Intel has been dubbed EVIL

[dmens]

Originally posted by: craftech
Thank you for that.

We do not have a vast and diverse set of viewpoints in the US thanks to media consolidation that began with Ronald Reagan who realized that his party would benefit from having media consolidated into the hands of a few. Currently five corporations control it all.

Focusing on "trashy tabloid news networks and saying they constitute the US media" is not what I said. I said that is where most Americans get their news so when they don't focus on real news events or lie about them it means the majority of the electorate is misinformed about things that affect their lives. Americans are getting their "news" from CNN, FOX, NBC (MSNBC), CBS, and ABC owned and run by large corporations like Intel and hell bent on distorting the news to favor anything and anyone that helps the profits of large corporations like themselves. Reagan won. That is why the news media changed his legacy after he died into something he wasn't. He is the media's hero that turned them into the giant misinformation mills they are today while they repeat over and over again to an unwitting population that they are somehow "liberal" and that the public repeats it back just like Pavlov's dogs.

That said, Europe has no such problem. They have a widely diverse set of radio, television, and print media independently run much like they were run here before the Reagan perversion. And in terms of Al Jazeera TV being "Racist" as you put it, that is another example of US media brainwashing.

Take a look:

http://english.aljazeera.net/

You also said:

BBC is high quality? Is this the same network whose ombudsman openly admitted has a serious leftist bias issue but is powerless to do anything about it?


I need a link for that and also an intelligent explanation of how the BBC is run as a single dictatorship devoid of journalistic independence amongst the thousands of people who work for them.

Links please for those two misstatements.

John

Oh I see, you're complaining there is not enough anti-capitalist, anti-corporation sentiment in the media. Sorry, that's a fringe position and no decent media outlet will pervert their pages with such garbage. When I was talking about diverse opinions, I was talking about items like healthcare or the role of government in finance, items where there exists intelligent discourse in society. Hardcore anti-capitalism is not an item of mainstream debate in the US.

You can still get your anti-capitalist fix, it'll just be from your fellow travelers. Too bad.

Many private media outlets choose to run a variety of opinions because they actually respect journalistic integrity. Most major newspapers do so, even the (yuck) New York Times. Just because a media outlet is privately held doesn't mean it is totally beholden to the political opinions of the board members.

Here's some al-Jazeera racism, celebrating the birthday of a child murderer: http://switch3.castup.net/cune...214&ar=1818wmv&ak=null

As I said, they run a separate broadcast for Arab viewers, and your link is to the English broadcast, which is for gullible Westerners such as yourself.

Here's an account of a leaked internal report of BBC execs admitting their bias in 2006: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...it-stars-BBC-News.html

Nice strawman at the end, I never said any such thing. All news sources are biased, including the BBC. But government mandated media monopolies have no choice in content, so consumers are stuck with one source of bias. That is an unhealthy situation.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: iCyborg
1,5 years ago Microsoft lost a law-case against Alcatel-Lucent and was supposed to pay about the same amount as here (~$1,5b). They appealed and the verdict was dismissed, and the only ones who made some money were the lawyers. I'm kinda hoping this won't be the case here :evil:

Yeah, EU would get the money and consumers wouldn't see any direct and immediate benefit. But if this will make AMD more competitive on a long term, then it's a win for the consumers.

And with all the layoffs and expense cuttings, $1.5b isn't pocket change for anyone these days, even Intel. Though it will be some time before EU sees the money...

Nope

EU gets it immediately

they are NOT deferring the payment as they did with MS - depending on appeal

intel pays the money - then makes the appeal

the courts HOLD the money and use the interest for how ever many years it takes
-if intel wins; they get the principle back - no interest
[that is how i understand it]

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
Reminds me in a lot of ways of what the USA and the auto industry did with the Japanese auto makers in the early 80's.

The auto-quota's resulted in auto prices rising (supply vs demand, and US artificially restricted the supply)...and then the US auto makers raised their prices commensurately just to turn some quick profits on the opportunity rather than hunker down and actually build a domestic market that wanted US cars.

In the end the actions were projected to have cost the US consumers as much as an extra $5B versus what they would have paid for the same products over the same time period had the quotas not been forced onto the market.

The winner? Whomever had their fingers in amongst the fattest pork-projects in Congress at the time.

Great example. I shudder to think how much money American consumers lost because of the government mandated telecommunications and airline travel monopolies, just to name a couple.

Note that public outcry ceased those unlawful arrangements... will the EU ever go after Airbus? :laugh:

 

[bipartisanpwnage]

I don't know why everyone is getting so worked up about this. 1.5 Billion is nothing to Intel and if they want to sell their products around the world then they will be subject to other countries laws. Cry about it if you want but Intel is going to be just fine, they have had like 9 years to prepare for this haha. I am willing to bet their stock won't even fall below $15 due to this news.

@ the EU, Intel has great products at great prices, get the hell off their back! You should give that 1.5B to AMD's R&D dept. to make sure the prices keep falling!

@dmens

Government regulation often hurts the consumers (at&t, airlines), but it helps sometimes as well. The examples you gave were just one side of the story. Some aspects of the free market do not regulate themselves. An example of this would be the oligopoly in the cable tv and internet business that has seen prices rise 50% from 1997-2003. You can also take pretty much any environmental issue and the free market fails to address it. The move from single hull to double hull oil tankers would be an example of this. I am all about the free market but it must have government intervention to survive. I wish there were more people (voters) like you that understand how a mixed economy works. If they did, then maybe we could manage to elect people that wouldn't intervene when they shouldn't!

/rant

 

[dmens]

^

Cable content has vastly increased since deregulation in 1996. I don't believe prices would have increased for the same amount of content.

The same goes for the CPU industry. Hasn't CPU performance increased dramatically from 2001 to 2009? P4 @ 1.5ghz = 0.88 gflops, i7 @ 3.2ghz > 70 gflops.

Willamette -> Northwood -> Prescott -> Cedarmill, and Banias -> Dothan -> Yonah -> Merom -> Penryn -> Nehalem, and that doesn't count the canceled projects. 10 processors taken to market in as many years, each consuming a full design team from 2 to 4 years to design and validate.

If Intel were such a dominant monopoly, would they need to maintain an x86 development schedule that is even more aggressive than AMD? IMO that alone as proof of a competitive market.

 

[jones377]

I love the smell of Xenophobia in the air

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: iCyborg
1,5 years ago Microsoft lost a law-case against Alcatel-Lucent and was supposed to pay about the same amount as here (~$1,5b). They appealed and the verdict was dismissed, and the only ones who made some money were the lawyers. I'm kinda hoping this won't be the case here :evil:

Yeah, EU would get the money and consumers wouldn't see any direct and immediate benefit. But if this will make AMD more competitive on a long term, then it's a win for the consumers.

And with all the layoffs and expense cuttings, $1.5b isn't pocket change for anyone these days, even Intel. Though it will be some time before EU sees the money...

Nope

EU gets it immediately

they are NOT deferring the payment as they did with MS - depending on appeal

intel pays the money - then makes the appeal

the courts HOLD the money and use the interest for how ever many years it takes
-if intel wins; they get the principle back - no interest
[that is how i understand it]

Damn, that's harsh. Nobody robs from people better than the government.

 

[craftech]

Originally posted by: dmens

Originally posted by: craftech
Thank you for that.

We do not have a vast and diverse set of viewpoints in the US thanks to media consolidation that began with Ronald Reagan who realized that his party would benefit from having media consolidated into the hands of a few. Currently five corporations control it all.

Focusing on "trashy tabloid news networks and saying they constitute the US media" is not what I said. I said that is where most Americans get their news so when they don't focus on real news events or lie about them it means the majority of the electorate is misinformed about things that affect their lives. Americans are getting their "news" from CNN, FOX, NBC (MSNBC), CBS, and ABC owned and run by large corporations like Intel and hell bent on distorting the news to favor anything and anyone that helps the profits of large corporations like themselves. Reagan won. That is why the news media changed his legacy after he died into something he wasn't. He is the media's hero that turned them into the giant misinformation mills they are today while they repeat over and over again to an unwitting population that they are somehow "liberal" and that the public repeats it back just like Pavlov's dogs.

That said, Europe has no such problem. They have a widely diverse set of radio, television, and print media independently run much like they were run here before the Reagan perversion. And in terms of Al Jazeera TV being "Racist" as you put it, that is another example of US media brainwashing.

Take a look:

http://english.aljazeera.net/

You also said:

BBC is high quality? Is this the same network whose ombudsman openly admitted has a serious leftist bias issue but is powerless to do anything about it?


I need a link for that and also an intelligent explanation of how the BBC is run as a single dictatorship devoid of journalistic independence amongst the thousands of people who work for them.

Links please for those two misstatements.

John

Oh I see, you're complaining there is not enough anti-capitalist, anti-corporation sentiment in the media. Sorry, that's a fringe position and no decent media outlet will pervert their pages with such garbage. When I was talking about diverse opinions, I was talking about items like healthcare or the role of government in finance, items where there exists intelligent discourse in society. Hardcore anti-capitalism is not an item of mainstream debate in the US.

You can still get your anti-capitalist fix, it'll just be from your fellow travelers. Too bad.

Many private media outlets choose to run a variety of opinions because they actually respect journalistic integrity. Most major newspapers do so, even the (yuck) New York Times. Just because a media outlet is privately held doesn't mean it is totally beholden to the political opinions of the board members.

Here's some al-Jazeera racism, celebrating the birthday of a child murderer: http://switch3.castup.net/cune...214&ar=1818wmv&ak=null

As I said, they run a separate broadcast for Arab viewers, and your link is to the English broadcast, which is for gullible Westerners such as yourself.

Here's an account of a leaked internal report of BBC execs admitting their bias in 2006: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...it-stars-BBC-News.html

Nice strawman at the end, I never said any such thing. All news sources are biased, including the BBC. But government mandated media monopolies have no choice in content, so consumers are stuck with one source of bias. That is an unhealthy situation.

I can't get the al-Jazeera video to play.

You said:

As I said, they run a separate broadcast for Arab viewers, and your link is to the English broadcast, which is for gullible Westerners such as yourself.

I don't understand Arabic. Where did you learn it? They never offered it in the school I attended. Did you learn it in college or high school?

The link to the blog (Daily Mail) is opinion as is The Drudge Report, Little Green Footballs, etc here in the States. It is hardly evidence that the BBC is what you claim.

What I was looking for was something more concrete in terms of demonstrating a media distributing misinformation to an unwitting public:

Let's take an article in The Wall Street Journal - since you like it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124215189512211567.html
The article stated: "Republicans pounced on a White House document that says regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act 'is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities.....an amalgamation of comments by government agencies sent from the Office of Management and Budget to the Environmental Protection Agency earlier this year, presents a more dire view of the consequences of regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act than the Obama administration has publicly stated"

The WSJ never mentioned that OMB director Orszag said the document did not necessarily reflect the administration's position. They also covered up the fact that the specific claim regarding "serious economic consequences" reportedly came from the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy, which is an independent entity headed by acting chief counsel for advocacy Shawne McGibbon, a Bush appointee.

Evidence: http://www.sba.gov/advo/chief.html
http://www.sba.gov/advo/press/08-31.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/.../05/12/ClearingtheAir/

the "collected comments were not necessarily internally consistent, since they came from multiple sources, and they do not necessarily represent the views of either OMB or the Administration. In other words, we simply receive comments from various agencies and pass them along to EPA for consideration, regardless of the substantive merit of those comments. In general, passing along these types of comments to an agency proposing a finding often helps to improve the quality of the notice."

http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html

That's what I was looking for. Something that demonstrates that there is misinformation being generated by a media outlet possibly to further a political agenda (as in the WSJ example I detailed) instead of serving the public interest which they are required to do.

So getting back to the original article from the OP, since we are getting too far off subject right now, demonstrate where that BBC article misleads the public using the methodology I used to demonstrate a bogus article by the WSJ above.

And please, no more blogs used as evidence, or claims that you understand Arabic, and that those who don't are easily duped by the English versions of Arabic websites. Where in the BBC article is there incorrect or misleading information and please support it with something concrete and specific.

Thanks,

John

 

[dmens]

If you actually watched the Al-Jazeera video, you'd know it has English subtitles. When did I claim to speak Arabic? If you want more, go check out MEMRI. They take broadcasts of many Middle Eastern media sources and translate them to show the insanity of it all. You'll probably bitch about bias because MEMRI is run by Israelis, but hey, maybe you can go learn Arabic and prove their translations wrong.

instead of serving the public interest which they are required to do

There is no such requirement, even in the so-called public media outlets, because the public interest is impossible to cover across the entire population. As such, the term "public interest" is simply an argument you use to demand the media to serve your own personal bias. When the BBC tries to eliminate their bias, they end up enforcing their own. The link I included on the BBC which you disparage as an opinion piece even though it reads as a normal news item, that is a good example of failed attempts to define and serve the "public interest".

On the other hand, the interests of a large number of private individuals can be defined and served. Cap and trade does have serious economic consequences. Private individuals will be well-served to understand the lies of the current administration on cap and trade.

And your example is weak. You pick on a single document out of many sent to the EPA then claim that their omission to mention it was sent by an organization headed by a former Bush appointee (ooga booga!) is evidence of bias? I'm sure Greenpeace sent in a note too, maybe you want the WSJ to add that "the Clean Air Act is the best thing since sliced bread, according to some". That would be a nice way to totally water down the story.

Or maybe you want the WSJ to ignore dissent against the obama administration? Yes, that would serve your own personal interest, would it not?

 

[Idontcare]

dmens when are you just going to relax and be at peace with the fact you work for the one and only great satan? Everything you do, and everyone you work with, is evil. Er, I mean EVIL.

Want proof? Just read the thread title.

You been "dubbed" buddy, not nearly as bad as being "dubya'd" but still evil nonetheless.

Been a long time since I've read a "Satan Clara" reference, I predict it will come back in vogue soon. Now that we don't have GWB to hate, the masses of hateful people need a new satan to vilify.

Let the spiteful masses light their pitchforks every now and then, we got nothing else to really feel like an accomplishment going on in our lives. We can't build, so we tear down and call it an achievement.

Stand up and take it like a man, one fat juicy paycheck at a time you evil bastard :laugh:

 

[jones377]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
dmens when are you just going to relax and be at peace with the fact you work for the one and only great satan? Everything you do, and everyone you work with, is evil. Er, I mean EVIL.

Want proof? Just read the thread title.

You been "dubbed" buddy, not nearly as bad as being "dubya'd" but still evil nonetheless.

Been a long time since I've read a "Satan Clara" reference, I predict it will come back in vogue soon. Now that we don't have GWB to hate, the masses of hateful people need a new satan to vilify.

Let the spiteful masses light their pitchforks every now and then, we got nothing else to really feel like an accomplishment going on in our lives. We can't build, so we tear down and call it an achievement.

Stand up and take it like a man, one fat juicy paycheck at a time you evil bastard :laugh:

I see an equal or more amount of hate directed towards the EU by all the xenophobic americans on this board. If there is ever a ruling against Intel in the US it will be interesting to see where some people's loyalties lie. With Intel or with their Country. Probably by then we'll see comments like "those damn pinko librulz controlling the courts" etc.

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
Stand up and take it like a man, one fat juicy paycheck at a time you evil bastard :laugh:

It's the principle of it dammit!

Oh it's not only the EU. All the damn governments are corrupt. Damned librulz.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: jones377

I see an equal or more amount of hate directed towards the EU by all the xenophobic americans on this board. If there is ever a ruling against Intel in the US it will be interesting to see where some people's loyalties lie. With Intel or with their Country. Probably by then we'll see comments like "those damn pinko librulz controlling the courts" etc.

:roll:

 

[jones377]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: jones377

I see an equal or more amount of hate directed towards the EU by all the xenophobic americans on this board. If there is ever a ruling against Intel in the US it will be interesting to see where some people's loyalties lie. With Intel or with their Country. Probably by then we'll see comments like "those damn pinko librulz controlling the courts" etc.

:roll:

I had you in mind specifically when I wrote that dmens can be excused since he works for Intel, what about you?

 

[Martimus]

Please refrain from the pseudo political BS being spouted. It is tiresome, useless, and usually reflects poorly on you no matter what stance you take; since it is usually driven by emotion and not logic.

Some members with whom I had respected their opinion have lost that respect due to this one thread and the pointless emotion being spewed. Others I had no opinion on I have learned to ignore here, while the usual suspects continued to spout useless things that I will ignore anyway.

 

[iCyborg]

Originally posted by: apoppin
Nope

EU gets it immediately

they are NOT deferring the payment as they did with MS - depending on appeal

intel pays the money - then makes the appeal

the courts HOLD the money and use the interest for how ever many years it takes
-if intel wins; they get the principle back - no interest
[that is how i understand it]

Let me see if I got this right:
The money immediatelly goes to the courts,and once the final verdict has been made, the principle will go to the winning side, and the courts keep the interest?
This seems unjust to me, and moreover, it looks like a conflict of interest, since it's in courts' interest to drag the case as long as possible to earn more from the interest. And I'd think they're in a good position to drag it.

 

[Martimus]

Originally posted by: iCyborg

Originally posted by: apoppin
Nope

EU gets it immediately

they are NOT deferring the payment as they did with MS - depending on appeal

intel pays the money - then makes the appeal

the courts HOLD the money and use the interest for how ever many years it takes
-if intel wins; they get the principle back - no interest
[that is how i understand it]

Let me see if I got this right:
The money immediatelly goes to the courts,and once the final verdict has been made, the principle will go to the winning side, and the courts keep the interest?
This seems unjust to me, and moreover, it looks like a conflict of interest, since it's in courts' interest to drag the case as long as possible to earn more from the interest. And I'd think they're in a good position to drag it.

No.

The money is held in a locked bank account, accruing interest. The money including interest goes to the party that wins the appeal. I answered this question earlier in this thread.

Originally posted by: Martimus
Answer from the EU Press Release:

Does Intel have to pay the fine if it appeals to the European Court of First Instance (CFI)?

Yes. In case of appeals to the CFI, it is normal practice that the fine is paid into a blocked bank account pending the final outcome of the appeals process. Any fine that is provisionally paid will produce interest based on the interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations. In exceptional circumstances, companies may be allowed to cover the amount of the fine by a bank guarantee at a higher interest rate.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: Martimus
Please refrain from the pseudo political BS being spouted. It is tiresome, useless, and usually reflects poorly on you no matter what stance you take; since it is usually driven by emotion and not logic.

Some members with whom I had respected their opinion have lost that respect due to this one thread and the pointless emotion being spewed. Others I had no opinion on I have learned to ignore here, while the usual suspects continued to spout useless things that I will ignore anyway.

As a MOD I have to agree with the above AGAIN that this thread is getting off-topic, and too political. If it continues, it will be locked.

THIS IS THE LAST WARNING EVERYONE.

Markfw900
Anandtech Moderator

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: iCyborg

Originally posted by: apoppin
Nope

EU gets it immediately

they are NOT deferring the payment as they did with MS - depending on appeal

intel pays the money - then makes the appeal

the courts HOLD the money and use the interest for how ever many years it takes
-if intel wins; they get the principle back - no interest
[that is how i understand it]

Let me see if I got this right:
The money immediatelly goes to the courts,and once the final verdict has been made, the principle will go to the winning side, and the courts keep the interest?
This seems unjust to me, and moreover, it looks like a conflict of interest, since it's in courts' interest to drag the case as long as possible to earn more from the interest. And I'd think they're in a good position to drag it.

the idea is to keep it *from* being dragged out

- the only thing i missed is that the interest *also* goes to the winning side

it's only fair

Originally posted by: dmens

Originally posted by: Idontcare
Stand up and take it like a man, one fat juicy paycheck at a time you evil bastard :laugh:

It's the principle of it dammit!

Oh it's not only the EU. All the damn governments are corrupt. Damned librulz.

Like intel is innocent
:roll:

wait till is is 2 Billion dollars - a fine by their own country for criminal lack of ethics

 

[CTho9305]

Originally posted by: brblx
what illegal practices are they even talking about?

they gave 'incentives' to manufacturers for using their chips? since when is this a new practice? a company buys your shit, you try and take care of them to have them continue to buy your shit.

might as well make it illegal to advertise.

My understanding is that this isn't a standard volume-discount deal. If you take a look at the AMD complaint for the civil suit in the US, it gives a lot of examples (it's not legalese - it's easy reading). As I understand it, Intel sells you 90 CPUs for $100 each and says, "if you buy 100 CPUs total, we'll retroactively lower the price on EVERY CPU to $90". Now, when you're considering whether to buy your next 10 CPUs from AMD or Intel, if you buy them from Intel they effectively cost you nothing. AMD would have to give you the CPUs for free to compete. If Intel's rebate were less extreme (e.g. $95), AMD still would have to charge half as much as Intel for you to buy any processors from them. That isn't how free-market capitalist competition is supposed to work. In free-market capitalism, if one vendor charges $90 and the other charges $89, you go with the $89 ones.

Originally posted by: dmens

this is simply one monopoly abusing another monopoly for its own gains, taxation by another name

bingo... nothing more than a government sanctioned shakedown. only governments are allowed to steal in the name of {fill in the blank}.

Do you have a better solution for keeping companies in line? A company is supposed to do whatever it takes to maximize its profit. Unless there are financial disincentives (or jail time for executives) for breaking the law, why would a company bother obeying the law? I'm curious, have you ever read AMD's complaint? I'd be really interested in your take on a few parts of it.


I'm not speaking for any companies.

 

[dmens]

Do you have a better solution for keeping companies in line? A company is supposed to do whatever it takes to maximize its profit. Unless there are financial disincentives (or jail time for executives) for breaking the law, why would a company bother obeying the law?

I consider government intervention in private enterprise to be unlawful with minimal exceptions, and the consumer should be the ultimate arbiter of business ethics. So I don't have any proposal to stop private business from executing what should be their lawful property rights which have been unjustly taken away by government.

I'm curious, have you ever read AMD's complaint? I'd be really interested in your take on a few parts of it.

Yes I have, a bit quickly. It is a frequent deate topic at the water cooler. More than happy to hear another point of view, please ask away.

 

[CTho9305]

Originally posted by: dmens

Do you have a better solution for keeping companies in line? A company is supposed to do whatever it takes to maximize its profit. Unless there are financial disincentives (or jail time for executives) for breaking the law, why would a company bother obeying the law?

I consider government intervention in private enterprise to be unlawful with minimal exceptions, and the consumer should be the ultimate arbiter of business ethics. So I don't have any proposal to stop private business from executing what should be their lawful property rights which have been unjustly taken away by government.

I'm curious, have you ever read AMD's complaint? I'd be really interested in your take on a few parts of it.

Yes I have, a bit quickly. It is a frequent deate topic at the water cooler. More than happy to hear another point of view, please ask away.

Ok. If true, would the pricing example in my post (which is basically copied from the complaint) fall into the "minimal exceptions" case, or is that fair game?

The problem with leaving it up to the consumer is that most consumers aren't very informed. Basically my only informed purchases are of CPUs and GPUs. Even for RAM, I just buy whatever Newegg has as the cheapest today that meets my minimum speed requirements. I don't know if there are back-room dealings going on, or if there's an 800lb gorilla who's dumping and my purchase will help put their competitor out of business so they can raise prices in the future when they're a monopoly. I don't know anything about the companies who make my food, car, TV, microwave, etc. It's impractical to become fully informed. Even when I'm fully informed, there's short-term financial incentive for me to buy the monopolist's cheap product today, instead of than spend more now and hope that enough other people make the "informed" choice that it keeps the competition around.

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: CTho9305
Ok. If true, would the pricing example in my post (which is basically copied from the complaint) fall into the "minimal exceptions" case, or is that fair game?

That is fair game. My minimal exceptions are things like bodily harm direct or indirect. Pricing is a property right that doesn't hurt anybody. Other examples are extreme inelastic goods with one or very few suppliers. But very few goods and services fall into that category. Computer parts certainly don't.

The problem with leaving it up to the consumer is that most consumers aren't very informed. Basically my only informed purchases are of CPUs and GPUs. Even for RAM, I just buy whatever Newegg has as the cheapest today that meets my minimum speed requirements. I don't know if there are back-room dealings going on, or if there's an 800lb gorilla who's dumping and my purchase will help put their competitor out of business so they can raise prices in the future when they're a monopoly. I don't know anything about the companies who make my food, car, TV, microwave, etc. It's impractical to become fully informed. Even when I'm fully informed, there's short-term financial incentive for me to buy the monopolist's cheap product today, instead of than spend more now and hope that enough other people make the "informed" choice that it keeps the competition around.

What is unethical with so-called "backdoor deals", or "predatory pricing"? Those are property rights that every private enterprise should use as they see fit. Consumers can simply opt out if they believe the market price is unfair due to lack of competition, or any other reason.

If current market conditions do not foster competition, why force the issue? The dominant firm will spend a ton of cash to become a monopoly, then they will raise prices in the short term and make some of it back, or maybe all of it, but the increased prices will simply result in renewed competition in the long term. I fail to see how enforced competition is good in the short or long term. As I mentioned before, the only loser with this EU fine are European consumers. The general consensus at my office is that Intel will raise prices in Europe and AMD will immediately match those price hikes.

 

[CTho9305]

Originally posted by: dmens

The problem with leaving it up to the consumer is that most consumers aren't very informed. Basically my only informed purchases are of CPUs and GPUs. Even for RAM, I just buy whatever Newegg has as the cheapest today that meets my minimum speed requirements. I don't know if there are back-room dealings going on, or if there's an 800lb gorilla who's dumping and my purchase will help put their competitor out of business so they can raise prices in the future when they're a monopoly. I don't know anything about the companies who make my food, car, TV, microwave, etc. It's impractical to become fully informed. Even when I'm fully informed, there's short-term financial incentive for me to buy the monopolist's cheap product today, instead of than spend more now and hope that enough other people make the "informed" choice that it keeps the competition around.

What is unethical with so-called "backdoor deals", or "predatory pricing"? Those are property rights that every private enterprise should use as they see fit. Consumers can simply opt out if they believe the market price is unfair due to lack of competition, or any other reason.

If current market conditions do not foster competition, why force the issue? The dominant firm will spend a ton of cash to become a monopoly, then they will raise prices in the short term and make some of it back, or maybe all of it, but the increased prices will simply result in renewed competition in the long term. I fail to see how enforced competition is good in the short or long term. As I mentioned before, the only loser with this EU fine are European consumers. The general consensus at my office is that Intel will raise prices in Europe and AMD will immediately match those price hikes.

That doesn't work in certain cases. In the ideal world (classical free-market commodity capitalism as described in intro economics classes), some guy in his garage can come out with a better or cheaper product and take over existing markets. In practice, some guy in his garage can't afford to build a few $4B fabs to satisfy the full demand of the market, so he's forced to edge his way in slowly. As soon as he tries to take a few percent of the market, the dominant player can use Intel-style rebates to ensure that nobody will buy his chips by providing substantial discounts to 100%-Intel customers (and the guy in his garage can only supply e.g. 40% of the demand, so nobody can switch completely to the garage guy). Also in practice, if the existing monopoly has deeper pockets than the guy in his garage, the monopoly can simply sell at a loss until the guy in his garage runs out of money and shuts his doors.

How would anyone ever enter the market? The only ones who could enter at that point would be companies that are even bigger, who could build enough fabs to satisfy 100% of the demand, and have enough cash left over to sell below cost until Intel goes bankrupt. You'd end up buying e.g. Exxon-brand gasoline to fill up your Exxon-brand car so you can drive to Exxonmart to buy some Exxon-brand CPUs so you can play Exxon's latest first-person-shooter over your Exxon Internet connection while enjoying your Exxon beverage after they picked off other companies one by one (just picking some random company that has a lot of cash).

Am I missing something here?

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

You'd end up buying e.g. Exxon-brand gasoline to fill up your Exxon-brand car so you can drive to Exxonmart to buy some Exxon-brand CPUs so you can play Exxon's latest first-person-shooter over your Exxon Internet connection while enjoying your Exxon beverage

Sounds like Apple.