Kroes: Intel Now "Sponsor of the European Taxpayer"

[HateAllNazis]

o Israel has killed Americans (eg. Sailors on USS Liberty, Rachel Corrie, etc...)

o Israel spies on this country (eg. Pollard, Kadish, AIPAC, etc...)

o Israel bought our politicians with our taxes.

o Israel steals our taxes, hence their higher income.

o Israel uses our country as their toilet.

Want more? Checkout my playlist.

Please share this post with others, and demand that your Senator and/or Representative uphold the laws when it comes to Israel's heinous crimes. Peace!

[Spenner56]

Abiding by EU law ALSO means

1.NOT criticising the EU or it's institutions (European Court of Justice ruling,case 274/99).

2.Rioting and civil ' upheaval ´ during time of war is punishable by death (amendment to the European Charter,article2,passage2c : google Prof.Schachtschneider).

3.Under the Lisbon Treaty/constitution any state not willing to `continually upgrade it's military´will also face punishment.

Just say no (like the French,Dutch & Irish).

Don't VOTE in June's EU elections.

[Franzjosefderzweite]

This case "C 274/99 P" was about a mister Connolly. He was an official of working in the EU and as it is common for officials as it is for many employs anywhere he was not allowed to publish all the confidential information he got to know in his job on his own behalf. Its not different in the member states either.

He then thought he could fool his employee by taking off for a short time under false pretenses to publish a book with his insider knowledge. He got sued and convicted for it.

[Franzjosefderzweite]

continued:

To coin this completely unsurprising court rule (which would have been hardly different when happening on national level) into an outlawing of criticism against the EU is one of the more ridiculous EU myths.

[Franzjosefderzweite]

@#2:

Thats even more ridiculous as #1. The European Charter allows the member states to make exemptions in these cases, it does not reintroduce capital punishment anywhere it just allows member states to reintroduce it at these exemptions. The have this right already without the Lisbon treaty and if not, the European Charta clearly marks that it must not be used in order to undermine other stricter human rights regulations that may already be in power.

[eurogoldexchange]

Kroes ROCKS! She'd kick Goldman Sachs out!

[PQL1967]

Find another market where competition has worked as well as the PC market: we have seen ever better CPUs at ever cheaper prices year after year? Can you name another market like this? What is the problem?

The problem is that European governments do not like successful companies. They want to punish success (intel) to reward failure (AMD). It is really sad and frustrating?

[mrsckum]

This video really has attracted the tin-foil hat crowd, hasn't it?

[Bleeter]

Attracted a bunch of folks with some fairly out there claims, that's for sure. Would seem to have attracted a mutual masturbation society of some sort.

[eurogoldexchange]

You need to get one if you don't have one, its creepy out there..Seriously, if you think Kroes is wrong that may be because your mind has been screwed so many times by the corporate media you are to tired to take in the facts about kartels and price fixing..it is rife in the US, which is the reason why it is going down.

[voodoovodka2001]

Good job Europe. Don't be brain washed by American bullshit. Big corporations in America are extremely dirty and prourly managed. They pay low wages and force workers to work ridiculous amounts of hours per week under close to slavery conditions by management. They drag us all down, don't turn Europe into another market where America can piss all their dirt on.

[laduran]

Stupid. Purely ignorant of facts. Intel is one of the most highly respected businesses in the world. They have won major environmental awards and are the largest purchaser of green power in America. Unfortunately, this isn't going to help EU competitiveness. If I were Intel, I would shut down the Ireland fab in protest. Israel can supply all the CPUs for Europe.

[Bleeter]

Aww look at the Intel fanbois. Do the crime, do the time.

[jvdthwip]

But $1.45 Billion? (capital B - illion)?

We we "enraged" by AIG's 100M in bonuses, but 100M is child's play. $1.4 billion is absurd. There's no way Intel made anything close to that regardless if they were truly found being anticompetitive. If anything some of that cash should go straight to AMD (although it doesn't really matter. AMD will be the ones with the cheaper product anyway once Intel has to start making up for this huge loss). The argument is Intel harmed consumers... Hard to prove.

[Bleeter]

Generally speaking, damages are not the same as costs as damages also take into account matters that have no direct measurable value. For example, if I cause $500 damage to a local store, I would not only get 'hit' with a $500 repair bill by a court, but probably cost of court time, and the more general fines for the illegal act of 'destruction of property'. That's to say, it's easy to have a $2500 fine for $500 damage.

[ChichiriMuyo]

I think you're a tad confused jvd. First, what you're suggesting about the amounts is sort like saying a dollar for a hambuger is nothing but $14 for a shirt is insane. That's uhh... just no, dude.

Also, do you really think they didn't that kind of money? This is a company that takes in nearly $10 billion per QUARTER and they couldn't possibly have made $1.4 over more than half a decade by pushing all competitors out of the market as best as they could?

[Keruaran]

"The argument is Intel harmed consumers... Hard to prove."

When you have undue influence over distribution channels, you can distort the market, impede competition, and command higher prices. This is exactly what Intel did. And if it wasn't proved, there would be no conviction and no fine.

[laduran]

The EU trade commission didn't prove that consumers were harmed and I don't think they can.

If Intel sold a CPU in 2006 that was twice as fast as half the price of an Intel CPU three from years earlier, then the EU will have a very hard time proving damages to consumers.

The EU should grow a pair and go after OPEC if they really want to protect their consumers. OPEC is an actual Cartel that carefully controls supply to manage price. If that isn't illegal, then what Intel did is child's play.

[charlessmyth]

A poor move by Kroes, since it will raise the cost to consumers, and penalise pension and social security funds holding shares in Intel. Intel will set up its next fab-plant in a lower cost EU region, to compensate. As with her pogrom against Microsoft, in order to promote competition with Linux and/or web browsers, her actions lack any market awareness, and are cynical, populist politics which undermine any incentive for competition to occur. You can't compete against the government.

[Keruaran]

"it will raise the cost to consumers"

Erm no... Intel monopolizing the market is what raises the cost to consumers.

"and penalise pension and social security funds holding shares in Intel"

Intel did the crime, so take action against Intel.

"Intel will set up its next fab-plant in a lower cost EU region, to compensate."

That's Intel's decision.

"As with her pogrom against Microsoft"

Microsoft broke the law, and continues to break the law.

[charlessmyth]

Intel was accused of giving chips away at knock down prices, not demanding higher prices via a monopoly it does not have, since unlike Kroes, Intel cannot FORCE anyone to buy or take its chips. Intel did nothing criminal, except to not be in compliance with a form of EU price fixing scheme. Ditto Microsoft. Yes, Intel has a choice, and the EU cannot force Intel to not set up a fab-plant elsewhere.

[Keruaran]

"Intel was accused of giving chips away at knock down prices"

It is called "dumping", this is how it works: You "dump" your product onto the market at cost or under cost price for one reason alone: to greatly damage competition which does not have the money or the power to counter such a tactic. You also pay people off to push your product and hold back your competitors product, Intel did this. The purpose of this it so you can then raise prices with impunity.

And Microsoft is worse.

[charlessmyth]

Like any private business, the capacity to dump at loss leading prices is constrained by the willingness of its shareholders to maintain a loss, in the hope that higher prices in the future will compensate for the losses and return a profit. However, should prices rise well above the normal rate of profit, new chip vendors will enter the market to compete and cause prices to not be so high. By making judgments about this, is how capital is more properly directed.

[Keruaran]

You're just naive if you think "new chip vendors" have a hope in a "market" where one corporation is pulling the distribution strings.

You need to go and read the EC's findings again.

[Keruaran]

"her actions lack any market awareness"

No, her actions demonstrate a keen market awareness.

"which undermine any incentive for competition to occur"

No... businesses have greater incentive to compete in the European market where there is at least the hope that law breaking, market distorting monopolists will be called to task for their crimes.

If you were a chip maker, how much confidence would you have in a market where Intel "influences" all the distribution channels ?

[charlessmyth]

A chip maker facing such competitive pressure could choose to not get involved in the chip business, or would realise its assets and exit the chip business for an alternative line of business, where it had better opportunities. Using competition law to thwart the market, is why Kroes has no market awareness, and is why manufacturing in the EU, except for lines of production allied to a privileged few, is too limited, and has contributed to the EU's economic crisis. As it has, too, in the US.

[Keruaran]

"the commission has specific, documented examples of Intel paying other manufacturers to, for example, delay the launch of AMD based PC's by six months, and to restrict the sales of AMD based products to certain customers" - Neelie Kroes, European Antitrust Commissioner.

[charlessmyth]

Kroes is cherry picking, to substantiate her claims. Intel could not possibly sustain such a scheme vis-à-vis the number of PC manufacturers. The fact is that AMD and others, outside of the most highly priced/specialised sectors of computing, do not manufacture particularly usable chips, and the sales lost to such chips based on moot claims, are sales lost to Intel for at least 2-3 years. This is why Intel have to compete so fiercely, and is why the consumer gets a competitive deal.

[Keruaran]

"Kroes is cherry picking, to substantiate her claims"

You ought to substantiate your own claims.

"Intel could not possibly sustain such a scheme vis-à-vis the number of PC manufacturers"

Intel has been found guilty, stop whining.

"The fact is that AMD and others, outside of the most highly priced/specialised sectors of computing, do not manufacture particularly usable chips"

What a load of absolute rubbish. Do you work for Intel ?

[charlessmyth]

The purpose of the law is to justify Kroes' and her cohort's pay scale. A chip maker can only compete via the distribution chain when it has a technical advantage. Thus AMD must offer genuinely superior products, or limit its ambitions until it can. I choose to buy Intel PCs because I am less likely to confront problems with CPUs, data buses, etc., when running Windows, Linux or FreeBSD, even though 'I' have a choice of a significantly cheaper AMD machine, from Lenovo, HP, Siemens, etc.

[Keruaran]

"The purpose of the law is to justify Kroes' and her cohort's pay scale."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! Tell us another one... go on...

"A chip maker can only compete via the distribution chain when it has a technical advantage."

Erm no, this has nothing to do with "technical advantage".

"Thus AMD must offer genuinely superior products, or limit its ambitions until it can."

So, Intel is allowed to restrict AMD supply "for the good of consumers" eh ?

[charlessmyth]

Competition law is bad law, and to be in contravention of a bad law is not a criminal act, it is an expression of the right to liberty. As per the consumer, a competitive price is the price which represents value and does not impact their ability to realise other buying opportunities, which are competition to computer and/or chip manufacturers. As you alluded to, chips are not interchangeable and an Intel or AMD chip is only part of a system, which requires mobo makers, etc., to support.

[Keruaran]

"Competition law is bad law"

Yep, you definitely must work for Intel... Or Microsoft...

Oh I see, Intel blocking the competitions products from getting to consumers is, "an expression of the right to liberty"... oh right... Have you got any more jokes you'd like to share with us ?

Zzz...

[charlessmyth]

Intel's private investors can abide by the law, but can also choose to invest elsewhere. This is akin to why private capital will not invest vis-à-vis the ECB's mighty printing press.

[Keruaran]

There's an elephant in the room that you are studiously avoiding. And watching you fiddle about making excuses is quite pathetic.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it" - Upton Sinclair

[Keruaran]

Furthermore, all of us know this:

Investors rarely exhibit moral fortitude; their hearts are tied to their hip pockets.

[charlessmyth]

If you knew this, you would not be defending Kroes. Successful investors make judgements based on the risk to capital they do not want to lose, since without capital they cannot invest, and labour would have no employment, as would investors have fewer opportunities to diversify investments vis-à-vis competition and/or to compensate for loss to value of their capital. Even the Winter Palace needs the roof replaced, as does the Bugatti need a service, etc. It's hard to be rich, and stay rich.

[Keruaran]

Anything to take the focus off Intel's offenses eh ?

[charlessmyth]

What can I say, other than, one thing follows another like night follows day, in the world of moral hazard and delusion which Kroes and yourself insist upon.

[Keruaran]

What is certain here is that you cannot see how horribly flawed and twisted your logic is. You seem oblivious to the silliness you descend into as you wallow in what could almost be described as a kind of self justifying hyperbole.

Such is the deceitfulness of wealth.

[Keruaran]

I'd say you ought to limit your ambitions before you make any more dumb posts. But hey, I can't manipulate the channel...

"I am less likely to confront problems with CPUs, data buses, etc., when running Windows, Linux or FreeBSD"

Or... maybe you didn't take the plastic off the fansink last time you installed an AMD chip.

"'I' have a choice of a significantly cheaper AMD machine..."

Oh look, "choice"... Yes you have a choice, all thanks to the kind benevolence of Intel The Glorious yes ?

[charlessmyth]

After taking the plastic off the AMD chip, it will only fit an AMD compatible mobo. There is a choice because Intel has to compete against other lines of production and/or goods and services into which its shareholders can invest as an alternative to Intel, if they offer as good as, or better profits, with less risk. Kroes' actions only make investing more risky and limit competition and/or profit potential, across the board, except for a privileged few.

[Keruaran]

"Kroes' actions only make investing more risky and limit competition"

Oh dear, we wouldn't want corporations to have to abide by the law now would we ? You are just repeating yourself now, and its getting boring.

[Keruaran]

"This is why Intel have to compete so fiercely"

Intel engaged in illegal anti-competitive activities. They manipulated distribution channels, dumped on the market, bought people off, and had people hold back products based on AMD's processors. They have been found guilty of breaking EU competition laws.

Did you not get the memo ?

"the consumer gets a competitive deal."

When there is no choice and no real competition in the market, the consumer does not get a "competitive" deal.

[laduran]

Your arguments are specious at best. You use absolute terms like "no choice" or "no real competition". You forget that AMD and Intel have been in a very competitive market for 30 years. AMD has failed to gain market share not only because of Intel rebates but also because most of that time Intel has had superior products. There have been short periods of time where AMD CPUs were technically better, but they couldn't make enough. Further, AMD screwed up their Phenom launch and lost credibility.

[Keruaran]

"A chip maker facing such competitive pressure could choose to not get involved in the chip business"

What competitive pressure would that be ? That of a dominant monopolist abusing its market position, engaging in illegal activities to destroy your business ? Sorry, that's not competitive pressure, that's anti-competitive pressure.

"Using competition law to thwart the market"

You mean the law that Intel broke ? What do you think the purpose of that law is ?

[gordonputfile]

Way to penalize a successful business. Offering discounts for large buys is common business practice.

[lumajs]

I am ashamed to be a European. I apologize to Intel, its consumers, Americans, and all creative people in the world for the outrageous decision of this bitch who is obviously having a lot of fun with having the Saddam-like power to control billions that she didn't earn. She should follow Hussain's fate, too.

[charlessmyth]

Kroes is retiring this year, I believe, and may be replaced by France's Christine Lagarde. But she is unlikely to be any better. If the EU keeps this line of action going, along with the French Bossnapping, China--with a population 50% bigger than the US and EU combined--is looking better and better.

[Bleeter]

Are you sure that you really wish to promote a public hanging for her?

[Keruaran]

I guess no one is going to apologize AMD then hmm ? I suppose you don't want to apologize for being such an ass to American's who were hurt by Intel's actions ? Oh, say, employee's of AMD ? Shareholders ? Why do you think this decision is "outrageous" ? Intel broke the law, distorted the market, and impeded competition primarily from AMD, which resulted in higher prices, hurting consumers as well.

So what are you apologizing for ? Not being Intel's bitch a bit longer ?

[JensDensen]

"Computerbuyer now sponsor of socialist european union"

[lucaboris]

European Union takes crap from no one

[jwan584]

Damn right!

[EcstasyDeceptions]

Yeah enjoy rolling around in your hard-earned cash. Don't get carpal tunnel syndrome counting it all.