. I don't know anyone who actually uses the full extent of a 775 pin Quad Core. But they pay for it though the nose when they could have gotten a Quad Core from AMD or even a Triple Core for much, much, much less. I have Intel stock, but AMD is a much better value for most users. Not for those running Crysis at 70 FPS, but most folks.
For example, rival chip manufacturer AMD offered one million free CPUs to one particular computer manufacturer. If the computer manufacturer had accepted all of these, it would have lost Intel's rebate on its many millions of remaining CPU purchases, and would have been worse off overall simply for having accepted this highly competitive offer. In the end, the computer manufacturer took only 160,000 CPUs for free.
Anyone else think the EU Folks have a clue about business?
Also, the fines are not actually high at all. The problem with fining a corporation is that unless the fine hurts their bottom line, they have no incentive to change their behavior. If you can make 10 million breaking the law and only get fined 1 million, what is the incentive to follow the law? Fines either need to high enough to punish those who break the law, or your need to start revoking corporate charters and throwing people in jail. You cannot deter someone from a crime if they can ignore the punishment.
I don't think that is illegal as long as it doesn't create a monopoly. From what I've heard anti-trust laws are vague: you can't "unreasonably exclude firms from the market or significantly impair their ability to compete".I pay you money so you buy my products. And you go to jail for that in the US and/or pay hefty fines.
I don't think that is illegal as long as it doesn't create a monopoly.
From what I've heard anti-trust laws are vague: you can't "unreasonably exclude firms from the market or significantly impair their ability to compete".
Getting kickbacks from the government is different then defining terms of purchase or sale between companies. The typical use of "kickback" is one when a person is bribed with individual compensation, not an entire company.I don't know about that. Firms and people get fined and go to jail for engaging in kickbacks. Many mafia are in jail partially because DAs could prove that they engaged in illegal kickbacks.
The real problem is that many necessary business practices can have the impression of unfair practice. No doubt many companies use this to their advantage.I guess so, but given how the article is worded, what Intel did was a kick back. Even if it did not hamper competition, defending their actions is pretty ridiculous. I don't see why if as a country we proclaim it to be illegal for people to do it why companies engaging in it is any better.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?