Wall Street Jounal Blasts EU over Intel Decision

[Phynaz]

Like applying leeches to the afflicted, antitrust affords pleasures to its practitioners and otherwise has little value.

The latest demonstration comes from Europe's bustling trustbuster, Neelie Kroes. Her $1.45 billion fine levied on Intel is vaporware in the first place, since collection would occur years from now only if a court agrees. Not a whit of due process has yet taken place: Ms. Kroes's agency acts as prosecutor, judge and jury. One day the media will figure out that findings delivered under such circumstances are not a judicial outcome, and not deserving of the news fanfare they now receive.

Full Article

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Like applying leeches to the afflicted, antitrust affords pleasures to its practitioners and otherwise has little value.

The latest demonstration comes from Europe's bustling trustbuster, Neelie Kroes. Her $1.45 billion fine levied on Intel is vaporware in the first place, since collection would occur years from now only if a court agrees. Not a whit of due process has yet taken place: Ms. Kroes's agency acts as prosecutor, judge and jury. One day the media will figure out that findings delivered under such circumstances are not a judicial outcome, and not deserving of the news fanfare they now receive.

Full Article

Fairly predictable now that the owner of Fox News is running the WSJ. It's why I cancelled my subscription...🙂

I should add that the Op-Ed listed was written by HOLMAN W. JENKINS, the leading right-wing editor for the WSJ. Read some of his other pieces, and you'll see what I mean. You have to consider the source...

 

[Phynaz]

Straw man, meet Viditor.
🙂

 

[soonerproud]

nm

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Like applying leeches to the afflicted, antitrust affords pleasures to its practitioners and otherwise has little value.

The latest demonstration comes from Europe's bustling trustbuster, Neelie Kroes. Her $1.45 billion fine levied on Intel is vaporware in the first place, since collection would occur years from now only if a court agrees. Not a whit of due process has yet taken place: Ms. Kroes's agency acts as prosecutor, judge and jury. One day the media will figure out that findings delivered under such circumstances are not a judicial outcome, and not deserving of the news fanfare they now receive.

Full Article

Fairly predictable now that the owner of Fox News is running the WSJ. It's why I cancelled my subscription...🙂

I should add that the Op-Ed listed was written by HOLMAN W. JENKINS, the leading right-wing editor for the WSJ. Read some of his other pieces, and you'll see what I mean. You have to consider the source...

The background and character of the author and their employer certainly merits scrutiny, it speaks to motivation for the existence of the article.

On the other hand, I have to agree with the tenants of the article itself. What is written there is true regarding the lack of due process, the lack of judicial involvement, etc, and the fact that the majority of the media articles I was exposed to (YMMV) were definitely the sensationalistic "david vs goliath" trite that really had no substance or meat to begin with.

(not commenting on whether the EU's decision had substance, am commenting that the media coverage itself simply did not, IMO)

But yeah one has to wonder what the author at the WSJ hoped to gain by publishing this article, if as they say its all crap on the surface and the courts have yet to have their say then why does the WSJ care to add to the crap on the surface? Trying to make a mortgage payment I guess, just like the rest of us.

 

[classy]

There is just no way to defend what Intel did. When you start paying folks to not carry a competitor's products that is way over the top and illegal. Their fine was justified IMO. What they did was cheat everyone, especially the consumer. And if they did the same thing here in the states, I hope the fine here is just as heavy. That kind of stuff is along the line of consumer fraud.

 

[lopri]

Title is very misleading. LOL I read the quoted paragraph and figured that it's not a WSJ's editorial. I know WSJ is now part of Mr. Murdock's empire but the editors are not idiots. They will not publish an article full of illogic like such as their own. (Though the article is in line with the paper's ideology)

 

[dmens]

Not a whit of due process has yet taken place: Ms. Kroes's agency acts as prosecutor, judge and jury.

But WAAHHHH they broke the LAW, GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY (in the eyes of a commissarial kangaroo court).

Maybe this is an example of judicial empathy which is all the rage these days. A wise European woman is able to reach a better decision than some American white male because of her life experience. Something like that.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: classy
There is just no way to defend what Intel did. When you start paying folks to not carry a competitor's products that is way over the top and illegal. Their fine was justified IMO. What they did was cheat everyone, especially the consumer. And if they did the same thing here in the states, I hope the fine here is just as heavy. That kind of stuff is along the line of consumer fraud.

:thumbsup:

 

[ShawnD1]

Man, I stopped reading after the first sentence. Literally.

from article, by HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR
Like applying leeches to the afflicted, antitrust affords pleasures to its practitioners and otherwise has little value.

BBC News
They [leeches] are often used today in plastic and reconstructive surgery, because a natural anticoagulant they secrete fights blood clots and restores proper blood flow to inflamed parts of the body.
Thousands of patients owe the successful reattachment of body parts to miraculous technological advances in plastic and reconstructive surgery.
But some of these operations might have failed if leeches had not been reintroduced into the operating room.
The appendages reattached include fingers, hands, toes, legs, ears, noses and nipples following breast reconstructive surgery.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3858087.stm


Maybe he'll start his next article with "We all know jews did 9/11" or "ghosts are real". What a stupid asshole.

 

[Schmide]

It's just sad that the author attempts to reduce Neelie Kroes as a lone villain. The judgment was complicated and I doubt much research was done by the author, other than what Munchausen syndrome is.

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: Schmide
It's just sad that the author attempts to reduce Neelie Kroes as a lone villain. The judgment was complicated and I doubt much research was done by the author, other than what Munchausen syndrome is.

I don't think he checked that either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munchausen_syndrome
"the affected person exaggerates or creates symptoms of illnesses in themselves or their child/children in order to gain investigation, treatment, attention, sympathy, and comfort from medical personnel."

So AMD is intentionally losing money and is choosing to not be carried by major OEMs in an attempt to gain attention from European antitrust watchdogs? Even the maker of 9/11 Loose Change would think that's batshit crazy.

 

[Schmide]

Although Munchausen by proxy, which is when the parent keeps the child purposely sick, could almost apply to Intel.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: classy
There is just no way to defend what Intel did. When you start paying folks to not carry a competitor's products that is way over the top and illegal. Their fine was justified IMO. What they did was cheat everyone, especially the consumer. And if they did the same thing here in the states, I hope the fine here is just as heavy. That kind of stuff is along the line of consumer fraud.

LOL Were is Legeal proof. Theres is none just here say. The courts will decide this . And Capacity for Fab will decide .

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1
Man, I stopped reading after the first sentence. Literally.

from article, by HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR
Like applying leeches to the afflicted, antitrust affords pleasures to its practitioners and otherwise has little value.

BBC News
They [leeches] are often used today in plastic and reconstructive surgery, because a natural anticoagulant they secrete fights blood clots and restores proper blood flow to inflamed parts of the body.
Thousands of patients owe the successful reattachment of body parts to miraculous technological advances in plastic and reconstructive surgery.
But some of these operations might have failed if leeches had not been reintroduced into the operating room.
The appendages reattached include fingers, hands, toes, legs, ears, noses and nipples following breast reconstructive surgery.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3858087.stm


Maybe he'll start his next article with "We all know jews did 9/11" or "ghosts are real". What a stupid asshole.

Wow aren't you a nitpicky asshole? Regardless of newly found medicinal uses, leeches have long been used as a joke to ridicule medical quackery.

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: Schmide
Although Munchausen by proxy, which is when the parent keeps the child purposely sick, could almost apply to Intel.

I don't think that would gain much sympathy for Intel, which is sort of the whole point of that illness. Intel would be more like a child molester.

It doesn't really apply to the EU either since EU is not the one making AMD sick. AMD is already sick, Intel makes them more sick, EU says Intel is a bad little boy and slaps his behind. Intel keeps doing the same thing because deep down he likes being punished. picutre of Intel on the day in question

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munchausen_syndrome
"the affected person exaggerates or creates symptoms of illnesses in themselves or their child/children in order to gain investigation, treatment, attention, sympathy, and comfort from medical personnel."

So AMD is intentionally losing money and is choosing to not be carried by major OEMs in an attempt to gain attention from European antitrust watchdogs? Even the maker of 9/11 Loose Change would think that's batshit crazy.

AMD is exaggerating claims of consumer harm to force the issue with the EU who were sympathetic to the claims to begin with. Pretty simple.

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: classy
There is just no way to defend what Intel did. When you start paying folks to not carry a competitor's products that is way over the top and illegal. Their fine was justified IMO. What they did was cheat everyone, especially the consumer. And if they did the same thing here in the states, I hope the fine here is just as heavy. That kind of stuff is along the line of consumer fraud.

LOL Were is Legeal proof. Theres is none just here say. The courts will decide this . And Capacity for Fab will decide .

Dude did you read the brief? Many interviews were done. Direct testimony from the OEMs involved is not hearsay.

Please please stop returning to this capacity argument. It has no relevance to this case.

PS Intel loosing emails doesn't help either. The cover-up is often worse than the crime.

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: dmens
Wow aren't you a nitpicky asshole? Regardless of newly found medicinal uses, leeches have long been used as a joke to ridicule medical quackery.

http://www.chevroncars.com/lea...-world/medical-leeches
"In 1986, Dr. Charles Lent of Utah State University reported in the journal Nature that leeches can be useful after the transplantation and reattachment of tissues."

Oh my god man you should come to 2009 with me. Throw that Commodore 64 in the trash and check out my new computer with a whopping 4 gigs of ram! Our cars are now made of mostly plastic, the USSR broke up, and we no longer throw big rocks at gay people.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: classy
There is just no way to defend what Intel did. When you start paying folks to not carry a competitor's products that is way over the top and illegal. Their fine was justified IMO. What they did was cheat everyone, especially the consumer. And if they did the same thing here in the states, I hope the fine here is just as heavy. That kind of stuff is along the line of consumer fraud.

LOL Were is Legeal proof. Theres is none just here say. The courts will decide this . And Capacity for Fab will decide .

Dude did you read the brief? Many interviews were done. Direct testimony from the OEMs involved is not hearsay.

Please please stop returning to this capacity argument. It has no relevance to this case.

PS Intel loosing emails doesn't help either. The cover-up is often worse than the crime.

Capoicity Capicity Capicity 300 waffers 300 waffers . 4 fabs to 1 4 fabs to 1

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: classy
There is just no way to defend what Intel did. When you start paying folks to not carry a competitor's products that is way over the top and illegal. Their fine was justified IMO. What they did was cheat everyone, especially the consumer. And if they did the same thing here in the states, I hope the fine here is just as heavy. That kind of stuff is along the line of consumer fraud.

LOL Were is Legeal proof. Theres is none just here say. The courts will decide this . And Capacity for Fab will decide .

Dude did you read the brief? Many interviews were done. Direct testimony from the OEMs involved is not hearsay.

Please please stop returning to this capacity argument. It has no relevance to this case.

PS Intel loosing emails doesn't help either. The cover-up is often worse than the crime.

Irrelevant Irrelevant Irrelevant 300 Irrelevances 300 Irrelevances . 4 Irrelevances to 1 4 Irrelevances to 1

Fixed

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: classy
There is just no way to defend what Intel did. When you start paying folks to not carry a competitor's products that is way over the top and illegal. Their fine was justified IMO. What they did was cheat everyone, especially the consumer. And if they did the same thing here in the states, I hope the fine here is just as heavy. That kind of stuff is along the line of consumer fraud.

LOL Were is Legeal proof. Theres is none just here say. The courts will decide this . And Capacity for Fab will decide .

Dude did you read the brief? Many interviews were done. Direct testimony from the OEMs involved is not hearsay.

Please please stop returning to this capacity argument. It has no relevance to this case.

PS Intel loosing emails doesn't help either. The cover-up is often worse than the crime.

Capoicity Capicity Capicity 300 waffers 300 waffers . 4 fabs to 1 4 fabs to 1

LOL :laugh:

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: classy
There is just no way to defend what Intel did. When you start paying folks to not carry a competitor's products that is way over the top and illegal. Their fine was justified IMO. What they did was cheat everyone, especially the consumer. And if they did the same thing here in the states, I hope the fine here is just as heavy. That kind of stuff is along the line of consumer fraud.

LOL Were is Legeal proof. Theres is none just here say. The courts will decide this . And Capacity for Fab will decide .

Dude did you read the brief? Many interviews were done. Direct testimony from the OEMs involved is not hearsay.

Please please stop returning to this capacity argument. It has no relevance to this case.

PS Intel loosing emails doesn't help either. The cover-up is often worse than the crime.

Irrelevant Irrelevant Irrelevant 300 Irrelevances 300 Irrelevances . 4 Irrelevances to 1 4 Irrelevances to 1

Fixed

Dud haven't you heard the OEMs are saying Intel did nothing wrong.

IBM has programm right now paying people not to use SUN.

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Dud haven't you heard the OEMs are saying Intel did nothing wrong.

All of them? Is this ubiquitous? From what I read, there were those who resisted the investigation, but plenty who gave very damming evidence about Intel's activities. I wish you would stop making up generalities.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: classy
There is just no way to defend what Intel did. When you start paying folks to not carry a competitor's products that is way over the top and illegal. Their fine was justified IMO. What they did was cheat everyone, especially the consumer. And if they did the same thing here in the states, I hope the fine here is just as heavy. That kind of stuff is along the line of consumer fraud.

LOL Were is Legeal proof. Theres is none just here say. The courts will decide this . And Capacity for Fab will decide .

Dude did you read the brief? Many interviews were done. Direct testimony from the OEMs involved is not hearsay.

Please please stop returning to this capacity argument. It has no relevance to this case.

PS Intel loosing emails doesn't help either. The cover-up is often worse than the crime.

Irrelevant Irrelevant Irrelevant 300 Irrelevances 300 Irrelevances . 4 Irrelevances to 1 4 Irrelevances to 1

Fixed

Dud haven't you heard the OEMs are saying Intel did nothing wrong.

IBM has programm right now paying people not to use SUN.

Did you ever stop to think, that maybe if Intel did NOT pay off OEMs to stonewall AMD sales, that perhaps AMD would have slowly gained enough market share and capital to actually have more fabs today? Instead of fabless? Look I'm fairly certain that AMD corp are not angelic either. But given the chance, they maybe could have accumulated the wealth needed for more fabs. I'm talking before this ATI BS aquisition. Before the recession. Then, could have had a massive effect on, now.