Putting allegedly and ????? does not get you off the hook so easily in my book. Clickbait driven fake news in a deliberate attempt to steer narratives is the name of the game these days, and personally I think it is pathetic.
Law360, New York (June 12, 2014, 1:39 PM EDT) -- Intel Corp. lost its challenge of a €1.1 billion ($1.4 billion) abuse-of-dominance fine in the European Union's General Court, according to a Thursday decision upholding the European Commission's findings that the chipmaker used its market position to push out rival Advanced Micro Devices Inc.
The General Court rejected Intel's arguments that the commission had not offered enough evidence to justify its allegations that the Santa Clara, California-based company had abused its dominance for years by offering customers illegal loyalty rebates to keep them from switching to AMD.
http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/artic...against_1_06_billion_european_antitrust_fine/Please link to these court rulings!
Putting allegedly and ????? does not get you off the hook so easily in my book. Clickbait driven fake news in a deliberate attempt to steer narratives is the name of the game these days, and personally I think it is pathetic.
Intel Fined $1.45 Billion by EU for Antitrust Violations:
https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/Intel-Fined-145-Billion-EU-Antitrust-Violations.
Settling for that amount of money is pretty much an implicit admission of unfair business practices, even if it does not mean an admission of guilt in the legal sense.
If you think making money via clickbait is an excuse to report news that has not been fact checked, then you are part of the reason it has gotten worse of late.Anyone who repeatedly uses the term "fake news" without bothering to elaborate instantly has my respect and admiration. In fact I love the idea of yelling "fake" at things I don't like
In the real world we all know media and news outlets use articles designed to attract attention; that's how they're financially viable. But what is pathetic is pretending such articles therefore inherently have no value.
http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/artic...against_1_06_billion_european_antitrust_fine/
Actively tried to fight against paying the light penalty desire being proven guilty.
This good enough for you?
TechPowerUp...Tweak Town (the site you can't visit without 100 pop up ads)...and Guru 3D...all front page news. As stated.....putting ????????? and allegedly does not get you off the hook. If you post a front page news story that has not been fact checked and verified...then you have entered the TMZ realm.Ok, so again, who did that outside of WCCF? He clearly said that people were taking what was said by wccf as true. I asked what people have done that. So outside of the wccf article, who is taking the claim as true rather than an accusation?
When has Intel lost in court?
If you think making money via clickbait is an excuse to report news that has not been fact checked, then you are part of the reason it has gotten worse of late.
You have everything here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel#Controversies
Btw, I'm not surprised that you're defending Intel.
It's not an admission of anything besides it's cheaper to settle than litigate.
Nice try. Reports of Intel doing this have been shot down...just like the supposed panic price drop that was reported by sites that was only an in store sale by Micro Center. Posting articles and stories that invoke thought are fine...but agenda driven BS needs to be called out for what it is. If you like, that is fine. I apologize if my post triggered you.Nope, I said it was pathetic to assume a "clickbait" article must also be fake. Like it can't also include important information or even address a relevant issue. The media have been using the equivalent of "clickbait" for centuries, so by your logic all news articles are "fake"?.
You are the one who is trying to connect two completely different things with flawed logic.
^^^^^^^^^This here is my point. Intel has been guilty of shady things in the past, so all that has to happen is plant the seed in people's mind that they are doing it again. Didn't you guys watch Inception? Talk about mind control and being under the click bait spell. You guys are addicted lol.Being a serial offender of the kind Intel usually is, it lends some credibility to the allegations making the rounds this time. It will all be clear when you read the reviews on March 2nd.
If the amount involved was in the tens of millions or less, I would agree with you. However, it is over $1.2 billion.
That's not cheaper to settle. Even at $750+/hour attorney billable rates.
Nice try. Reports of Intel doing this have been shot down...just like the supposed panic price drop that was reported by sites that was only an in store sale by Micro Center. Posting articles and stories that invoke thought are fine...but agenda driven BS needs to be called out for what it is. If you like, that is fine. I apologize if my post triggered you.
Your own link says allegations.
which is for me a sign of being guilty.To avoid a trial, Intel agreed to comply with the order.
Remember the other side of coin - AMD also settled. If their case was strong why not keep going? There were people on this board touting AMD was going to get $60B from Intel. And yet AMD settled for 2% of that.
Answer: 100+ attorneys at @750/hr plus expenses for a decade. Add in the risk factor of losing and you decide to settle.
Question: If their case was strong why not keep going?
So Clayton Act. That kinda invalidates everything you are now arguing. Its purpose was to prevent monopolies by trying to prevent activity that would lead to monopolistic situations. Again, it has nothing to do with market impact or the company's size. It specifically addresses the thing you are talking about.
Antitrust Challenges to Exclusive Dealing Arrangements
Not all exclusive dealing arrangements are anticompetitive and many are in fact found to have pro-competitive effects and/or be motivated by goals that are not anticompetitive. Exclusive dealing arrangements that potentially foreclose competitors of the supplier from the market, however, may raise competition concerns and can give rise to liability under various antitrust and competition theories of laws.
* * *
Rule of Reason Analysis Applies
Exclusive dealing arrangements are analyzed under the rule of reason. In Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 337 U.S. 293 (1949), the U.S. Supreme Court analyzed the exclusive dealing arrangements between gasoline refiners and service stations and introduced what became known as the “quantitative substantiality” test, which measured whether the foreclosure of competition was substantial by looking almost entirely at the percentage of the market foreclosed to competitors as a result of the arrangement.
* * *
Beware: Dominant Firms May Be Held to a Higher Standard Under Section 2
While the analysis of exclusive dealing arrangements is generally the same whether the arrangements are challenged under Section 1 or 2 of the Sherman Act or Section 3 of the Clayton Act, there is growing support for the view that conduct that does not constitute an illegal exclusive dealing arrangement under Section 1 of the Sherman Act or Section 3 of the Clayton Act can still violate Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Courts have held that a monopolist may be held to a different standard than a non-dominant firm in the context of exclusive dealing arrangements.
Not exactly: in the case of Japan
Added words in bold so you can find the answer in your own post.
What did AMD settle on?Ok, so Intel is guilty because they settled, and AMD isn't because they settled. Ok, whatever floats your boat man.
I'm not making an argument on what the law should be, I'm telling you what the law is. Yes, the purpose is to prevent monopolies by regulating certain types of conduct. How that conduct is regulated depends on the type the conduct, which is what I've been trying to tell you. Some conduct, like price-fixing, is illegal regardless of the circumstances. Other conduct, like an exclusivity agreement, is only illegal in certain circumstances, namely that the conduct has a substantial negative effect on competition. Here, from the American Bar Association:
There are lots of businesses who make these types of deals. From the mom and pop companies, all the way to the top. It's only anti-trust due the size of Intel and the lack of competition.
It is illegal, its just that small companies cant do it in a meaningful way. Further, its also not worth the governments time to go after small illegal activity.
No, you are wrong. Anti-trust laws make illegal conduct that is otherwise legal if the actor is of sufficient size/influence. Rebates aren't in and of themselves illegal. Exclusivity agreements are not in and of themselves illegal. They only become illegal (at least in the US) when the actor's influence and the nature of the agreements tend to create "substantial economic harm" and substantially lessen competition.
substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce