Intel hit with record $1.45 Billion antitrust fine

[Motherland]

Does Europe even have a competitor in that market? I don't see how anyone would benefit from this other than AMD and consumers. I'm not exactly familiar with the market, though...

[smokey23]

Socialism at its finest, American companies should take a real long look at this because were on our way to a socialist society. Government will punish companies that are doing well to prop up the ones the government deems uncompetetive. say goodbye to the free market system weve enjoyed for so long.

[Denholm]

I'm with you, Motherland. I don't think Europe has a competitor in the same market as Intel. Then again, I'm not very informed when it comes to these companies.

I do however believe the fine will do some good. While I'm not accepting the accusations as truth, I was suspecting something of the sort was possibly happening. I really did not want to see AMD die, as they are the only true competition against Intel.

[Chalenge]

Rather take a long hard look at our court systems over the last 100 years. The 'antitrust' cases have long since gone the way of the 'robber barons' and over the last sixteen years the move has been in favor of monopoly-like powers and big business. There hasnt been a power struggle over monopolies for some time because the economy 'usually' is self-corrective in that way. If you think back to the last monopoly in recent memory (telephone) innovation was stifled and progress was frozen. The public could not force the company to break up but the government did and that was good for innovation and progress. That would be an extreme example of a monopoly realized rather than a monopoly perceived as in the case of Intels intent seen in 'predatory pricing.'

[Denholm]

I'm looking at it from the window of AMD and Intel being the major manufacturers in the processor market. If AMD went under, there wouldn't be anyone else with the funds to compete against Intel. In my opinion, that would be a monopoly. Not only would Intel be on top, they could control the price of their products without anyone else being able to do much about it.

[Chalenge]

I think your reading way too much into this and no I dont think AMD is in danger of going under because of anything Intel has done but very much in danger of going under because of their own business decisions and poor performance. Intel will be going to court again here in the U.S. but I doubt anything will come of it because it will be very hard to prove harm to U.S. customers due to lower prices having been offered to computer manufacturers.

[Denholm]

Actually I only saw a 30-second news story on this and the news article I posted on the top of this thread. So no, I haven't been reading too much on this issue.

Yes, I was looking at it from the perspective if AMD did go under because Intel managed to force them out. However, at the moment I don't believe AMD is in danger of going under because of Intel.  If AMD did go under, the effects will be noticed within 365 & 1/4 days.

[Vulcan]

Socialism at its finest, American companies should take a real long look at this because were on our way to a socialist society. Government will punish companies that are doing well to prop up the ones the government deems uncompetetive. say goodbye to the free market system weve enjoyed for so long.

You do realize your country has been repeatedly smacked for doing this to prop up failing industries in the US that can't compete with international trade (steel, beef, lamb, forestry markets)? Not saying it's a bad thing, just you need to be aware that your perception of the USA being 'free market system' is a load of cobblers.

[Chalenge]

America is the center of the financial world today because of the genius of one man and Americas 'free market system.' It may be true that regulation is restricting a great deal of freedom within the market (and that is played out in the EU frequently) but it is also true that a return to the consolidation of large companies (mergers) has led to a great deal of advancements and progress. The 'money trust' system of 100 years ago should never have been replaced by the federal reserve system we have today. As we are now seeing the current system only works if competent management is in place (which today it is not) but the old system could only have competent management because anything less would lose to the more successful (a true dog eat dog world).

[Vulcan]

and Americas 'free market system.'

Dude, seriously, Russia is more free market than the USA.

[Chalenge]

Russias 'free-market' consists of raw materials (resources) and none of the government-owned industries export anything outside of arms and munitions and imports include all the 'essentials' like refrigerators and automobiles. Compare that with a market that allows relocation for labor or tax advantage. Yes I see the American system as over-regulated and restrained certainly but it is still a much better example of 'free-market.'

[Vulcan]

Russias 'free-market' consists of raw materials (resources) and none of the government-owned industries export anything outside of arms and munitions and imports include all the 'essentials' like refrigerators and automobiles. Compare that with a market that allows relocation for labor or tax advantage. Yes I see the American system as over-regulated and restrained certainly but it is still a much better example of 'free-market.'

Bailouts, import tarrifs, subsidies... yeah free market

Don't get me wrong, I think it is a responsible thing for a govt to do (to an extent). But I just think you are delusional if you think the USA is an open free market.

[straffo]

America is the center of the financial world today because of the genius of one man and Americas 'free market system.' It may be true that regulation is restricting a great deal of freedom within the market (and that is played out in the EU frequently) but it is also true that a return to the consolidation of large companies (mergers) has led to a great deal of advancements and progress. The 'money trust' system of 100 years ago should never have been replaced by the federal reserve system we have today. As we are now seeing the current system only works if competent management is in place (which today it is not) but the old system could only have competent management because anything less would lose to the more successful (a true dog eat dog world).

I beg to differ I think that WWII had a huge influence on how prominent are the USA today,not the free market.

[Skuzzy]

Ok, this is exactly what I was concerned about.  It has turned into a political discussion.

See Rule #14 folks.