Why are you so interested in seeing the CURRENT Intel punished in any way that will benefit the CURRENT AMD?...this appears to have little to do with punishing the actual guilty parties (Barret) and benefiting the actual victims (the consumers of 2002-2007, not the consumers of 2010).
Originally posted by: JFAMD
Saturn does not have the market muscle to force Intel into an illegal contract. Intel does have the position that could allow them to force saturn into an agreement that is "off the books."
Originally posted by: JFAMD
If you want to stop the activities you have to go after the one that has the ability to put the pressure on. That is what the EU did.
Intel bribed them; that is the position of "drug manufacturer dealer". They have the heaviest responsibilityOriginally posted by: Idontcare
Originally posted by: JFAMD
Saturn does not have the market muscle to force Intel into an illegal contract. Intel does have the position that could allow them to force saturn into an agreement that is "off the books."
Yes, for five years those poor helpless defenseless retailers just had to take their rebate profits and live with it despite all their moral protesting to the contrary :roll:
We should never prosecute drug dealers because they aren't the guys who actually make the drugs...
Originally posted by: JFAMD
If you want to stop the activities you have to go after the one that has the ability to put the pressure on. That is what the EU did.
Again what do the shareholders, CEO, and employees of today's Intel have to do with the individuals at Intel 7+ years ago who made were involved in making the decision to harm the consumer from 2002-2007?
Originally posted by: dmens
Originally posted by: apoppin
do their employees share intel's lack of ethics?
i am beginning to think so
your sense of ethics is sick and perverse to me because unlike you, i believe property rights are absolute and universal. you can keep posting those little roses and put "criminal" in big bold stars and rant about your subjective notion of "fairness" and "real justice", knock yourself out, i won't be responding to you any more. have a nice day.
Originally posted by: Idontcare
Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
I agree there are rules . I choose to follow rules of Supply = demand . If you can't supply or gaurantee supply it will kill your business. Cause and effect. I can't help your moral law goes against laws of supply and demand. AMD never could supply with gauranree there for no contracts. Law of supply demand . You base your case on immoral peoples decisions . I base mine on math that you can't not disprove. Amd position in the market is an effect of the fact they couldn't guartee supply and that can be proven . You choose to ignor the facts . Thats fine with me just don't talk evil shit ok . because your spreading it.
Nemesis there are over 500 pages of information in the EU committee's decision. They stated the exact page count (535 IIRC) but said it would need to be scrubbed of some details that vendors (not Intel) consider company secrets they don't want their competitors to find out so the final page count is pending.
My point is you can debate this ONE point of the argument all you want, but you have to admit you are not privy to the lengthy list of charges made against Intel in that 500 page document. Just because you can make the case that AMD was in no position to supply the market doesn't mean that you have negated any of the remaining data points for which the EU decision is based upon.
We, all of us, simply have little comprehension as to the depths and details that Intel's business activities took it in Europe during the course of 2002-2007.
All that we do know is that the EU has in fact amassed considerable documentation covering five years worth of Intel's activities, 500 pages worth of information which it felt was relevant to their decision to fine Intel to the tune of $1.45B USD.
In the grand scheme of things, looking at the history of monopolies and their abuses, whatever the sum total of Intel's offenses they apparently aren't so dastardly and evil as to invoke criminal punishment (no one has been sent to jail, unlike the case with the DRAM cartel recently) or to invite government intervention to breakup Intel (as AT&T required).
The jury is still out on what the USA will do, if anything, but to me when I see Intel merely being fined over their activities it suggests the activities themselves weren't really as sinister and evil as some would have us believe. Assuming the punishment is fitting the crime.
Originally posted by: JFAMD
The key issue here is to make sure that this does not happen again.
Fines help set an example to other businesses not to engage in this kind of behavior.
Intel lost their "moral compass", the fine helps them find north again:
http://budurl.com/SJEXEC
Originally posted by: apoppin
wait till the US gets thru with intel
they may face a break up
i think Obama wants an *example*
:Q
Originally posted by: apoppin
wait till the US gets thru with intel
they may face a break up
i think Obama wants an *example*
:Q
Originally posted by: taltamir
which completely misses the point... they are NOT fined, their COMPANIES are fined.
This will hurt:
1. 80,000 intel employees
2. the consumers
this will not hurt:
1. the CEO and others who made the decision to break the law AND MADE A LOT OF MONEY OFF OF IT due to bonuses (from the company making money at the time)
Originally posted by: ShawnD1
Originally posted by: taltamir
which completely misses the point... they are NOT fined, their COMPANIES are fined.
This will hurt:
1. 80,000 intel employees
2. the consumers
this will not hurt:
1. the CEO and others who made the decision to break the law AND MADE A LOT OF MONEY OFF OF IT due to bonuses (from the company making money at the time)
This is the one part of law that I never understood. A company could do something insanely illegal like have someone killed, and all that happens is the company is fined. If I own shares in that company, I'm getting punished for something I had no part in. The person who actually signs the order to do something illegal gets away without a fine or jail time.
If we really wanted corporate crime to stop, we would hold people accountable for their actions. If you personally signed an order to do something illegal (ie dump toxic waste in the river), you personally would go to jail for a very long time. As it stands now, our system strongly encourages illegal activity because nothing can possibly go wrong. If I get away with it, I make millions. If I get caught, fellow shareholders take the hit for me. It's win-win.
Originally posted by: spylake
The whole thing strikes me as odd. Go to a McDonald's and you get Coke. Go to a Dairy Queen and it Pepsi.
Negotiating exclusive contract is hardly uncommon. Why it this different when an Intel negotiates a better deal with a Dell to use Intel only?
indeed they do. The new administration just laid out a policy - to the JUSTICE DEPT. - to IGNORE the guidelines of the former administration in regard to pursuing business ethics violations. The Democrats just got "control" of congress a few months agoOriginally posted by: taltamir
the democrats have been in control of congress since 2006, and obama and bush have no power over the JUDICIAL system. not to mention that corruption is running high in both parties at the moment.
furthermore, we are talking about 5 separate countries now all doing the same, not just the USA
The announcement is aimed at making sure that no court or party to a lawsuit can cite the Bush administration policy as the government?s official view in any pending cases. Ms. Varney warned judges and litigants in antitrust lawsuits not involving the government to ignore the Bush administration?s policies, which were formally outlined in a report by the Justice Department last year.
The report applied legal standards that made it difficult to bring new cases involving monopoly and predatory practices.
As a result of the Bush administration?s interpretation of antitrust laws, the enforcement pipeline for major monopoly cases ? which can take years for prosecutors to develop ? is thin. During the Bush administration, the Justice Department did not file a single case against a dominant firm for violating the antimonopoly law.
Many smaller companies complaining of abusive practices by their larger rivals were so frustrated by the Bush administration?s antitrust policy that they went to the European Commission and to Asian authorities.
. . .
Ms. Varney?s new policy more closely aligns American antitrust policy on monopolies and predatory practices with the views of antitrust regulators at the European Commission.
Herbert Hovenkamp, a leading antitrust scholar . . . said that the repudiation of those guidelines by the Obama administration ?will almost certainly have a greater impact than the guidelines themselves had.?
?This will be bad news for heavyweights in the tech industries ? companies like Google and Microsoft . . . People aligned with plaintiffs will rejoice. Those aligned with defendants will wring their hands.?
Ms. Varney said that the Obama administration was guided by the view that it was a major mistake during the outset of the Great Depression to relax antitrust enforcement, only to try to catch up and become more vigorous later. She said the mistake enabled many large companies to engage in pricing, wage and collusive practices that harmed consumers and took years to reverse.
Signaling her intent to revive a moribund antitrust program, she has recruited a collection of senior aides, many of whom are seasoned antitrust litigators or worked in the Clinton administration and the Federal Trade Commission and were involved in many prominent cases, including the one against Microsoft. They include Molly S. Boast, William Cavanaugh, Gene Kimmelman, Carl Shapiro and Philip J. Weiser.
Antitrust policy is set by Washington in two ways: by the interpretation of laws announced by the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission through guidelines for the courts and private litigants, and by the enforcement cases that those agencies decide to bring. The government?s guidelines are often cited by lawyers and given considerable weight by judges in antitrust cases, including those lawsuits that the government does not participate in.
It is not unlawful for a company to gain control of a market. It becomes unlawful if the company engages in conduct to exclude or harm competitors with no business justification.
Originally posted by: Idontcare
Again what do the shareholders, CEO, and employees of today's Intel have to do with the individuals at Intel 7+ years ago who made were involved in making the decision to harm the consumer from 2002-2007?
Originally posted by: ShawnD1
Originally posted by: taltamir
which completely misses the point... they are NOT fined, their COMPANIES are fined.
This will hurt:
1. 80,000 intel employees
2. the consumers
this will not hurt:
1. the CEO and others who made the decision to break the law AND MADE A LOT OF MONEY OFF OF IT due to bonuses (from the company making money at the time)
This is the one part of law that I never understood. A company could do something insanely illegal like have someone killed, and all that happens is the company is fined. If I own shares in that company, I'm getting punished for something I had no part in. The person who actually signs the order to do something illegal gets away without a fine or jail time.
If we really wanted corporate crime to stop, we would hold people accountable for their actions. If you personally signed an order to do something illegal (ie dump toxic waste in the river), you personally would go to jail for a very long time. As it stands now, our system strongly encourages illegal activity because nothing can possibly go wrong. If I get away with it, I make millions. If I get caught, fellow shareholders take the hit for me. It's win-win.
Originally posted by: Martimus
Originally posted by: Idontcare
Again what do the shareholders, CEO, and employees of today's Intel have to do with the individuals at Intel 7+ years ago who made were involved in making the decision to harm the consumer from 2002-2007?
If you were able to do something illegal that greatly benefitted you, and even after you were caught had no repercussions, don't you think that you would be tempted to do it again?
If you don't enforce the laws, then there isn't much point in having them. Due to our legal system taking so long, these punishments often come long after the crime was committed. But knowing that the punishment will come eventually is more of a deterent than seeing cases where the punishment never came.
Originally posted by: 2March
Originally posted by: ShawnD1
Originally posted by: taltamir
which completely misses the point... they are NOT fined, their COMPANIES are fined.
This will hurt:
1. 80,000 intel employees
2. the consumers
this will not hurt:
1. the CEO and others who made the decision to break the law AND MADE A LOT OF MONEY OFF OF IT due to bonuses (from the company making money at the time)
This is the one part of law that I never understood. A company could do something insanely illegal like have someone killed, and all that happens is the company is fined. If I own shares in that company, I'm getting punished for something I had no part in. The person who actually signs the order to do something illegal gets away without a fine or jail time.
If we really wanted corporate crime to stop, we would hold people accountable for their actions. If you personally signed an order to do something illegal (ie dump toxic waste in the river), you personally would go to jail for a very long time. As it stands now, our system strongly encourages illegal activity because nothing can possibly go wrong. If I get away with it, I make millions. If I get caught, fellow shareholders take the hit for me. It's win-win.
If we really want corporate crime to stop we have to become honest about capitalisme. We have to realise that it only cares about winners so no one can risk to lose. The guy dumping the toxic waste does so because he'll get fired if he doesn't. Other companis that do so too will return more of the shareholders investments so they will be more succesfull.
It's these poor fellow shareholders who's demand on companies are so high that they (these companies) will do everything to win their favors...