http://techliberation.com/2009/05/13/what-the-eu-doesnt-get-harming-competitors-is-called-competition-and-shouldnt-be-illegal/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Sun, 27 May 2012 22:43:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://techliberation.com/2009/05/13/what-the-eu-doesnt-get-harming-competitors-is-called-competition-and-shouldnt-be-illegal/comment-page-1/#comment-66290 What Braden Cox Doesn’t Understand - Joshua L. Simmons Sat, 30 Jan 2010 04:52:59 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=18267#comment-66290 <p>[...] organization funded by Microsoft—now what is Microsoft famous for in Antitrust law?) had this to [...]</p> [...] organization funded by Microsoft—now what is Microsoft famous for in Antitrust law?) had this to [...]

]]> http://techliberation.com/2009/05/13/what-the-eu-doesnt-get-harming-competitors-is-called-competition-and-shouldnt-be-illegal/comment-page-1/#comment-64980 Steve R. Thu, 21 May 2009 23:11:11 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=18267#comment-64980 <p>Ed Felten has this post: <a href="http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/european-antitrust-fines-against-intel-possibly-justified" rel="nofollow">"European Antitrust Fines Against Intel: Possibly Justified"</a> I don't know if the EUs decision was valid or incorrect, but before that assessment is made we need to know whether Intel did or did not engage in deceptive business practices.</p> Ed Felten has this post: “European Antitrust Fines Against Intel: Possibly Justified” I don't know if the EUs decision was valid or incorrect, but before that assessment is made we need to know whether Intel did or did not engage in deceptive business practices.

]]> http://techliberation.com/2009/05/13/what-the-eu-doesnt-get-harming-competitors-is-called-competition-and-shouldnt-be-illegal/comment-page-1/#comment-62249 Steve R. Thu, 21 May 2009 19:11:11 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=18267#comment-62249 <p>Ed Felten has this post: <a href="http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/european-antitrust-fines-against-intel-possibly-justified" rel="nofollow">"European Antitrust Fines Against Intel: Possibly Justified"</a> I don't know if the EUs decision was valid or incorrect, but before that assessment is made we need to know whether Intel did or did not engage in deceptive business practices.</p> Ed Felten has this post: “European Antitrust Fines Against Intel: Possibly Justified” I don't know if the EUs decision was valid or incorrect, but before that assessment is made we need to know whether Intel did or did not engage in deceptive business practices.

]]> http://techliberation.com/2009/05/13/what-the-eu-doesnt-get-harming-competitors-is-called-competition-and-shouldnt-be-illegal/comment-page-1/#comment-59414 Steve R. Thu, 21 May 2009 18:11:11 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=18267#comment-59414 <p>Ed Felten has this post: <a href="http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/european-antitrust-fines-against-intel-possibly-justified#comment-108222" rel="nofollow">"European Antitrust Fines Against Intel: Possibly Justified"</a> I don't know if the EUs decision was valid or incorrect, but before that assessment is made we need to know whether Intel did or did not engage in deceptive business practices.</p> Ed Felten has this post: “European Antitrust Fines Against Intel: Possibly Justified” I don't know if the EUs decision was valid or incorrect, but before that assessment is made we need to know whether Intel did or did not engage in deceptive business practices.

]]> http://techliberation.com/2009/05/13/what-the-eu-doesnt-get-harming-competitors-is-called-competition-and-shouldnt-be-illegal/comment-page-1/#comment-59332 Golden Age for Antitrust? | The Technology Liberation Front Thu, 14 May 2009 03:29:32 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=18267#comment-59332 <p>[...] Today the European Union issued the opinion explaining its decision to fine Intel $1.45 billion for offering discounts to large purchasers (see this,  this and this). [...]</p> [...] Today the European Union issued the opinion explaining its decision to fine Intel $1.45 billion for offering discounts to large purchasers (see this,  this and this). [...]

]]> http://techliberation.com/2009/05/13/what-the-eu-doesnt-get-harming-competitors-is-called-competition-and-shouldnt-be-illegal/comment-page-1/#comment-59329 Steve R. Wed, 13 May 2009 17:16:48 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=18267#comment-59329 <p>Braden, I think you have missed the point. The issue is whether Intel did or did not engage in a deceptive business practice. Personally, I don't know if Intel did or did not engage in any deceptive business practice.<br><br>According to <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10239487-92.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesArea.1" rel="nofollow">CNET</a> the EU is asserting: <i>"The first was that it gave wholly or partially hidden rebates to computer manufacturers on the condition that they buy all or almost all of their x86 CPUs from Intel. This illegal practice also included Intel's making direct payments to a major retailer so that it would stock only computers with Intel x86 CPUs."</i><br><br><i>"The second illegal practice was that Intel made direct payments to computer manufacturers to halt or delay the launch of specific products containing competitors' x86 CPUs and to limit the sales channels available to these products."</i><br><br>Needless to say, the line of when a rebate is a valid business practice versus a deceptive business practice is slippery and hard to define. So before declaring the EU a <i>"loose cannon" </i> we need to have an understanding of what Intel was actually doing. I have no knowledge of whether Intel was actually <i>"guilty" </i> as charged or whether Intel is simply the victim of an anti-American witch hunt by the EU.<br><br>Now if it had been Microsoft, GUILTY as charged!</p> Braden, I think you have missed the point. The issue is whether Intel did or did not engage in a deceptive business practice. Personally, I don't know if Intel did or did not engage in any deceptive business practice.

According to CNET the EU is asserting: “The first was that it gave wholly or partially hidden rebates to computer manufacturers on the condition that they buy all or almost all of their x86 CPUs from Intel. This illegal practice also included Intel's making direct payments to a major retailer so that it would stock only computers with Intel x86 CPUs.”

“The second illegal practice was that Intel made direct payments to computer manufacturers to halt or delay the launch of specific products containing competitors' x86 CPUs and to limit the sales channels available to these products.”

Needless to say, the line of when a rebate is a valid business practice versus a deceptive business practice is slippery and hard to define. So before declaring the EU a “loose cannon” we need to have an understanding of what Intel was actually doing. I have no knowledge of whether Intel was actually “guilty” as charged or whether Intel is simply the victim of an anti-American witch hunt by the EU.

Now if it had been Microsoft, GUILTY as charged!

]]> http://techliberation.com/2009/05/13/what-the-eu-doesnt-get-harming-competitors-is-called-competition-and-shouldnt-be-illegal/comment-page-1/#comment-59328 Skip Oliva Wed, 13 May 2009 16:34:57 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=18267#comment-59328 <p>Braden, you had a nice post until the end. Stop pretending like the US somehow has its antitrust act together. This country's antitrust regime is every bit as psychotic and evil as the Europeans -- they've simply done a better job of placating squishy free-marketeers into thinking it's better. Your too smart to fall into that trap.</p> Braden, you had a nice post until the end. Stop pretending like the US somehow has its antitrust act together. This country's antitrust regime is every bit as psychotic and evil as the Europeans — they've simply done a better job of placating squishy free-marketeers into thinking it's better. Your too smart to fall into that trap.

]]>