A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » Processors » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Intel found to be abusing market power in Japan



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old March 10th 05, 11:20 PM
YKhan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Robert Redelmeier wrote:
This time some [brave?] Japanese company probably complained
to MITI and produced documents that showed their discount
was dependant on %Intel, not just volume Intel.


Well, that's exactly what it was, on the day that they raided Intel's
office, they also paid a visit to the offices of about five PC makers,
NEC, Fujitsu, Sony, Toshiba, and Hitachi. Obviously to get
corroborating evidence, that perhaps was missing from Intel's own
offices?

Yousuf Khan

  #12  
Old March 10th 05, 11:30 PM
Robert Redelmeier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

YKhan wrote:
I doubt it's just a low-level overzealousness. For example,
one of the companies, NEC, was required to limit its purchases
of non-Intel processors based on region of the world it was
destined for: 90% within Japan, 70% to Europe, and 80% to rest
of the world. It's all listed in here. How can specifying
marketshares throughout the world be considered low-level,
unless Intel also has marketshares throughout the Solar System?


http://www.iser.osaka-u.ac.jp/semina...rai_Feb_17.pdf


If true, this is extremely severe, at least under US law.
Japanese law may differ. But the prez of Intel Japan either
knew, or ought ot have known. And possibly the Intel CEO.

I keep hearing "Intel isn't that stupid", what is that supposed
to mean? They aren't that stupid as to do these sort of things
at all, or that stupid as to _get caught_ doing these things? My
feeling is it's the latter.


I meant it as "not so stupid as to do these illegal things".
No-one is smart enough to evade detection forever.

-- Robert


  #13  
Old March 10th 05, 11:31 PM
Robert Redelmeier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

YKhan wrote:
Well, that's exactly what it was, on the day that they
raided Intel's office, they also paid a visit to the offices
of about five PC makers, NEC, Fujitsu, Sony, Toshiba, and
Hitachi. Obviously to get corroborating evidence, that perhaps
was missing from Intel's own offices?


Corroboration is good from all sources. On something
as big as this, they'd pull out all the stops.

-- Robert


  #14  
Old March 10th 05, 11:40 PM
Robert Myers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 10 Mar 2005 14:12:09 -0800, "YKhan" wrote:



I keep hearing "Intel isn't that stupid", what is that supposed to
mean? They aren't that stupid as to do these sort of things at all, or
that stupid as to _get caught_ doing these things? My feeling is it's
the latter.


A reasonable person in the business might want to be careful about
making allegations that sound actionable. On the face of it, one
might guess that Intel structures its discounts to make life as
difficult as possible for its competitor AMD. Also on the face of it,
whatever Intel may be thinking, it seems unlikely that they would
structure deals in a way that make it easy to show that they are doing
something illegal.

Corporate values have changed over the years, with significant events
leaving a lasting impression: McDonnell-Douglas being charged under
RICO for bribes to foreign officials, the collapse of Enron, the
collapse of WorldCom--I'm sure I've forgotten a few. Now there's
Sarbanes-Oxley, so that board members can't say they didn't know.

Guys with desks the size of putting greens have could stand having
their every move examined by a jury of Sunday school teachers? What
kind of world do you live in, Yousuf? No offense. I respect your
high standards, but the world just doesn't work that way.

Intel is worse than most? I doubt it.

RM

  #15  
Old March 10th 05, 11:52 PM
Rob Stow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Robert Redelmeier wrote:
YKhan wrote:

I doubt it's just a low-level overzealousness. For example,
one of the companies, NEC, was required to limit its purchases
of non-Intel processors based on region of the world it was
destined for: 90% within Japan, 70% to Europe, and 80% to rest
of the world. It's all listed in here. How can specifying
marketshares throughout the world be considered low-level,
unless Intel also has marketshares throughout the Solar System?



http://www.iser.osaka-u.ac.jp/semina...rai_Feb_17.pdf



If true, this is extremely severe, at least under US law.
Japanese law may differ. But the prez of Intel Japan either
knew, or ought ot have known. And possibly the Intel CEO.


I keep hearing "Intel isn't that stupid", what is that supposed
to mean? They aren't that stupid as to do these sort of things
at all, or that stupid as to _get caught_ doing these things? My
feeling is it's the latter.



I meant it as "not so stupid as to do these illegal things".
No-one is smart enough to evade detection forever.


I have little doubt that Intel knew exactly what it was doing and
that they planned to continue until they got caught. They simply
weighed the benefits against the risk and decided it was worth
it. And it looks like they were right: when they were finally
caught all that happened was a finger wagged in there face while
momma said "bad boy".
  #16  
Old March 11th 05, 03:57 AM
Yousuf Khan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Robert Myers wrote:
A reasonable person in the business might want to be careful about
making allegations that sound actionable. On the face of it, one
might guess that Intel structures its discounts to make life as
difficult as possible for its competitor AMD. Also on the face of it,
whatever Intel may be thinking, it seems unlikely that they would
structure deals in a way that make it easy to show that they are doing
something illegal.


It's not that difficult to figure out the difference between
monopolistic business practices and just standard business practices.
I'm sure Intel would have you believe it's a fine line, hard to tell the
difference, but it isn't. You give your customers discounts based on the
_volume_ of Intel they sell, then that's standard practice. You give
your customers discounts based on _percentage_ of Intel, then that's
monopolistic practice.

Corporate values have changed over the years, with significant events
leaving a lasting impression: McDonnell-Douglas being charged under
RICO for bribes to foreign officials, the collapse of Enron, the
collapse of WorldCom--I'm sure I've forgotten a few. Now there's
Sarbanes-Oxley, so that board members can't say they didn't know.

Guys with desks the size of putting greens have could stand having
their every move examined by a jury of Sunday school teachers? What
kind of world do you live in, Yousuf? No offense. I respect your
high standards, but the world just doesn't work that way.


Play devil's advocate with somebody else, it's simply not working.
Corporate values have not changed -- they've always been like this.
Enron, Worldcom, etc. are just today's examples of things that have
happened in the past, and will happen again in the future. The
anti-trust laws were first put into place over 100 years ago, originally
to control out-of-control railway barons, who were gobbling each other
up and leading towards a monopoly railway (and that's also why the game
of Monopoly is based around railways and land properties). Over the
years, the robber barons have changed from railway magnates, to oil
tycoons, to telephone companies, to full-service computer firms, to
software and chip companies. But their goals have always been exactly
the same -- complete domination of their own industries.

Sunday school teacher morality? Not even close, just enforcement of laws
that are already in place, specifically designed to stop this kind of
behaviour. A sociopathic behaviour so common that the laws have already
been in place for hundreds of years.

Intel is worse than most? I doubt it.


Who cares if Intel is worse than most or not? I don't care if it's
accumulating its monopoly so that it could feed the hungry children of
the world. Completely irrelevant. Think carefully about why there is no
excuse for this behaviour no matter what.

Yousuf Khan
  #17  
Old March 11th 05, 04:38 AM
Yousuf Khan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Rob Stow wrote:
I have little doubt that Intel knew exactly what it was doing and that
they planned to continue until they got caught. They simply weighed
the benefits against the risk and decided it was worth it. And it looks
like they were right: when they were finally caught all that happened
was a finger wagged in there face while momma said "bad boy".


Whatever fines are levied against it, whether it is $1 or $1 million is
chicken feed compared to what will come after that. Once Intel has a
record as a monopolist, AMD is free to sue it and use this record as its
proof. Intel will be hounded forever after.

Without sounding too dramatic, make no mistake about it, this is
probably *the* biggest crisis that Intel faces. It is probably its one
nightmare scenario, much more important than any Prescott heat
dissipation problems, fab process problems, Itanium vs. Xeon 64-bit, or
any of the others. Intel's squeeky clean image will disappear if it
either admits to it, or fights it in court and loses. That image has
been what's kept it out of trouble so far -- none of the allegations has
ever stuck to it. It's a bit like hunting for UFO's, you suspect they're
there, but you just can't find the proof. After this everything will
stick to Intel, which is the last thing they wanted to happen.

Yousuf Khan
  #18  
Old March 11th 05, 04:43 AM
Yousuf Khan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Robert Redelmeier wrote:
YKhan wrote:
I keep hearing "Intel isn't that stupid", what is that supposed
to mean? They aren't that stupid as to do these sort of things
at all, or that stupid as to _get caught_ doing these things? My
feeling is it's the latter.



I meant it as "not so stupid as to do these illegal things".
No-one is smart enough to evade detection forever.


Not doing illegal things doesn't require intelligence, it requires
morality and ethics. There's no proof that Intel posesses either of
those things.

Yousuf Khan
  #19  
Old March 11th 05, 12:42 PM
Robert Myers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 21:57:13 -0500, Yousuf Khan
wrote:

Robert Myers wrote:
A reasonable person in the business might want to be careful about
making allegations that sound actionable. On the face of it, one
might guess that Intel structures its discounts to make life as
difficult as possible for its competitor AMD. Also on the face of it,
whatever Intel may be thinking, it seems unlikely that they would
structure deals in a way that make it easy to show that they are doing
something illegal.


It's not that difficult to figure out the difference between
monopolistic business practices and just standard business practices.
I'm sure Intel would have you believe it's a fine line, hard to tell the
difference, but it isn't. You give your customers discounts based on the
_volume_ of Intel they sell, then that's standard practice. You give
your customers discounts based on _percentage_ of Intel, then that's
monopolistic practice.

Right. And you know, human beings being the way they are, that the
more loyal customers get the better volume discounts. Pricing can be
wildly arbitrary, and some customers are treated better than others.
Showing that a pricing strategy is predatory could be _very_ difficult
if the pricing strategy is structured properly, even though, in fact,
the strategy is aimed at rewarding loyalty at the expense of a
competitor. That's just the way it goes. Maybe Intel got careless
here. We'll have to see.

Corporate values have changed over the years, with significant events
leaving a lasting impression: McDonnell-Douglas being charged under
RICO for bribes to foreign officials, the collapse of Enron, the
collapse of WorldCom--I'm sure I've forgotten a few. Now there's
Sarbanes-Oxley, so that board members can't say they didn't know.

Guys with desks the size of putting greens have could stand having
their every move examined by a jury of Sunday school teachers? What
kind of world do you live in, Yousuf? No offense. I respect your
high standards, but the world just doesn't work that way.


Play devil's advocate with somebody else, it's simply not working.
Corporate values have not changed -- they've always been like this.
Enron, Worldcom, etc. are just today's examples of things that have
happened in the past, and will happen again in the future. The
anti-trust laws were first put into place over 100 years ago, originally
to control out-of-control railway barons, who were gobbling each other
up and leading towards a monopoly railway (and that's also why the game
of Monopoly is based around railways and land properties). Over the
years, the robber barons have changed from railway magnates, to oil
tycoons, to telephone companies, to full-service computer firms, to
software and chip companies. But their goals have always been exactly
the same -- complete domination of their own industries.

Laws are actually not all that effective, IMHO, in regulating this
kind of behavior. Market discipline is much more effective. The
Justice Department went after IBM for years for what really were
monopolistic practices. By the time the Justice Department got
anywhere close to enforcement action, one was beginning to wonder
about the survival of IBM, not about market domination.

As to the timelessness of what is deemed unacceptable, you're right at
least that monopolistic practices have a long history of legislation
and enforcement actions. What I was talking about was the
timelessness of people trying to get away with whatever they can get
away with. When something big happens, there is a flurry of activity,
and then people go back to seeing how far they can bend the rules. In
this case, the rule-bending is applied to using pricing in creative
ways that cross over from creative into illegal. No amount of
legislation or jawboning will ever stop such things.

Sunday school teacher morality? Not even close, just enforcement of laws
that are already in place, specifically designed to stop this kind of
behaviour. A sociopathic behaviour so common that the laws have already
been in place for hundreds of years.

You don't think use of the loaded term "sociopathic" a little over the
top?

Intel is worse than most? I doubt it.


Who cares if Intel is worse than most or not? I don't care if it's
accumulating its monopoly so that it could feed the hungry children of
the world. Completely irrelevant. Think carefully about why there is no
excuse for this behaviour no matter what.

There are laws, and there are people to enforce the laws, and they
will do their thing. Sometimes events occur, like the collapse of
WorldCom, that lead to meaningful action, like Sarbanes-Oxley. I
suspect that Sarbanes-Oxley is going to prove sufficiently cumbersome
and annoying to highly-paid directors who are unaccustomed to being
encumbered with actual responsibility, that it will be duly watered
down in due course. That's how hard it is to change the way business
is done with legislation and enforcement. The Intel enforcement
action would be interesting if it turned into something other than
isolated enforcement. I'm doubting that it will.

Your comments seem uncharacteristically intense. No plausible action
against Intel will restore the fortunes of Sun.

RM

  #20  
Old March 11th 05, 02:04 PM
Yousuf Khan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Robert Myers wrote:
Right. And you know, human beings being the way they are, that the
more loyal customers get the better volume discounts. Pricing can be
wildly arbitrary, and some customers are treated better than others.
Showing that a pricing strategy is predatory could be _very_ difficult
if the pricing strategy is structured properly, even though, in fact,
the strategy is aimed at rewarding loyalty at the expense of a
competitor. That's just the way it goes. Maybe Intel got careless
here. We'll have to see.


I don't think they got careless, I think that this time, their
time-honoured "how to build a monopoly without getting caught" technique
was not fast enough to prevent damage. I am guessing the raid on their
offices a year ago caught them off-guard, as it was meant to. Otherwise
they would've had time to take precautions. My guess is that the
European and/or American regulators are studying the Japanese technique
and getting ready to implement it themselves soon. Previous nice-guy
methods have yielded no evidence, this time it did.

As to the timelessness of what is deemed unacceptable, you're right at
least that monopolistic practices have a long history of legislation
and enforcement actions. What I was talking about was the
timelessness of people trying to get away with whatever they can get
away with. When something big happens, there is a flurry of activity,
and then people go back to seeing how far they can bend the rules. In
this case, the rule-bending is applied to using pricing in creative
ways that cross over from creative into illegal. No amount of
legislation or jawboning will ever stop such things.


There's nothing wrong with giving discounts based on volume. Based on
marketshare percentage is another matter. That sort of thing was
well-known to be illegal long before this case. They are not breaking
any new ground with Intel.

Sunday school teacher morality? Not even close, just enforcement of laws
that are already in place, specifically designed to stop this kind of
behaviour. A sociopathic behaviour so common that the laws have already
been in place for hundreds of years.


You don't think use of the loaded term "sociopathic" a little over the
top?


Psychopathic is little over the top, sociopathic is right in line.

Your comments seem uncharacteristically intense. No plausible action
against Intel will restore the fortunes of Sun.


Sun? What's Sun gotta do with it?

Yousuf Khan
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Power supply can zap motherboard? Eric Popelka Homebuilt PC's 8 June 18th 05 08:54 PM
intel SE7210TP1-E - eps power supply problem - won't boot dnt Homebuilt PC's 0 December 2nd 04 08:01 PM
P4EE will cost $1000 Yousuf Khan General 60 December 27th 03 03:19 PM
Happy Birthday America SST Nvidia Videocards 336 November 27th 03 08:54 PM
Power Surge David LeBrun General 44 September 12th 03 02:35 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.