*click* Excellent! Exactly.What a thoroughly grubby and disgusting tale it is, too.
EC: Summary, FAQ.
Most egregious:
- pay-to-delay, whereby Intel paid manufacturer E, on condition that E's AMD-powered laptop model got an unexpected 4 month delay...
- pay to not sell, whereby Intel paid manufacturer D, on condition that it not to sell its AMD-powered business desktop to large customers or or via other distributors.
(EC: Summary, FAQ.
Most egregious:
- pay-to-delay, whereby Intel paid manufacturer E, on condition that E's AMD-powered laptop model got an unexpected 4 month delay...
- pay to not sell, whereby Intel paid manufacturer D, on condition that it not to sell its AMD-powered business desktop to large customers or or via other distributors.
Bee Nice |-|,
Thu 14 May 2009, 14:42,
archived)
They can try those strategies if they want to.What will happen:
1) They will stay big for ages. They won't actually be able to get rid of competitors, but Intel will stay big while competitors stay small. This is not necessarily good for Intel.
2) They will be expending substantial amounts of money to encourage manufacturers to use Intel chips. The amount they spend has to cover the difference between the worth of Intel chips and the worth of the chips of their competitors. As soon as the competitors chips become good enough, there comes a tipping point where suddenly Intel is paying masses of money which is insufficient to prop up an inferior product, and then they dramatically collapse due to their competitors being both superior and unencumbered by paying bribes. The EU is robbing us of this hilarious moment, and robbing Intel of its money which was freely and consensually given to it.
There is an argument that by being a massive company with massive cashflow, you can afford to do the research needed to genuinely be the best often enough avoid any cheeky upstart out-innovating you, which they won't be able to do due to being too small. This sounds good, but doesn't actually work, because it turns a relatively small competitor can do the necessary research despite your best efforts to bribe everybody away from them.
(,
Thu 14 May 2009, 15:10,
archived)
1) They will stay big for ages. They won't actually be able to get rid of competitors, but Intel will stay big while competitors stay small. This is not necessarily good for Intel.
2) They will be expending substantial amounts of money to encourage manufacturers to use Intel chips. The amount they spend has to cover the difference between the worth of Intel chips and the worth of the chips of their competitors. As soon as the competitors chips become good enough, there comes a tipping point where suddenly Intel is paying masses of money which is insufficient to prop up an inferior product, and then they dramatically collapse due to their competitors being both superior and unencumbered by paying bribes. The EU is robbing us of this hilarious moment, and robbing Intel of its money which was freely and consensually given to it.
There is an argument that by being a massive company with massive cashflow, you can afford to do the research needed to genuinely be the best often enough avoid any cheeky upstart out-innovating you, which they won't be able to do due to being too small. This sounds good, but doesn't actually work, because it turns a relatively small competitor can do the necessary research despite your best efforts to bribe everybody away from them.
Those 'strategies' are illegal.Intel employees tried them anyway, so they could take more of YOUR money.
( Bee Nice |-|,
Thu 14 May 2009, 15:27,
archived)
Well, they'd argue that they weren't illegal.See the other thread of our argument, above, for what I think about this illegality.
Also, Intel don't take my money unless I give it to them, which is ultimately my decision, even if they're almost ubiquitous (far from it, really). Meanwhile the EU wants to take my money whether I like it or not, and if I steadfastly resist I would be in severe trouble and possibly prison.
(,
Thu 14 May 2009, 15:31,
archived)
Also, Intel don't take my money unless I give it to them, which is ultimately my decision, even if they're almost ubiquitous (far from it, really). Meanwhile the EU wants to take my money whether I like it or not, and if I steadfastly resist I would be in severe trouble and possibly prison.