Intel has been dubbed EVIL

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: bgeh
How many ram cartels exactly have we had in history in the last, 20 years or so? I only remember multiple companies being fined at different dates as they pleaded guilty one by one, but they were all acting as one single ram cartel at the time (approximately 2002 or so) ...

If there's only one we can't really claim that fines are ineffective can we?

in the last 20 years? i think it was 3.

there was one that just did price fixing, then there was another one to kill rambus, then another...

the ram cartels would do things like have ALL ram companies sell at a LOSS to kill off common competitors and then jack up the price, or all agree to massive price hikes under the pretense of of competition...

they get fined, broken up, and formed again.

 

[bgeh]

Got proof/links for them? Because IIRC, the cartel existed around 2001, which was the same time when they were battling rambus (and RDRAM) on the P4 platform, and it was that cartel that got fined. So yeah I can find one cartel, but I can't find 3 separate cartels.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: dmens

Originally posted by: apoppin
it is pretty clear that you are brainwashed by your handlers.
- you deny reality

leftist arrogance = anyone who disagrees is bought by corporations, fascists, whatever. only aligned thoughts are legitimate and independent. :roll:

there's no point arguing with people like you. if your morals are so valued, you'd abstain from buying intel processors.

here's another reason for you to boycott intel processors. i worked on them, and im pure fucking evil lol. better stay away.

So you are RRR? Who cares? i use intel processors despite your working on them.

You have ridiculed everything i said - you are simply getting it back - and after you promised NOT to respond to me anymore .. and now you say there's no point and yet you carry on with no argument
- you prove you are no different than your owners. No independence; a corporate possession locked in step with his unethical masters who are getting fined for breaking the law.

Who knows, i may just boycott intel processors for my own PC? AMD offers a great alternative. i want to see how this works out and if intel gains any sense from their public whipping.

you are the only one who says that in an attempt to belittle and discredit us. we have always discussed the issue of the punishment being an unethical money grab that does not benefit the victims (amd and the consumers... I don't see AMD getting a cent of that money, nor do I see any reduction in patents allowing new competition)...

And you appear to think both Intel and Big Tobacco are Victims; you are the only ones saying European's court decision is an unethical money grab IGNORING the fact that Intel is UNETHICAL themselves - they brought the punishment on themselves. What else should they do? A fine fits the crime this time.
- and AMD gets fair competition in Europe - they are very happy to not have the industry giant unfairly competing with them. The finally have a CHANCE to level the playing field.

 

[dmens]

^

I'm giving up on you because you fail to answer any of my arguments. You have not tried to address any of my points regarding the universality of property rights. When I gave my reasoning that the law is unjust, you had no response of your own. The only response you can come up with is to claim your moral legitimacy because a few judicial systems agree with you on some factual points. Of course, the judiciary does not exist to make moral arguments, you simply tacked that on to make your pseduo-argument.

You are the one without independent thought. The free-market approach (as opposed to the government intervention approach) towards increasing competition in a monopoly is a well-researched field with many supporters, including Nobel economics prize winners. No doubt you will simply disparage them as "corporate tools", but hey, at least they have a legitimate intellectual argument, versus your hollow and echoing claims of moral supremacy.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: bgeh
Got proof/links for them? Because IIRC, the cartel existed around 2001, which was the same time when they were battling rambus (and RDRAM) on the P4 platform, and it was that cartel that got fined. So yeah I can find one cartel, but I can't find 3 separate cartels.

2001 was 8 years ago. the question was in the last 20 years. the 2001 was not the first CONVICTED cartel. I don't walk around with links to articles about ram cartels in my wallet, but I have read about previous cartels, during the 1990s and earlier.

It would not surprise me if there is a new ram cartel that wasn't caught yet, but that is just a guess without proof or evidence.

 

[Schmide]

dmens - You can argue for pure capitalism, but pure capitalism will regress into a monarchy as those with power will use it to repress those without it. (especially when governments use their power in business) The same way democracy needs a judicial system to prevent the oppression of the minority, capitalism needs regulation to prevent unfair business practices. Regardless of how you argue, the law is the law, if you wish to do business in various markets you must follow the rules of those who provide those markets.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Schmide
dmens - You can argue for pure capitalism, but pure capitalism will regress into a monarchy as those with power will use it to repress those without it. (especially when governments use their power in business) The same way democracy needs a judicial system to prevent the oppression of the minority, capitalism needs regulation to prevent unfair business practices. Regardless of how you argue, the law is the law, if you wish to do business in various markets you must follow the rules of those who provide those markets.

that was what marx said, he was wrong. those with power showed human compassion and decided to share it. look at the american founding fathers and the framers of the magna carta in england.

 

[jandlecack]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: Schmide
dmens - You can argue for pure capitalism, but pure capitalism will regress into a monarchy as those with power will use it to repress those without it. (especially when governments use their power in business) The same way democracy needs a judicial system to prevent the oppression of the minority, capitalism needs regulation to prevent unfair business practices. Regardless of how you argue, the law is the law, if you wish to do business in various markets you must follow the rules of those who provide those markets.

that was what marx said, he was wrong. those with power showed human compassion and decided to share it.

LMAO!

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: taltamir
that was what marx said, he was wrong. those with power showed human compassion and decided to share it. look at the american founding fathers and the framers of the magna carta in england.

I'm not quoting marx. He may have been wrong on some points but he was right on others. I'm not denying our founding fathers, etc, either, they created the judiciary and for the most part passive regulation of government and markets.

In any system that requires a balance, there are many factors that can either maintain the system or force the system into failure. Failure for some may be success for others. By that logic you can say the overthrowing of a monarchy is the free market at work.

Don't place faith in human begins, human begins or butterfly wings.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: bgeh
Got proof/links for them? Because IIRC, the cartel existed around 2001, which was the same time when they were battling rambus (and RDRAM) on the P4 platform, and it was that cartel that got fined. So yeah I can find one cartel, but I can't find 3 separate cartels.

2001 was 8 years ago. the question was in the last 20 years. the 2001 was not the first CONVICTED cartel. I don't walk around with links to articles about ram cartels in my wallet, but I have read about previous cartels, during the 1990s and earlier.

It would not surprise me if there is a new ram cartel that wasn't caught yet, but that is just a guess without proof or evidence.

Cartel busted for inflated DRAM pricing

Admission of cartel conspiracy to undermine Rambus

15 executives go to jail over failed memory cartel

 

[bgeh]

Idontcare: They all refer to the same cartel (around the same timeframe). taltamir made a claim about the ineffectiveness of fines on preventing cartels, and he used the DRAM industry as an example saying that multiple cartels have popped up and when fines were applied, it didn't prevent new ones from popping up. I guess it's probably right if a cartel comes up every 30-40 years or so, since the older management that got burned by the fines have been replaced, humans have short memories, etc, etc. But he's made the claim without any evidence, except to point to a single cartel, and then claiming that fines have not stopped a new one from forming, which I don't see right now (I think we all admit that RAM prices have been absurdly low for the last few months)

I asked for evidence of cartels in the DRAM industry over the past 20 years (I hope it's a reasonable timeframe too), simply because I'm relatively new in the tech part (only started reading about technology in early 2001), and thus I simply don't know whether previous cartels in the DRAM industry had existed before, and got fined as heavily, but then went on to create a new cartel a few years later.

So yes I'm asking taltamir to provide evidence of his claim that multiple cartels have spawned in the DRAM industry in the past 20 years or so (because he made the claim, and specified the DRAM industry as a culprit), and that fines that were designed to burn the executives' hands to ensure that they never try to do it again were applied, and proved ineffective a few years later, when surprise surprise, another cartel was formed (but he hasn't shown any proof of this yet - so I await for him to prove that claim).

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: dmens
^

I'm giving up on you because you fail to answer any of my arguments. You have not tried to address any of my points regarding the universality of property rights. When I gave my reasoning that the law is unjust, you had no response of your own. The only response you can come up with is to claim your moral legitimacy because a few judicial systems agree with you on some factual points. Of course, the judiciary does not exist to make moral arguments, you simply tacked that on to make your pseduo-argument.

You are the one without independent thought. The free-market approach (as opposed to the government intervention approach) towards increasing competition in a monopoly is a well-researched field with many supporters, including Nobel economics prize winners. No doubt you will simply disparage them as "corporate tools", but hey, at least they have a legitimate intellectual argument, versus your hollow and echoing claims of moral supremacy.

excuse me but you are giving me no argument at all

you are giving me the same EXCUSE that every CRIMINAL gives when they are caught
- it isn't my fault OR the law is wrong

You are arguing for a Failed System - Unrestrained Greedy Corporate Excess - without government oversight - is what lead to the ECONOMIC MELTDOWN
-Intel is partly to blame. Their moral compass - and yours - is broken

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: Schmide
dmens - You can argue for pure capitalism, but pure capitalism will regress into a monarchy as those with power will use it to repress those without it. (especially when governments use their power in business) The same way democracy needs a judicial system to prevent the oppression of the minority, capitalism needs regulation to prevent unfair business practices. Regardless of how you argue, the law is the law, if you wish to do business in various markets you must follow the rules of those who provide those markets.

that was what marx said, he was wrong. those with power showed human compassion and decided to share it. look at the american founding fathers and the framers of the magna carta in england.

i see either you failed history or you are joking

The American Founding Fathers rebelled against those WITH POWER who showed no compassion [like intel] - it was wrenched from them with a war
The Magna Carta was FORCED on the King's greedy ass by the nobles who could no longer tolerate his monopoly [like intel's]
:roll:

 

[lopri]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
Reminds me of the rush by the states in the late 90's to pile on the lawsuits of tobacco companies for harming all the citizens.

It was truly simply a money grab, zero moral or ethical motivation by the states to actually end the damages occurring to the citizens.

They just wanted another source of revenue enhancement.

It's kind of embarrassing/disgusting actually if you research the history of the state's arguments against big tobacco versus what the state's actually did with the settlement monies.

It was about Federalism and pre-emption, not morals. It is an ongoing legal/economical battle between the conservatives and the progressives in the U.S.

 

[dmens]

excuse me but you are giving me no argument at all

you are giving me the same EXCUSE that every CRIMINAL gives when they are caught
- it isn't my fault OR the law is wrong

You are arguing for a Failed System - Unrestrained Greedy Corporate Excess - without government oversight - is what lead to the ECONOMIC MELTDOWN
-Intel is partly to blame. Their moral compass - and yours - is broken

Yes, the law is wrong and I gave my opinion why and you failed to make a single response, other than using a legal decision to lend moral backing to your argument. Laws are not just by definition, nor are they correct because they are in the books. That is why judicial reviews exist. You cannot even explain why the law is just. You are hopeless.

Nice attempt to change the topic to the recession, but you obviously cannot back the claim that corporate greed is the root cause. I'd like to see you try though.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: dmens

excuse me but you are giving me no argument at all

you are giving me the same EXCUSE that every CRIMINAL gives when they are caught
- it isn't my fault OR the law is wrong

You are arguing for a Failed System - Unrestrained Greedy Corporate Excess - without government oversight - is what lead to the ECONOMIC MELTDOWN
-Intel is partly to blame. Their moral compass - and yours - is broken

Yes, the law is wrong and I gave my opinion why and you failed to make a single response, other than using a legal decision to lend moral backing to your argument. Laws are not just by definition, nor are they correct because they are in the books. That is why judicial reviews exist. You cannot even explain why the law is just. You are hopeless.

Nice attempt to change the topic to the recession, but you obviously cannot back the claim that corporate greed is the root cause. I'd like to see you try though.

again, you side with the criminals and make excuses for your bosses' greed

you are right about one thing, it is your opinion - it is just not based on ethics
- i cannot teach you ethics. i guess i have no hope for the courts teaching your masters anything either

They chose to compete unfairly. They know the law and they knew they were breaking it. So they should suck it up and pay the fine. Do the crime; pay the fine

i cannot make it any clearer to one that has no moral compass

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: apoppin
again, you side with the criminals and make excuses for your bosses' greed

you are right about one thing, it is your opinion - it is just not based on ethics
- i cannot teach you ethics. i guess i have no hope for the courts teaching your masters anything either

They chose to compete unfairly. They know the law and they knew they were breaking it. So they should suck it up and pay the fine. Do the crime; pay the fine

i cannot make it any clearer to one that has no moral compass

masters? really, give it a break, your arrogance is only amusing to yourself.

can you back your ethical stance with any explanation? apparently not. good luck teaching it to anyone.

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: dmens
Yes, the law is wrong and I gave my opinion why

I just reread all your posts and I see no argument other than you don't want the government to regulate any business or market. If you really want to make an argument put forth some answers to these questions.

Bribery should be legal because?

Blackmail should be legal because?

The RICO act should be repealed because?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: dmens

Originally posted by: apoppin
again, you side with the criminals and make excuses for your bosses' greed

you are right about one thing, it is your opinion - it is just not based on ethics
- i cannot teach you ethics. i guess i have no hope for the courts teaching your masters anything either

They chose to compete unfairly. They know the law and they knew they were breaking it. So they should suck it up and pay the fine. Do the crime; pay the fine

i cannot make it any clearer to one that has no moral compass

masters? really, give it a break, your arrogance is only amusing to yourself.

can you back your ethical stance with any explanation? apparently not. good luck teaching it to anyone.

Yes i certainly can. But not to one whose mind is fused shut by intel's lasers.

so what IS your stance ?

i will say it for your:

"Intel should be FREE to bribe and blackmail and trample over law" - because it is YOUR company
:roll:

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: Schmide
I just reread all your posts and I see no argument other than you don't want the government to regulate any business or market. If you really want to make an argument put forth some answers to these questions.

Bribery should be legal because?

Blackmail should be legal because?

The RICO act should be repealed because?

"Bribery... is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in discharge of a public or legal duty."

Selling processors is neither a public nor legal duty.

"Blackmail is the crime of threatening to reveal substantially true information about a person to the public, a family member, or associates unless a demand made upon the victim is met."

Substantial truth deals with slander and libel, which has no relevance to selling processors.

The above two legal definitions render your question regarding RICO meaningless.

In previous posts I used the universal application of property rights to defend my position, that is the root of my argument. There were various creative scenario experiments that apoppin did *not* partake in, because he has no clue. I would like to see an explanation of how anti-monopoly penalties applied to a non-coercive monopoly is a fair application of property rights.

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: dmens

Originally posted by: Schmide
I just reread all your posts and I see no argument other than you don't want the government to regulate any business or market. If you really want to make an argument put forth some answers to these questions.

Bribery should be legal because?

Blackmail should be legal because?

The RICO act should be repealed because?

"Bribery... is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in discharge of a public or legal duty."

Selling processors is neither a public nor legal duty.

"Blackmail is the crime of threatening to reveal substantially true information about a person to the public, a family member, or associates unless a demand made upon the victim is met."

Substantial truth deals with slander and libel, which has no relevance to selling processors.

The above two legal definitions render your question regarding RICO meaningless.

Way to cage your arguments to suit your case. Since I assume you got it from here look at the broader definition for business.

While blackmail and extortion may or may not directly relate to this case, the broader terms to why business should be protected from such acts still apply. Economic coercion would be the more appropriate term for the Intel case.

The RICO act just brings all the above and similar acts together for a classification related to organized crime. I am in no way saying Intel is guilty of RICO statutes, but the need for regulation is very relevant to this act.

Libel and Slander? More of a civil issue.

Again your case is lacking, for the burden of proof to overturn (rewrite) a law rests on the plaintiff.

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: Schmide
Way to cage your arguments to suit your case. Since I assume you got it from here look at the broader definition for business.

Is rebate pricing considered bribery now? Is Coca-Cola or Pepsico guilty of bribing McDonalds and Yum respectively? Better go after them too. Many businesses use this kind of pricing scheme, I don't see how it is illegal in any way.

While blackmail and extortion may or may not directly relate to this case, the broader terms to why business should be protected from such acts still apply. Economic coercion would be the more appropriate term for the Intel case.

Is the CPU market a non-contestable market? I do not believe so. Therefore there is no coercive monopoly and your claim of economic coercion is in reality price competition.

Again your case is lacking, for the burden of proof to overturn (rewrite) a law rests on the plaintiff.

Yeah well, I'm not trying to change the law, I'm just arguing it is unfair.

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: dmens
In previous posts I used the universal application of property rights to defend my position, that is the root of my argument. There were various creative scenario experiments that apoppin did *not* partake in, because he has no clue. I would like to see an explanation of how anti-monopoly penalties applied to a non-coercive monopoly is a fair application of property rights.

Property rights - constitute what you can do with your property, but stop short of what leverage you can use said property to interfere with the rights of others. (damming a river, excessive noise, etc)

I do wonder why you used the term "non-coercive monopoly" when the Intel case most certainly rests on the use of coercion.

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: Schmide
Property rights - constitute what you can do with your property, but stop short of what leverage you can use said property to interfere with the rights of others. (damming a river, excessive noise, etc)

Do businesses have a right to not go under due to price pressure?

I do wonder why you used the term "non-coercive monopoly" when the Intel case most certainly rests on the use of coercion.

Firstly, I do not price pressure to be a form of coercion. Secondly, a coercive monopoly is a firm that faces no price competition, but in this case, there is obvious price competition. Lastly, coercive monopolies are usually enforced by government, again that is not the case here.

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: dmens
Is rebate pricing considered bribery now? Is Coca-Cola or Pepsico guilty of bribing McDonalds and Yum respectively? Better go after them too. Many businesses use this kind of pricing scheme, I don't see how it is illegal in any way.

Rebate pricing is not bribery. However, if said rebate is undocumented it becomes a kickback and then would be bribery. Moreover, if such rebate is designed to be specifically relative to the total consumption of a client such that it forces near exclusivity, it becomes a coercive monopoly practice.

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: Schmide
Rebate pricing is not bribery. However, if said rebate is undocumented it becomes a kickback and then would be bribery. Moreover, if such rebate is designed to be specifically relative to the total consumption of a client such that it forces near exclusivity, it becomes a coercive monopoly practice.

So an undocumented rebate is bribery? What if the rebate be folded into the pricing scheme as a volume discount? Is that still bribery?

Also, should I go sue Coca-Cola because I can't get a pepsi at McDonald's? Because they carry Coca-Cola exclusively.