Posted on 09/22/2009 10:24:53 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Earlier this year, the European Commission nailed Intel with a record setting $1.45 billion fine for what it construed as anticompetitive practices, and on Monday the EC published a non-confidential version of its Intel Decision laying out all the details that led to the hefty fine.
The EC seems to have taken particular exception to conditional rebates offered by Intel, listing no less than five scenarios, including rebates to Dell from December 2002 to December 2005 in exchange for purchasing exclusively Intel CPUs. But according to the paper, Intel also dangled the conditional carrot in front of Acer, HP, NEC, Lenovo, and Media Saturn Holding during various times from 2002 up until as recently as 2007.
Not only did Intel dictate how much AMD-based product each OEM could sell, but the chip maker also had clear directions on how AMD systems could be sold, according to the paper. For example, Intel payments to Acer were conditioned on Acer postponing the launch of an AMD-based notebook from September 2003 to January 2004. Lenovo was also advised to postpone a notebook launch, while payments to HP were conditioned on the OEM selling AMD-based business desktops only to small and medium enterprises, and only via direct distribution channels.
(Excerpt) Read more at maximumpc.com ...
Hang em....
Similarly, my employer requires that I work exclusively for them (at least on a full-time basis). This prevents me from getting a second, simultaneous job!
You do realize that employment contracts and vendor contracts have different rules, don’t you?
I DO believe it's fair for them to object to you competing with them in the same business or working for a competitor, or using proprietary information in your other work you wouldn't have access to were you not an employee of theirs.
IOW, if your side job doesn't harm them in some way, it's none of their business.
The EC is extorting money from Intel. There is nothing wrong with exclusivity contracts. They have been in place since day one.
Agreed. But your analogy was off.
If there is, realtors are in for a heck of a shock.
There can be a problem when it's a large player using its market muscle and cash to exclude or hamper smaller players. It distorts the free market competition that gives us the best products at the best prices.
I can't think of any industry where I could easily start a business and not have established competitors to deal with. I suppose an exception would be where I dream up some new niche.
I feel confident that AMD, and the other micro players, knew about these deals. Why, then, didn’t they top Intel’s offer?
These are common, everyday, business practices in this world. Don’t believe me? Ask Frito-lay, and Coke, and, etc., etc., etc.
It’s just the EU, you know, that Socialist organization that banded together because they couldn’t compete with us or Japan (and a few others) alone, and now they seek domination.
Established competitors are fine. Competitors who abuse their power are anti-competitive and warp capitalism, which depends on an essentially level playing field.
Liberals used to complain about the Big 3 in Detroit having some sort of oligopoly. It was an illusion.
What they don’t understand is that even a monopoly is not necessarily bad or illegal. In fact, a monopoly can be beneficial in terms of efficiency and lowering prices. It’s the abuse of that monopoly power that causes problems.
But the Big Three did do some nasty things to kill competition. Remember when they sicced their senator on Preston Tucker?
Dog eat dog through superior support, reliability, features, quality, marketing, etc., is fine. Getting a politician to destroy your competition is not capitalism, it's closer to fascism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.