Intel in threats and bribery suit

"bbgruff" <bbgruff DeleteThis @yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7le325F354g4tU1@mid.individual.net...
> Bad enough that those damned Communist, cheese-eating characters from
> Europe
> should dare to investigate (and then fine!) a company from the
> freedom-loving, free-market-advocating Land of the Free, but now (would
> you
> believe it?!) that very Land of the Free is doing the same!
>
> Where *will* this madness end?
> Who *does* the U.S.government *think* runs the U.S., - the U.S. Government
> or the U.S. Corporations?
>
> The U.S. government clearly has illusions of grandour!
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8343179.stm
>
So Intel gives its best customers an added discount for their loyalty and
this is painted as a "payoff"? Those who don't commit to the exclusivity
and so do not qualify for the discount program are by the counter token
"punished" for their actions? It is hard to see how a company could
otherwise offer an incentive to a good customer. Perhaps you have a
suggestion?

Can anyone show how Intel's refusal to give any customer a lower price would
somehow cause consumers to obtain lower prices and not be "robbed" as they
are alleged to be now?

bbgruff wrote:

>Bad enough that those damned Communist, cheese-eating characters from Europe
>should dare to investigate (and then fine!) a company from the
>freedom-loving, free-market-advocating Land of the Free, but now (would you
>believe it?!) that very Land of the Free is doing the same!
>
>Where *will* this madness end?
>Who *does* the U.S.government *think* runs the U.S., - the U.S. Government
>or the U.S. Corporations?
>
>The U.S. government clearly has illusions of grandour!
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8343179.stm

Where's GPFud to tell us "Boo hoo. That's business."?

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 14:37:51 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:

> "bbgruff" <bbgruff.TakeThisOut@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:7le325F354g4tU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Bad enough that those damned Communist, cheese-eating characters from
>> Europe
>> should dare to investigate (and then fine!) a company from the
>> freedom-loving, free-market-advocating Land of the Free, but now (would
>> you
>> believe it?!) that very Land of the Free is doing the same!
>>
>> Where *will* this madness end?
>> Who *does* the U.S.government *think* runs the U.S., - the U.S. Government
>> or the U.S. Corporations?
>>
>> The U.S. government clearly has illusions of grandour!
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8343179.stm
>>
> So Intel gives its best customers an added discount for their loyalty and
> this is painted as a "payoff"? Those who don't commit to the exclusivity
> and so do not qualify for the discount program are by the counter token
> "punished" for their actions? It is hard to see how a company could
> otherwise offer an incentive to a good customer. Perhaps you have a
> suggestion?
>
> Can anyone show how Intel's refusal to give any customer a lower price would
> somehow cause consumers to obtain lower prices and not be "robbed" as they
> are alleged to be now?

Every single company in existence from the corner garage to IBM does pretty
much the same thing.

Do these freetards think they are paying the same for tires as the local
town who has a contract with the garage to maintain their cars?


Now, if this is found to be person's taking bribe money
(aka lobbyists hahah!) then it's a totally different can of worms.

Same for a "pay me or I won't sell you my product at the same level as your
competitors"

Those are clear examples of wrong doing.

bbgruff wrote:
> Bad enough that those damned Communist, cheese-eating characters from Europe
> should dare to investigate (and then fine!) a company from the
> freedom-loving, free-market-advocating Land of the Free, but now (would you
> believe it?!) that very Land of the Free is doing the same!
>
> Where *will* this madness end?
> Who *does* the U.S.government *think* runs the U.S., - the U.S. Government
> or the U.S. Corporations?
>
> The U.S. government clearly has illusions of grandour!
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8343179.stm
>
>
>
>

I call bullshit on the whole thing. The EU has this anti-corporation
fetish. They're pissed because their protectionist policies failed
miserably. Is there a European competitor to Intel? Nope. Microsoft?
Nope. Apple? Nope.
Europe believes the solution to every problem is an increased VAT,
Kyoto, tariff, and some sort of bio degradable chair that breaks when
somebody weighing 130lbs sits on it.

Picture it, Paris 1956:
"Hey Garsone! How should we protect French TV manufacturers?"

"Well, Onri, let's make our own TV broadcast standard that is completely
different and incompatible from the rest of Europe! Then if anyone
dares manufacturer a set that can receive those signals slam a 250% tax
on it!"

"Onri, you're a genius!"
Hence SECAM was born.

Also hence, there are NO French TV manufacturers alive today.

Justin wrote:

> I call bullshit on the whole thing. The EU has this anti-corporation
> fetish. They're pissed because their protectionist policies failed
> miserably. Is there a European competitor to Intel? Nope. Microsoft?
> Nope. Apple? Nope.
> Europe believes the solution to every problem is an increased VAT,
> Kyoto, tariff, and some sort of bio degradable chair that breaks when
> somebody weighing 130lbs sits on it.

.....er... right.... but what has that to do with this:-

"Intel is facing a federal lawsuit that accuses it of using "illegal
threats" to dominate microchip sales"
"The New York attorney general accuses Intel of using "bribery and coercion"
to make computer manufacturers buy its chips instead of those from its
rivals"

That reads "New York", not "York".
I was under the impression that *New* York was within the United States of
America, and not in Europe?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8343179.stm

John Fuhrer wrote:

> Every single company in existence from the corner garage to IBM does
> pretty much the same thing.
>
> Do these freetards think they are paying the same for tires as the local
> town who has a contract with the garage to maintain their cars?

Are the "Freetards" in this case "The New York attorney general" then?

> Now, if this is found to be person's taking bribe money
> (aka lobbyists hahah!) then it's a totally different can of worms.
>
> Same for a "pay me or I won't sell you my product at the same level as
> your competitors"
>
> Those are clear examples of wrong doing.

I'm not at all sure which way you are arguing:-

"The New York attorney general accuses Intel of using "bribery and coercion"
to make computer manufacturers buy its chips instead of those from its
rivals".....

"Mr Cuomo said Intel - the world's largest maker of semiconductors - had
been engaged in a "worldwide, systematic campaign of illegal conduct"."

"Rather than compete fairly, Intel used bribery and coercion to maintain a
stranglehold on the market," he added.....

"Intel's actions not only unfairly restricted potential competitors, but
also hurt average consumers who were robbed of better products and lower
prices."......

"Intel is accused of paying millions of dollars each year - and "in some
years billions" - in payoffs to computer makers in exchange for them only
buying its chips"

"It is further said to have withdrawn this payments to punish those computer
firms "perceived to be working too closely with Intel's competitors"."

------------------------
I am under the impression that Andrew Mark Cuomo is the New York State
Attorney General. Is that not the case?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8343179.stm

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

____/ bbgruff on Wednesday 04 Nov 2009 19:30 : \____

> Bad enough that those damned Communist, cheese-eating characters from Europe
> should dare to investigate (and then fine!) a company from the
> freedom-loving, free-market-advocating Land of the Free, but now (would you
> believe it?!) that very Land of the Free is doing the same!
>
> Where *will* this madness end?
> Who *does* the U.S.government *think* runs the U.S., - the U.S. Government
> or the U.S. Corporations?
>
> The U.S. government clearly has illusions of grandour!
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8343179.stm

Intel called the EU Commission "Anti-American".

I guess the US is also "Anti-American" now.

This company should be cut to smaller chunks, fined heavily, or shut down for
becoming a rogue operation.

[disclosure: my in-law works for Intel]

- --
~~ Best of wishes


All that blue light from Orthanc at night? That was
Saruman, trying to moderate
- -- news.admin.palantir-abuse.sightings.
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 140 total, 1 running, 139 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEUEARECAAYFAkryFWIACgkQU4xAY3RXLo6s7ACXTEwsFjp+FmqOeURKDlPiCN0B
yACfXGs7p0N8FiEdDFGlVTKCiLQwcJw=
=ALpC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"bbgruff" <bbgruff DeleteThis @yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7leah3F3d54upU1@mid.individual.net...
> Justin wrote:
>
>> I call bullshit on the whole thing. The EU has this anti-corporation
>> fetish. They're pissed because their protectionist policies failed
>> miserably. Is there a European competitor to Intel? Nope. Microsoft?
>> Nope. Apple? Nope.
>> Europe believes the solution to every problem is an increased VAT,
>> Kyoto, tariff, and some sort of bio degradable chair that breaks when
>> somebody weighing 130lbs sits on it.
>
> ....er... right.... but what has that to do with this:-
>
> "Intel is facing a federal lawsuit that accuses it of using "illegal
> threats" to dominate microchip sales"
> "The New York attorney general accuses Intel of using "bribery and
> coercion"
> to make computer manufacturers buy its chips instead of those from its
> rivals"
>
> That reads "New York", not "York".
> I was under the impression that *New* York was within the United States of
> America, and not in Europe?
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8343179.stm
>
Ah, but Andrew Cuomo is sometimes considered to not live on this planet.
Mr. Cuomo has made his reputation as a consumer rights tiger by suing right
and left, usually without much regard for the law or the value of the case,
preferring to base his actions on the potential publicity expected. What
are at issue are so-called "co-marketing" agreements wherein a manufacturer,
say Dell, is paid a fee for agreeing to participate with Intel in promoting
Intel products, namely by including the "Intel Inside" logo prominently on
the OEM's product. The size of the payment is outside the normal Robinson
Act scope on pricing in commercial deals. Mr. Cuomo chooses to call it a
bribe, but Intel calls it an advertising expense and Dell sees it as an
offset to what they have to pay for chips.

Intel pays a lot more if the deal is exclusive. The other side of the coin,
which Mr. Cuomo terms coercion is the lack of a payment when and if the OEM
fails to provide the requested exclusivity. So, to use AMD chips is to lose
some Intel payments which is a price premium for using AMD which may or may
not make sense to Dell.

A bribe is something paid to some intermediary who will make a decision that
is not optimal for the intermediary's organization and does not really apply
here. If the commercial incentive effectively blocks a competitor from 40%
or more of a market, it is generally seen as a violation of the antitrust
laws and may be actionable.

"bbgruff" <bbgruff.DeleteThis@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7leb7vF39pp2mU1@mid.individual.net...
> John Fuhrer wrote:
>
>> Every single company in existence from the corner garage to IBM does
>> pretty much the same thing.
>>
>> Do these freetards think they are paying the same for tires as the local
>> town who has a contract with the garage to maintain their cars?
>
> Are the "Freetards" in this case "The New York attorney general" then?

No, they are the audience to which the attorney general is pandering.
>
>> Now, if this is found to be person's taking bribe money
>> (aka lobbyists hahah!) then it's a totally different can of worms.
>>
>> Same for a "pay me or I won't sell you my product at the same level as
>> your competitors"
>>
>> Those are clear examples of wrong doing.
>
> I'm not at all sure which way you are arguing:-
>
> "The New York attorney general accuses Intel of using "bribery and
> coercion"
> to make computer manufacturers buy its chips instead of those from its
> rivals".....
>
> "Mr Cuomo said Intel - the world's largest maker of semiconductors - had
> been engaged in a "worldwide, systematic campaign of illegal conduct"."
>
> "Rather than compete fairly, Intel used bribery and coercion to maintain a
> stranglehold on the market," he added.....
>
> "Intel's actions not only unfairly restricted potential competitors, but
> also hurt average consumers who were robbed of better products and lower
> prices."......
>
> "Intel is accused of paying millions of dollars each year - and "in some
> years billions" - in payoffs to computer makers in exchange for them only
> buying its chips"
>
> "It is further said to have withdrawn this payments to punish those
> computer
> firms "perceived to be working too closely with Intel's competitors"."
>
You have to consider that he is only stating one side of the case. Intel
has a quite different opinion.

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 10:16:54 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:

> "bbgruff" <bbgruff.DeleteThis@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:7leb7vF39pp2mU1@mid.individual.net...
>> John Fuhrer wrote:
>>
>>> Every single company in existence from the corner garage to IBM does
>>> pretty much the same thing.
>>>
>>> Do these freetards think they are paying the same for tires as the local
>>> town who has a contract with the garage to maintain their cars?
>>
>> Are the "Freetards" in this case "The New York attorney general" then?
>
> No, they are the audience to which the attorney general is pandering.

A point that went right over the goat's head.

>>> Now, if this is found to be person's taking bribe money
>>> (aka lobbyists hahah!) then it's a totally different can of worms.
>>>
>>> Same for a "pay me or I won't sell you my product at the same level as
>>> your competitors"
>>>
>>> Those are clear examples of wrong doing.
>>
>> I'm not at all sure which way you are arguing:-
>>
>> "The New York attorney general accuses Intel of using "bribery and
>> coercion"
>> to make computer manufacturers buy its chips instead of those from its
>> rivals".....
>>
>> "Mr Cuomo said Intel - the world's largest maker of semiconductors - had
>> been engaged in a "worldwide, systematic campaign of illegal conduct"."
>>
>> "Rather than compete fairly, Intel used bribery and coercion to maintain a
>> stranglehold on the market," he added.....
>>
>> "Intel's actions not only unfairly restricted potential competitors, but
>> also hurt average consumers who were robbed of better products and lower
>> prices."......
>>
>> "Intel is accused of paying millions of dollars each year - and "in some
>> years billions" - in payoffs to computer makers in exchange for them only
>> buying its chips"
>>
>> "It is further said to have withdrawn this payments to punish those
>> computer
>> firms "perceived to be working too closely with Intel's competitors"."
>>
> You have to consider that he is only stating one side of the case. Intel
> has a quite different opinion.

Exactly.
And like I said, if this is compensation being paid to individuals under
threat etc then it should be prosecuted.
I don't think enough of the facts have come out yet.

amicus_curious <acdc RemoveThis @sti.net> said on 2009-11-04:
>
> So Intel gives its best customers an added discount for their loyalty and
> this is painted as a "payoff"?

Discounts seem to be pretty common everywhere. It is also used as a
way to attract customers and keep them coming back for purchases.
Payoff can be a tricky accusation because one would have to justify
that discounts are leading to benefits outside of their regular
customer-business relationship.

On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 18:59:43 +0000 (UTC), Ruel Smith wrote:

> amicus_curious <acdc.DeleteThis@sti.net> said on 2009-11-04:
>>
>> So Intel gives its best customers an added discount for their loyalty and
>> this is painted as a "payoff"?
>
> Discounts seem to be pretty common everywhere. It is also used as a
> way to attract customers and keep them coming back for purchases.
> Payoff can be a tricky accusation because one would have to justify
> that discounts are leading to benefits outside of their regular
> customer-business relationship.

That's the key points.
If these were personal pay outs, or if threats were made, it's a different
ball of wax.

I think we have to wait and see what happens here.

Verily I say unto thee, that bbgruff spake thusly:

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8343179.stm

[quote]
Intel is accused of paying millions of dollars each year - and "in some
years billions" - in payoffs to computer makers in exchange for them
only buying its chips.

It is further said to have withdrawn this payments to punish those
computer firms "perceived to be working too closely with Intel's
competitors".
[/quote]

Hmm, now where have I heard that before?

Oh yes:

[quote]
Microsoft, for instance, can grant or withhold market-development funds
more or less at will under the new licensing agreements. Such funds pay
for a substantial part of a PC maker's television and print
advertisements and can add up to huge sums. PC makers that agree to ship
all PCs with Windows, for example, can receive $10 per PC in market
development funds.

....

Gateway also faulted another provision of the new licensing agreement,
which requires PC makers to pay a Windows royalty on every PC shipped,
even if it didn't include Windows. To top it off, to qualify for market
development funds, PC makers have to put a Microsoft OS on every PC. As
a result, trying to sell non-Windows PCs, or even PCs without software,
is a financial loser for computer makers.
[/quote]

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-868413.html


Companies shown to operate like this (i.e. like gangsters) should not
just be fined, they should be forcibly liquidated. The company assets
should be seized, along with that of upper management and directors,
to be redistributed amongst their victims, then the thugs responsible
should be imprisoned.

But the sad and horrific fact is this sort of bizniz® seems to be the
de facto standard for commerce in the modern age, at least in the US.

Take this, for example:

[quote]
Third-party financing of lawsuits—often described as a new and growing
phenomenon—has been much in the news lately. But outside investors have
been making multimillion dollar bets on patent lawsuits for years. One
of the field's leading players is Altitude Capital Partners, founded by
investment bankers Robert Kramer and Warren Hurwitz. Altitude, which has
been investing in patent lawsuits since at least 2006, boasts of having
more than $250 million to spend on such litigation.
[/quote]

http://thepriorart.typepad.com/the_prior_art/2009/11/altitude-capital-...tners-a

Note the name of this "company", Deep Nine - no doubt the "enhanced"
version of Deep Six, which is US slang for "kill".

A company that "invests in litigation"?

What sort of society tolerates, in fact encourages, this type of bizniz?

What next, companies that sponsor serial murderer's killing sprees, to
gain exclusive rights to the autobiography?

Until the US, and other countries which model their bizniz methods on
this sick American ideology, officially recognise the profound and
intrinsic immorality of such thuggish business practises, companies like
Intel and Microsoft will forever continue to operate like gangsters ...
then indignantly proclaim their innocence, since they are, after all,
only following the precepts of American culture - a culture that extols
the virtues of brutality.

--
K.
http://slated.org

..----
| "What's the point of supporting a large, faceless corporation that
| doesn't give you the good service you should get? We have MS for
| that..." ~ DFS, http://tinyurl.com/doofy-admits-truth-about-ms
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.31.5
01:10:37 up 5 days, 11:33, 4 users, load average: 0.10, 0.03, 0.03