Commission publishes decision concerning Intel's abuse of dominant position

Scofflaw

It appears unlikely that the Commission is doing any deal with Intel, as has been proposed by some posters:

The European Commission has today published a non-confidential version of its Intel Decision, adopted on 13 May 2009 ( IP/09/745 and MEMO/09/235 ), together with a summary of the key elements of the Decision. That Decision found that Intel broke EC Treaty antitrust rules (Article 82) by engaging in two types of illegal practice to exclude competitors from the market for computer chips called x86 central processing units (CPUs). These practices harmed consumers throughout the EEA. By undermining its competitors’ ability to compete on the merits of their products, Intel’s actions undermined competition, reduced consumer choice and hindered innovation. On the basis of a significant amount of contemporaneous evidence and company statements, the Decision demonstrates how Intel broke the law.

Source.

cordially,
Scofflaw

marco_polo

Scofflaw wrote: »

It appears unlikely that the Commission is doing any deal with Intel, as has been proposed by some posters:



Source.

cordially,
Scofflaw

So the commision are not in fact willing to pay a billion euros for a yes vote? :eek:

Scofflaw

marco_polo wrote: »

So the commision are not in fact willing to pay a billion euros for a yes vote? :eek:

Apparently not. Who knew?

amused,
Scofflaw

Rb

marco_polo wrote: »

So the commision are not in fact willing to pay a billion euros for a yes vote? :eek:

Exactly. Further proof that the EU does not care about Ireland.

What next, a billion euro invested in abortion clinics here?

Scofflaw

Rb wrote: »

Exactly. Further proof that the EU does not care about Ireland.

What next, a billion euro invested in abortion clinics here?

Exactly! Why won't they buy our vote?

amused,
Scofflaw

meglome

Dammit another CT debunked, they'll have to make up some new stuff urgently.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Exactly! Why won't they buy our vote?

amused,
Scofflaw

If the EU are watching I reckon I can be bought. I'm doing all this for nothing now.

ghost_ie

now watch Intel pull out of Ireland sharpish. Now that they're being fined by the EU they'll be heading to Asia

meglome

ghost_ie wrote: »

now watch Intel pull out of Ireland sharpish. Now that they're being fined by the EU they'll be heading to Asia

And what happens if you're wrong about this too, you just make another claim?

Scofflaw

ghost_ie wrote: »

now watch Intel pull out of Ireland sharpish. Now that they're being fined by the EU they'll be heading to Asia

Er no, because the EU is an enormous market, and the judgement applies wherever they're based.

amused,
Scofflaw

O'Morris

Scofflaw wrote:

It appears unlikely that the Commission is doing any deal with Intel, as has been proposed by some posters:

I don't think anyone ever claimed that there was a deal between Intel and the EU commission. I've always believed Intel's endorsement of the Lisbon treaty to be an entirely one-sided attempt by them to make powerful friends in Europe. Even if it doesn't help them to influence the outcome their appeal, it's still reasonable for them to expect that they will receive some kind of payback in the future. The same goes for Michael O'Leary's support for the treaty. They're doing a huge political favour for the governments of Europe by campaigning for this treaty. That's bound to lead to a massive increase in "goodwill" towards them.

As well as that, Intel are appealing the fine to the European Court of Justice. It is they who Intel want to get into the good books of.

Scofflaw

O'Morris wrote: »

I don't think anyone ever claimed that there was a deal between Intel and the EU commission.

You should read some of the threads on the forum, then.

O'Morris wrote: »

I've always believed Intel's endorsement of the Lisbon treaty to be an entirely one-sided attempt by them to make powerful friends in Europe. Even if it doesn't help them to influence the outcome their appeal, it's still reasonable for them to expect that they will receive some kind of payback in the future. The same goes for Michael O'Leary's support for the treaty. They're doing a huge political favour for the governments of Europe by campaigning for this treaty. That's bound to lead to a massive increase in "goodwill" towards them.

As well as that, Intel are appealing the fine to the European Court of Justice. It is they who Intel want to get into the good books of.

It's interesting that you consider "goodwill" so important for a company like Intel that they're prepared to lay out a large sum of money to obtain it - yet, mysteriously, goodwill apparently isn't important for Ireland.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sam Vimes

meglome wrote: »

Dammit another CT debunked, they'll have to make up some new stuff urgently.

ghost_ie wrote: »

now watch Intel pull out of Ireland sharpish. Now that they're being fined by the EU they'll be heading to Asia

It only took 11 minutes

meglome

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It only took 11 minutes

No shock then, it's exactly what happens over in the conspiracy theory's forum. Something is clearly shown to be fantasy then moments later someone makes a completely different claim which is then shown to be false. And so it goes, fact never getting in the way of the fantasy.

free-man

I must say I find it deeply unsettling that corporations are getting involved in a referendum affecting the people of Ireland.

A corporation which could be gone in less than a year should not be allowed influence the vote.

All this talk of the fine already being published is misdirection I feel.

We don't know if the fine has been paid (as far as I know) and we don't know how much the ECJ is going to reduce it by as a result of Intel providing it's support for Lisbon.

ei.sdraob

free-man wrote: »

I must say I find it deeply unsettling that corporations are getting involved in a referendum affecting the people of Ireland.
.

you esteemed leader Declan Ganley paved the way in Lisbon 1

:rolleyes:

hatrickpatrick

This kind of ruling on competition really interests me:

What are the rules about competition vs. patent rights? I mean if I invent a completely brand new technology and it becomes immensely popular, am I obliged to disclose my "secret recipe" if you will? Would I have to publish how others could copy the product?

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This kind of ruling on competition really interests me:

What are the rules about competition vs. patent rights? I mean if I invent a completely brand new technology and it becomes immensely popular, am I obliged to disclose my "secret recipe" if you will? Would I have to publish how others could copy the product?

Blimey, you're like a red herring fish market today. No, 'distortion of competition' applies only to two main issues - monopolies/cartels, and governments putting their fingers on the scales for the benefit of private companies.

cordially,
Scofflaw

free-man

ei.sdraob wrote: »

you esteemed leader Declan Ganley paved the way in Lisbon 1

:rolleyes:

Ha - nice! Actually I'd prefer if he voiced his thoughts in the media only and debated on the issues.

This idea of putting money behind a campaign, which goes for Libertas, Ryanair and Intel is not very helpful.

ei.sdraob

free-man wrote: »

Ha - nice! Actually I'd prefer if he voiced his thoughts in the media only and debated on the issues.

This idea of putting money behind a campaign, which goes for Libertas, Ryanair and Intel is not very helpful.

you cant lump Libertas, Ryanair and Intel together like that

Libertas are under investigation by SIPO and still havent shown where the money came from

Ryanair and Intel have shown exactly how much and from where their money coming from

apples and oranges mister

/

free-man

ei.sdraob wrote: »

you cant lump Libertas, Ryanair and Intel together like that

Libertas are under investigation by SIPO and still havent shown where the money came from

Ryanair and Intel have shown exactly how much and from where their money coming from

apples and oranges mister

/

They are all campaigning and spending money on a referendum - I disagree with this.

I agree with allowing Irish businessmen / businesswomen to voice their opinion in the media, and that's about it.

Is that clearer?

hatrickpatrick

Scofflaw wrote: »

Blimey, you're like a red herring fish market today. No, 'distortion of competition' applies only to two main issues - monopolies/cartels, and governments putting their fingers on the scales for the benefit of private companies.

cordially,
Scofflaw

That's what I mean though - I mean let's assume I invent a new way of storing music, let's just imagine that I call it the .PAD format (just from the word Paddy, doesn't mean anything hehe )

What it does is that it stores music at half the size of an MP3 but without reducing any quality whatsoever from CD quality.

Now technically, I would have a monopoly on this new technology, the PAD player. Would I be obliged to show other companies how to encode in this new file format I've invented, to prevent a monopoly from developing on my part?

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Now technically, I would have a monopoly on this new technology, the PAD player. Would I be obliged to show other companies how to encode in this new file format I've invented, to prevent a monopoly from developing on my part?

No. You can patent it, which involves publishing the design details, but thereby protect (for a time) your right to either exclusively make, or license others to make, PAD players.

Alternatively, you can keep the design a trade secret, and hope that nobody reverse-engineers it. Either way, it's up to you.

PopeBuckfastXVI

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's what I mean though - I mean let's assume I invent a new way of storing music, let's just imagine that I call it the .PAD format (just from the word Paddy, doesn't mean anything hehe )

What it does is that it stores music at half the size of an MP3 but without reducing any quality whatsoever from CD quality.

Now technically, I would have a monopoly on this new technology, the PAD player. Would I be obliged to show other companies how to encode in this new file format I've invented, to prevent a monopoly from developing on my part?

You own the technology, but you don't have a monopoly on the music distribution market.

marco_polo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's what I mean though - I mean let's assume I invent a new way of storing music, let's just imagine that I call it the .PAD format (just from the word Paddy, doesn't mean anything hehe )

What it does is that it stores music at half the size of an MP3 but without reducing any quality whatsoever from CD quality.

Now technically, I would have a monopoly on this new technology, the PAD player. Would I be obliged to show other companies how to encode in this new file format I've invented, to prevent a monopoly from developing on my part?

I take it you have never tried to play a song from iTunes on something that wasn't an iPod then?

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's what I mean though - I mean let's assume I invent a new way of storing music, let's just imagine that I call it the .PAD format (just from the word Paddy, doesn't mean anything hehe )

What it does is that it stores music at half the size of an MP3 but without reducing any quality whatsoever from CD quality.

Now technically, I would have a monopoly on this new technology, the PAD player. Would I be obliged to show other companies how to encode in this new file format I've invented, to prevent a monopoly from developing on my part?

Not at all - you'd have a government-granted (and protected) patent instead, which would guarantee you a monopoly for the duration of the patent.

'Monopoly' in that sense isn't quite the right word for competition law - the phrase is "abuse of dominant market position". That's where your PAD format becomes the standard on 95% of all music players in the EU, and you ensure you keep that status by entering into restrictive agreements with makers of music players, agreeing, for example, that in return for being able to use your PAD format (without which people won't bother buying a player) manufacturers must agree not to use any other format.

So when someone else develops the .NUT format (allowing you to store days of David Icke videos), your lockout agreements with the manufacturers allow you to strangle the upstart company - and eventually buy their business.


cordially,
Scofflaw

jhegarty

free-man wrote: »

They are all campaigning and spending money on a referendum - I disagree with this.

I agree with allowing Irish businessmen / businesswomen to voice their opinion in the media, and that's about it.

Is that clearer?

That's the thing about democracy. You don't get to choose who campaigns or runs for office.

ixtlan

free-man wrote: »

I must say I find it deeply unsettling that corporations are getting involved in a referendum affecting the people of Ireland.

To some extent I agree, but when one of the main arguments of the no side repeated endlessly is that the EU will undermine our corporate tax rate, there is a certain logic in those potentially affected corporations making a comment.

Logically the No side is defending the poor corporations...

Actually I find it unsettling that Sinn Fein was apparently worrying about keeping a low corp tax rate. Personally I think we are getting to the point in our economic development where there are some advantages to a higher rate. It should be discussed at least.

Ix.

marco_polo

ixtlan wrote: »

Actually I find it unsettling that Sinn Fein was apparently worrying about keeping a low corp tax rate. Personally I think we are getting to the point in our economic development where there are some advantages to a higher rate. It should be discussed at least.

Ix.

You have to think outside the box. It is likely they are concerned that the EU would set it them too low.