Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mas_ who wrote (260071)	5/13/2009 8:31:54 AM
From: paarl99	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

INtel president and CEO Paul Otellini said the company would appeal to the EU courts because "the decision is wrong" and "there has been absolutely zero harm to consumers." The company promised to comply with the EU order but criticized it as extremely ambiguous. ////////////////////// THOUGH THIS IS NOT A COMPLETE QUOTE and is edited by the wsj..it is interesting that he doesn't deny the activity...just denies harm to the consumer...i guess he is speaking to the US Federal court judge and (future) jury here.... paarl

To: mas_ who wrote (260071)	5/13/2009 8:56:47 AM
From: fastpathguru	Respond to of 275872

A few key points that should, but won't, sound familiar to our denialists: Manufacturers depend on Intel to supply most of the chips they need and faced higher costs if they lost most or all of a rebate by choosing AMD chips for even a small order. I believe I've mentioned the discount attribution standard once or twice here... The discounts were so steep that only a rival that sold chips for less than they cost to make would have any chance of grabbing customers, the EU executive said. The equally-efficient competitor standard threads through this decision as well... "The European Commission said Intel tried to conceal the conditions attached to these payments and details only emerged from e-mails that regulators seized in surprise raids on the companies." OMG! Intel's lawyers must have been busy that day and let something slip out. Sheds new light on Intel's crappy email retention program... fpg

To: mas_ who wrote (260071)	5/13/2009 9:05:17 AM
From: JCB01	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

I can't believe in this public of a position would make a statement like this: Kroes joked that Intel would now have to change its latest global ad campaign -- "sponsors of tomorrow" -- to proclaiming "the sponsor of the European taxpayer." (LOL) Interesting: It looks like one theses charges is one that's been often discussed here: Intel attempts to apply these rebates to all the processors shipped to a company but the conditions for the rebates are tied to purchasing the last, say 20% of the computer maker's processors. If you're the EU, you're saying that if the rebate is conditional on purchasing the last 20%, then the entire value of the rebate should be tied to that last 20% - an interpretation that would probably mean that Intel did indeed sell part of its shipments to a manufacturer below cost. I'm curious to see which interpretation prevails: Certainly, from Intel's perspective, they made plenty of money on all of the processors shipped to said customer. From the manufacturer (and AMD's) view, however, it's a different story. The European Commission said Intel tried to conceal the conditions attached to these payments and details only emerged from e-mails that regulators seized in surprise raids on the companies Potentially a big problem. People can talk in a conversational in e-mail and forget that they are "forever" and can be considered official communication. Hopefully we get to see the actual e-mails, but I doubt anyone's going to be satisfied by them. It'll probably be more of the same "Well I think he meant this!" and "You're wrong! He meant that!" I think the EU is going to be successful in charging and fining Intel - although I don't have a clue as to how much it will be in the end. I also wouldn't be to sanguine about hoping the courts will overturn Neely. Certainly courts in the US are heavily politicized, and I doubt it's much different in the EU. Besides, the European Commission would be considered defacto experts in the law, wouldn't they? It wouldn't be too unreasonable to assume that courts will be inclined to accept the judgement of the experts in the area.