Intel has been dubbed EVIL

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: dmens
i worked on them, and im pure fucking evil lol. better stay away.

I knew it! See now doesn't it feel better to get that off your chest?

Now the process of healing can begin :laugh:

I was pm'ed regarding whether this post (and others like it, relating specifically to dmens) is intended to be sarcasm or not.

To clarify...I am being 100% sarcastic.

Was merely attempting to interject some humor into the thread as the term/word evil is getting bandied about a little too liberally in my view of the use of the word.

For the record, if I wasn't clear about this before, I find it absurd to equate an individual's personal ethics and morals to that of their employer, or vice versa.

And as I think we've seen ample demonstration of in this thread, to do so merely results in a fruitless and pointless tit-for-tat styled conversation that changes nothing for the better but does generate rancor in the process.

Debating the merits of RICO is a worthy conversation, flat out labeling posters as morally bankrupt or having a broken ethical compass just because they are willing to debate the merits of RICO seems absurd to me.

Debate the facts, ideas, philosophies...no need to make it personal.

 

[apoppin]

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.

See, what you are missing is that supply and demand is beside the point in this case.
- Intel chose to break rules and proceeded to act in an unusually predatory fashion.

If what you said were completely true about AMD being unable to supply, then Intel would not have conspired with vendors to cut AMD out
- clearly Intel saw a threat that you are discounting

Don't tell me not to talk evil shit; i know what i am talking about. You demonstrate you are still guessing.

Debate the facts, ideas, philosophies...no need to make it personal.

isn't this a little late?; i have been asking to no avail and 2 mods have been in 3 times to try and calm it down. i did respond in kind; i tend to do that. But it was really *clear* that idc was attempting humor. No one says ANY intel employee or boss is evil. It is what they have done that is unethical - to the point of needing such a huge fine to remind them what good business ethics really are.

 

[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.

 

[Forumpanda]

I think this debate is striking at a much greater differentiating factor between Europe and America, giving some of the American posters here and hard time grasping why the European union is acting the way it is.

I am talking about the subject of consumer protection, something which (most of) European countries value very highly.
I know my googling skills are lacking so the best article I found is 1 year old http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...ogid=15&entry_id=23072

But stuff like Company X screwing over consumer Y is very often headline news here where I live.
If someone sticks anything dangerous in a consumer product you can be sure its hitting the news cycle at some point.

Same reason we take such a harsh stance towards Intel, it is not about the fact that they broke laws, many laws get broken every day, but it is the fact that they harmed consumers that really makes the media pick up on it.

 

[JFAMD]

Originally posted by: Forumpanda
Same reason we take such a harsh stance towards Intel, it is not about the fact that they broke laws, many laws get broken every day, but it is the fact that they harmed consumers that really makes the media pick up on it.

That is the fact that keeps getting lost.

Consumers were injured. Intel's claim is that no consumers were injured. If you stifle competition, you hurt consumers.

 

[Idontcare]

Do tax incentives and government subsidies harm the consumer?

 

[JFAMD]

Well, that is a question that nobody in the forum (nor, the world) will ever find full agreement on.

My degree is in economics. Both, when done properly, can stimulate innovation. However, history shows that it is easy to do both, but very difficult to do both right.

And even when you do them right, you will never get full agreement. The challenge is that there are plenty of moving parts. In all econ classes we would use a set of assumptions for ever model. They all began with "hold the money supply constant."

That never happens, so the models were flawed to an extent.

 

[bgeh]

Originally posted by: JFAMD
Well, that is a question that nobody in the forum (nor, the world) will ever find full agreement on.

My degree is in economics. Both, when done properly, can stimulate innovation. However, history shows that it is easy to do both, but very difficult to do both right.

And even when you do them right, you will never get full agreement. The challenge is that there are plenty of moving parts. In all econ classes we would use a set of assumptions for ever model. They all began with "hold the money supply constant."

That never happens, so the models were flawed to an extent.

Agreed, and the next problem is that we'll never be able to devise an experiment to see which method/philosophy leads to a better outcome (the players change, etc, etc.)

So any model will always be open to the charge that another philosophy/model would've performed better even if it appears as a success.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
Do tax incentives and government subsidies harm the consumer?

We do know that bribery, blackmail, extortion, dirty backroom dealing and illegally crushing competition as a coercive monopoly DO harm the consumer

even IF tax incentives and government subsidies harm the consumer, two wrongs do not make a right

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Idontcare
Do tax incentives and government subsidies harm the consumer?

We do know that bribery, blackmail, extortion, dirty backroom dealing and illegally crushing competition as a coercive monopoly DO harm the consumer

even IF tax incentives and government subsidies harm the consumer, two wrongs do not make a right

Yeah I'm just wondering when you start having a government entity crusading on behalf of "think of the children :music:" campaign it opens a whole other can of legitimate questions regarding "just how much government intervention/assistance to prop up select business entities also serves to harm the consumer"...

My sister-in-law is an officer at a regional bank, that bank had zero exposure to CDS and CDO, they would be doing a whole lot better (her professional assessment, not my opinion) right now had the government not decided to prop up their competition (citibank, etc) in this time period of "take from the strong and give to weak" style capitalism.

I could see legitimate arguments be made that it harmed consumers in Europe by AMD being propped up with Dresden subsidies in such a manner that made AMD so much more competitive relative to Via that Via basically was relegated to the niche and relatively inaccessible market they now occupy.

For sure some of AMD's marketshare gains came at the expense of Via's lost marketshare, which only further eroded Via's ability to provide the consumers with viable products. I think some consumer harm happened there, thanks to Germany.

(before any one gets too riled up, this is a tongue-in-cheek argument...I'm not really being serious, but I am curious as to the philosophical boundaries of where "consumer harm" occurs versus where it does not occur as I can see endless possibilities for making the case that consumers are harmed all the time by every action taken by government which extracts taxes and revenue from anything and anyone)

 

[apoppin]

Do you really think the European decision was to "prop up AMD" ?

i think it was just to punish intel

When a judge or court fines someone they are not really thinking of the future ramifications for the grandchildren of the defendant or for the plaintiff's grandkids - they are thinking of a punishment to fit the crime as prescribed by law.

You can argue the "philosophy" of anything and make it as abstract as you want. Getting back to reality, intel broke laws and now they are fined.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: apoppin
Do you really think the European decision was to "prop up AMD" ?

i think it was just to punish intel

No, dear no I don't think that.

But I am wondering, as you said two wrongs don't make a right, so if fining Intel causes harm to the consumer (because Intel has less $ to innovate now) then how is that ok?

Its a philosophical conundrum, in my head, once the crime has been framed as victimizing the overly generalized "consumer".

As others have pointed out, its the consumer who gets the shaft here twice over. Once by Intel for committing the initial harm, and then once again by their government for fining Intel which then just rolls over into elevated prices and less innovation going forward.

Two wrongs, and no rights. I'm just scratching me head here.

I'm not saying the solution is xyz or that it is acceptable to let Intel not go unfined...I'm just saying it seems to me a tad inconsistent to claim harm to the consumer is the basis of the fine, only to levy punishment in a form that actually causes further harm to the consumer. It seems, illogical, if the pretense of the fine itself is to be believed.

 

[apoppin]

what else do you do? Send the ones responsible to jail?
-Break intel up ? :Q

i don't think so .. that would not be "good" or serve the public good either

A fine is embarrassing .. and it gives weight to what AMD has been saying about Intel all along


And i don't intel will roll over the elevated prices to us = AMD gets an opportunity to sell for less then

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: apoppin
what else do you do? Send the ones responsible to jail?
-Break intel up ? :Q

i don't think so .. that would not be "good" or serve the public good either

A fine is embarrassing .. and it gives weight to what AMD has been saying about Intel all along


And i don't intel will roll over the elevated prices to us = AMD gets an opportunity to sell for less then

Actually sending the key decision makers to jail, and fining them specifically, is exactly how you would punish the guilty without having negative knock-on effects at the consumer level. (if punishing the actual offenders is the desired outcome)

And it would most certainly send a chill down the spine of any future decision makers at the same firm from considering pursuing the same path a second time. (if deterrence is really a desired outcome)

80,000 employees at Intel did not hatch this plan, nor did they draw bonuses off of the ill-gotten gains from its execution.

As others have noted, the EU (and US) have established precedence of sending executives to jail for actions relating to price fixing, cartels, and harming consumers, but for some reason when it comes to MS, Intel, and big tobacco the same governments really only seem interested in the fiscal opportunity that "carrying out justice" presents for them.

Enron was broke, so justice saw a little more clearly to seeing that the offenders went to jail in that case. Same with the memory cartel, they are all broke companies and suddenly jail time for executives is ok. But these other guys, well a dip into their piggy banks will do nicely instead. Yeah, justice has been served.

 

[apoppin]

since we are into politics, let me remind you that it has always been this way.

Justice for the rich and justice for the poor - two kinds of justice

now the question .. a fine is not ideal . . . but since jail seems out of the question for the wealthy, how ELSE do you get their attention *except* by taking a ransom for them ?'

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: apoppin
since we are into politics, let me remind you that it has always been this way.

Justice for the rich and justice for the poor - two kinds of justice

now the question .. a fine is not ideal . . . but since jail seems out of the question for the wealthy, how ELSE do you get their attention *except* by taking a ransom for them ?'

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)


Idontcare SPECIFICALLY said that there SHOULD be a fine but it should be levied on the persons who broke the law and not on the company in which they worked.

A corporation should protect one from economical liability, not from CRIMINAL liability! but when the corporation is rich enough, the government chooses to specifically target the corporation to siphon of large amounts of money, rather targeting the specific criminals in charge of said corporation.

This is in no way "justice for the rich vs justice for the poor" case... because its not the richness of the CRIMINALS that comes into question, but the richness of a separate entity (and depending on how you look at it, another victim) from the criminal which makes a juicy target for the corrupt law enforcement agencies.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: apoppin
since we are into politics, let me remind you that it has always been this way.

Justice for the rich and justice for the poor - two kinds of justice

now the question .. a fine is not ideal . . . but since jail seems out of the question for the wealthy, how ELSE do you get their attention *except* by taking a ransom for them ?'

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)


Idontcare SPECIFICALLY said that there SHOULD be a fine but it should be levied on the persons who broke the law and not on the company in which they worked.

A corporation should protect one from economical liability, not from CRIMINAL liability! but when the corporation is rich enough, the government chooses to specifically target the corporation to siphon of large amounts of money, rather targeting the specific criminals in charge of said corporation.

This is in no way "justice for the rich vs justice for the poor" case... because its not the richness of the CRIMINALS that comes into question, but the richness of a separate entity (and depending on how you look at it, another victim) from the criminal which makes a juicy target for the corrupt law enforcement agencies.

excuse me, but the CEOs and the board ARE impacted by the fines. They see their plans spoiled.
And it is up to the stockholders to decide if they want that board any longer.

Finally, it is possible that Europe did not pursue jail because they already made a deal with Obama's administration
:Q

you never know what will happen in this country

let me please remind you . . .

it ain't over - by a longshot - yet, for intel

 

[taltamir]

You now made a very sensible argument that shows no misinterpretations of the other's point of view. So long as there is mutual understanding and clear communication I am happy .

And, as I said, this is an excellent argument to the contrary, however I would like to hear a bit more evidence to the existence of such an agreement with the US government. besides which, even if there WAS such an agreement the fining of intel the corporation still hurts the so called victim, and the USA ALSO intends to fine INTEL and not the actual people who violated the law... so 5 countries all got together and agreed to further victimize the victim, while each taking a slice of the pie, and all letting the real criminals walk free.

 

[craftech]

Obama Takes Tougher Antitrust Line

...The head of the Justice Department?s antitrust division, Christine A. Varney......said that the Bush administration policy ?lost sight of an ultimate goal of antitrust laws ? the protection of consumer welfare.?.............The administration is hoping to encourage smaller companies in an array of industries to bring their complaints to the Justice Department about potentially improper business practices by their larger rivals. Some of the biggest antitrust cases were initiated by complaints taken to the Justice Department...........?There is no adequate substitute for a competitive market, particularly during times of economic distress,? she said. ?Vigorous antitrust enforcement must play a significant role in the government?s response to economic crises to ensure that markets remain competitive.?

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................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.

Sources:

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/speeches/245777.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05.../12antitrust.html?_r=2(Based upon that same DOJ transcript)

 

[Nathelion]

Originally posted by: taltamir
You now made a very sensible argument that shows no misinterpretations of the other's point of view. So long as there is mutual understanding and clear communication I am happy .

And, as I said, this is an excellent argument to the contrary, however I would like to hear a bit more evidence to the existence of such an agreement with the US government. besides which, even if there WAS such an agreement the fining of intel the corporation still hurts the so called victim, and the USA ALSO intends to fine INTEL and not the actual people who violated the law... so 5 countries all got together and agreed to further victimize the victim, while each taking a slice of the pie, and all letting the real criminals walk free.

Sounds like business as usual?

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: apoppin
excuse me, but the CEOs and the board ARE impacted by the fines. They see their plans spoiled.
And it is up to the stockholders to decide if they want that board any longer.

Otellini was not the CEO, Barret was. Barret walked away with millions in bonuses and left Otellini a company that had accumulated untold geopolitical liabilities...I doubt Otellini's plans were to continue with Barrets. In fact he didn't, these allegations all stem back to the time of Barrets legacy.

Second the fine doesn't impact the same shareholders who benefited from Intel's inflated profits of 2002-2007...with the turnover volume of INTC a rather small percentage of shareholders from that time period are going to be affected now.

And you keep bringing the BOD into this, the BOD has zero influence or involvement with market contracts like this. The BOD approves capital expenditure plans and any plans that make a marked shift in the business sector that Intel is going to operate in (BOD approved Larrabee and GPU push for instance) but contracts relating to sales and distribution are way below their purview to be bothered with it.

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).

Companies are a lot like countries, you have administrations and turnover. Penalizing the citizens of Intel (employees) and their current administration (Otellini) over the illicit activities of a previous administration (Barret) doesn't ring true as any form of justice I've heard of.

If waterboarding does turn out to in fact meet the legal definition of torture should we then punish Obama and the US citizens and give the money to Iceland...or do we go find Cheney and company and dole out proper justice and find the actual waterboarded victims and render some form of justice for them?

If I were Iceland I know what I'd vote for (me check book! gimme gimme)

 

[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

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: JFAMD
The key issue here is to make sure that this does not happen again.

That would seem easy to do...make it illegal for retailer companies like Media Saturn Holding and MediaMarkt superstores from engaging in contracts that knowingly harm their consumers.

What we've got now is the EU saying the drug dealers on the street corners are not guilty of anything, its only the drug lords in Columbia that have harmed the consumer.

Why did MediaMarkt sign onto the contract they did, knowing full well it was enabling Intel to violate the law and was harming MediaMarkt's very customers? Because of greed. Media Saturn Holding wanted to increase the chances of profiting from the situation as much as possible, to use Intel's willingness to engage in illegal business to their own business advantage against the retailers they too were competing with in Germany.

I see real hypocrisy in this very selective application of "protecting the consumer". If Intel is guilty then they could not have done this alone, there are retailers on the other side of the contract who are just as complicit in their desire to profit at the harm of the consumer and their retail segment competition (any business that competed with Media Saturn Holding and did not take up Intel's deal was commensurately harmed by Media Saturn Holding).

Intel does not sell products to the consumer. They sell products to resellers. It is the resellers who harmed the consumers by taking advantage of Intel's wandering moral compass. Somebody sold the crack on a street corner, it wasn't the drug lord sitting in Columbia.

Punish the guy from Columbia if you like, but you don't punish Columbia itself and you don't punish the citizens of columbia (who grow coffee now, so punishing them just hurts your consumers who like coffee), but justice is incomplete if you ignore the fact you left in place an entire drug distribution network that lacked a moral compass itself for five years as well. Otherwise guess what happens the next time a drug lord from Afghanistan shows up in Europe...oh looky, an existing distribution system ready and sitting unused for them...

 

[JFAMD]

Well, as an economics person, don't get me started on supply and demand.

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."

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.

 

[Forumpanda]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
Do tax incentives and government subsidies harm the consumer?

Indeed they do, which is also why (Denmark at least) is trying very hard to stop government subsidies to farming (actually protecting 3rd world farmers and consumers) .. because given the government subsidies to our farmers we can produce stuff so cheaply that we are dumping it on 3rd world countries essentially putting their farmers out of business.

And don't even get me started on tax incentives, I cringe when I see governments competing to give the most tax incentives to make companies build their factories in their country or state, its a sad reality that doing so is only lining the pockets of said companies shareholders instead of the people actually living in whatever area they are polluting.

But at the end of the day you have to fry only the fish you can eat, in a perfect world governments would not compete against each other to give companies the best tax incentives, essentially manipulation whatever market said company is working in.
I think the biggest reason for going after Intel and not someone else in the chain is one of evidence, this case has taken several years to fully document, requiring internal emails and documents from Intel, there might very well be some fallout on other corporations later but I must admit I haven't spent much of my time looking into it.

Thus is life, never perfect.