EU probes Oracle-Sun deal, cites open-source issue

[krazy]

But as usualy. the EU is retarded and like the oracle ordeal they had no idea what they were talking about.

x86 cpu's are not computers as we know it. We have how many arm licencees, mips? sparc? power? they all serve a purpose. x86 is for the desktop. is this fair? no. They might as well go after IBM because they have made so many supercomputers.

Justice had failed to be served. Equity was not present.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. They broke the law and had to pay a fine. How is that not just?

The ruling was in question

... by some US lawyer. Fortunately, he isn't in the majority in the EU or in the US (both have antitrust laws). Intel is going to court in 2010 in the US.

So i ask, was justice served? are monopolies bad if quality goes up and price goes down? monopolies, like any company can swing both ways.

History shows that they can't. And if you see my groklaw link, the EU have a guidance paper which...

includes a rigorous, effects-based analysis which has demonstrated that Intel's conduct has reduced consumer choice and limited innovation in the market.

More QA on this here.

Edit: I didn't see your last post.. I'm sorry to hear that.

And I agree that we disagree :P. It's really just another political debate..

[L33F3R]

ders a million sites we can look at which contract the same information both our ways. I think we have to agree to disagree.

Certainly an interesting debate tho. I have literally been hitting bud for the past 10 hours, sense my dog died . So im going to go to bed and not wake up for a week.


BTW krazy, i agree with alot of your points. I just like to keep a debate going .

[krazy]

I just found an interesting Q/A article about the Intel case over at Groklaw. Some choice quotes:

...Intel gave wholly or partially hidden rebates to computer manufacturers on condition that they bought all, or almost all, their x86 central processing units (CPUs) from Intel. Intel also made direct payments to a major retailer on condition it stock only computers with Intel x86 CPUs. Second, Intel made direct payments to computer manufacturers to halt or delay the launch of specific products containing a competitor's x86 CPUs and to limit the sales channels available to these products. Intel is obliged desist from the specific practices identified in this case and not to engage in these or equivalent practices in the future.

...Intel limited consumer choice and stifled innovation by preventing innovative products for which there was a consumer demand from reaching end customers. Such practices deter innovative companies which might otherwise wish to enter and compete in the market. By ordering Intel to end its abusive practices, competition on the x86 CPU market will play out on the merits with the effect that innovation to the benefit of the consumer can flourish.

Does the Commission seek to limit companies' ability to provide customers with discounts?

No. This case is about the conditions associated with Intel's rebates and payments, not the rebates and payments themselves. What is at stake here are loyalty or fidelity rebates, granted on condition that a customer buys all or most of its requirements from the dominant undertaking, thereby preventing that customer from purchasing from competitors. Intel also paid clients to delay or not launch computers incorporating a competitor's CPUs, a conduct which is not linked at all to a company's ability to provide customers with discounts.

...the Commission acts in the interests of consumers. The Commission does not look at the specific interests of individual companies, but is charged with ensuring that competition on the merits is safeguarded. This creates an environment where consumers can benefit and where innovation can flourish.

...

Intel is a US company. What gives the European Commission authority to decide whether its behaviour is legal or not?

Intel sells its products inter alia in the European Union, which is one of its main markets in the world. It must therefore respect EU antitrust rules in the same way that European companies must respect US law when operating on the other side of the Atlantic.

...

What percentage of Intel's turnover does the fine represent?

The fine represents 4.15 % of Intel's turnover in 2008. This is less than half the allowable maximum, which is 10% of a company's annual turnover.

[L33F3R]

Now it gets complicating

Justice

1. The quality of being just; fairness.

http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/server-farm/intel-breaks-another-record-biggest-anti-trust-fine-ever/

The European Commissioner for Competition Policy stated throughout the period covered by the decision, Intel held at least 70% of the worldwide market in x86 server CPUs, and used anti-competitive practices to hold that position.

But as usualy. the EU is retarded and like the oracle ordeal they had no idea what they were talking about.

x86 cpu's are not computers as we know it. We have how many arm licencees, mips? sparc? power? they all serve a purpose. x86 is for the desktop. is this fair? no. They might as well go after IBM because they have made so many supercomputers.

Justice had failed to be served. Equity was not present.

The ruling was in question

?The EC?s use of huge fines against market-leading firms - fines calculated from a firm?s world-wide sales, not from harm to European consumers - discourages aggressive competition that benefits consumers,? Ronald A. Cass, Chairman, Center for the Rule of Law, said in a statement. ?Consumer harm should be the concern for competition law, and here instead consumers saw sharp declines in cost and increases in product quality - even Intel?s complaining rival, AMD, enjoyed historic success during the period it claims Intel?s actions foreclosed competition.?

So i ask, was justice served? are monopolies bad if quality goes up and price goes down? monopolies, like any company can swing both ways.

Legislation let banks mess up the economy, not lack of legislation. Holes existed. For the mortgage issue in particular, bush wanted to get visible minorities in houses. Turns out they couldn't afford them. I debated ridiculous legislation, and i have proven that.

[krazy]

did intel really know them? could it? Very few lawyers know even a fraction of what the law entails. Canada is a small population and was a country for little over 100 years. Our tax law alone is too large for any 1 man to read. any 10 men? 20 men? 20 women? not an easy state of affairs. Now we compare it to europe.

Enough to make a man cry.

Intel diddnt do its research, that puts it in the wrong but doesn't make it fair. and last i checked that was what justice was.

Fair is everyone playing by the same rules. No other company broke the antitrust law - why should Intel be excused?

A company the size of Intel would have a legal team numbering in the hundreds, if not thousands. And yes, it is their responsibility to understand the law in the jurisdictions they operate. Ignorance of the law is no defence anywhere.

[krazy]

More regulated and properly regulated are different. My cause is against the arbitrary fines against companies. What we agree on is patching the stupid holes in the legal system.

But the EU fines are simply enforcing their legislation!

Government needs to protect its people(...)

Which is why the EU passed it's antitrust laws - to protect its people from monopolies. Intel broke those laws and were made to pay a fine. How is that wrong?

[L33F3R]

did intel really know them? could it? Very few lawyers know even a fraction of what the law entails. Canada is a small population and was a country for little over 100 years. Our tax law alone is too large for any 1 man to read. any 10 men? 20 men? 20 women? not an easy state of affairs. Now we compare it to europe.

Enough to make a man cry.

Intel diddnt do its research, that puts it in the wrong but doesn't make it fair. and last i checked that was what justice was.

[krazy]

In the case of intel, AMD was the only real competitor. AMD received didley squat. VIA received didley squat. IBM received didley squat. Sun received didley squat. While the EU padded its taxpayers with the good old USD.

From a moral perspective, I call that stealing.

I disagree. Intel knew the laws in the EU and chose to break them. It's just that the EU has much stronger 'antitrust' laws than the US.
Intel could easily just stop doing business in the EU, but they won't because there is still money to be made in obeying the law (or breaking it and paying a fine. I'm sure Intel made more money breaking the law than they lost in that fine).

[L33F3R]

So, if I understand you correctly, we agree that some regulation is the right thing? After all, if you just then the Dish network could just take over Canadian broadcasting.
So AIG should have been regulated more strongly by the government? That's what I've been saying!

Growing a company has nothing to do with a culture. What if pepsico started running christian oriented campaigns in Saudi Arabia.. Government needs to protect its people, and in canadas case its an identity issue. Dishnetwork can grow all it wants, in the USA. it doesnt need to be in canada, mexico or good knows where else to grow if it plays its cards right. Thats a governments decision. The EU could bar M$ at any time. Will they do it? no. they cant. Blocking a possible takeover by American media, yea , Canada can prevent that. A large company doesnt need to be multinational, it can be very localised. All of which is a factor in the creation of the business to begin with. You need to trust me when i say the crtc is doing a cultural favour. Everything, even the commercials on American programming cater to a Canadian audience.

More regulated and properly regulated are different. My cause is against the arbitrary fines against companies. What we agree on is patching the stupid holes in the legal system.

[L33F3R]

That reverts back to page 1 when i was asking the very question, why do they even bother. Greed is the obvious answer. Let them do what they want i suppose, they are big and powerful because they are smart like that.

So lemme clear this up. The EU fines the corporations X amount of euros. And then spends it on itself.

When you go to court against another person, you are prolly asking for child support money or god knows what. Now the judge says u owe $5000. You pay the court. The woman doesnt get the money. Is that fair?

In the case of intel, AMD was the only real competitor. AMD received didley squat. VIA received didley squat. IBM received didley squat. Sun received didley squat. While the EU padded its taxpayers with the good old USD.

From a moral perspective, I call that stealing.