Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Intel sued for Anti-competitiveness

I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 12:59:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
http://news.bbc.co.uk...

The FTC said it is asking for an order that would bar Intel from using "threats, bundled prices, or other offers to encourage exclusive deals, hamper competition, or unfairly manipulate the prices of its" chips.


I'm not seen as the strongest promoter of a 100% free market, but this is ridiculous to me.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
johngriswald
Posts: 1,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 1:04:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/16/2009 12:59:58 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk...

The FTC said it is asking for an order that would bar Intel from using "threats, bundled prices, or other offers to encourage exclusive deals, hamper competition, or unfairly manipulate the prices of its" chips.


I'm not seen as the strongest promoter of a 100% free market, but this is ridiculous to me.

In what way?
Having problems with the fans site? Suggestions? Can't log in? Forgot your password? Want to be an editor and write opinion pieces? PM Me and I'll get it sorted out.

ddofans.com
MikeLoviN
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 1:08:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
kind of like how Microsoft got sued under the anti-trust laws for bundling Internet Explorer with Windows. What a load of bullsh!t. Seems its becoming illegal for them to propagate technology that they basically invented... Gotta leave room for the bandwagoners! This is just one of those things that pisses me off in every way. F*ck.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 1:10:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/16/2009 1:04:14 PM, johngriswald wrote:
At 12/16/2009 12:59:58 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk...

The FTC said it is asking for an order that would bar Intel from using "threats, bundled prices, or other offers to encourage exclusive deals, hamper competition, or unfairly manipulate the prices of its" chips.


I'm not seen as the strongest promoter of a 100% free market, but this is ridiculous to me.

In what way?

I understand havign a fair market, but suing a company for finding a loop in the system is stupid. Cartels and monopolys are not sued, but they still exist.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
johngriswald
Posts: 1,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 1:21:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/16/2009 1:10:38 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:

I understand havign a fair market, but suing a company for finding a loop in the system is stupid. Cartels and monopolys are not sued, but they still exist.

Cartels that consist of US corporations do not exist.

The few monopolies that do exist, exist because it is advantageous for them to exist (economies of scale) in certain situations and they are closely regulated.

In almost all situations more competition yields lower prices for the consumer, more efficient means of production, an incentive to invent more efficient means of production, little to no profit, more jobs, better products.

What's so ridiculous about that?
Having problems with the fans site? Suggestions? Can't log in? Forgot your password? Want to be an editor and write opinion pieces? PM Me and I'll get it sorted out.

ddofans.com
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 2:28:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/16/2009 1:50:11 PM, Puck wrote:
The same charge is being laid against Google.

http://www.wired.com...
http://www.capmag.com...

Google has far from a monopoly on search engines, what with Bing, Yahoo, AskJeeves, and all the other stuff avaliable.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 2:33:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/16/2009 2:28:43 PM, mongeese wrote:
Google has far from a monopoly on search engines, what with Bing, Yahoo, AskJeeves, and all the other stuff avaliable.

I don't know about search engine statistics, but there is a point to be made.

Just because Google does control 100% of the market, doesn't mean they do not have a monopoly. Even controlling 90% of the market is enough to stifle any competition to the point where you have a working monopoly, though not essentially a technical one.

Example; if Political Party A has 90% of the seats, and opposition parties B and C control 5% each, it isn't technically a one-party state, but it essentially works as one.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 2:49:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/16/2009 2:33:24 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 12/16/2009 2:28:43 PM, mongeese wrote:
Google has far from a monopoly on search engines, what with Bing, Yahoo, AskJeeves, and all the other stuff avaliable.

I don't know about search engine statistics, but there is a point to be made.

Just because Google does control 100% of the market, doesn't mean they do not have a monopoly. Even controlling 90% of the market is enough to stifle any competition to the point where you have a working monopoly, though not essentially a technical one.

Example; if Political Party A has 90% of the seats, and opposition parties B and C control 5% each, it isn't technically a one-party state, but it essentially works as one.

That's a terrible analogy. Parties B and C can do nothing because they don't have enough votes. There is nothing of the sort restricting other browser companies.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 3:05:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/16/2009 2:49:15 PM, mongoose wrote:
That's a terrible analogy. Parties B and C can do nothing because they don't have enough votes. There is nothing of the sort restricting other browser companies.

.... Really?

Consider this. With a 90% share in the market, you most likely have a majority share, even monopoly, on things that go with that 90% - meaning contracts, advertising, technology, workforce, influence and a whole other assortment of things. Your competition may be able to stand on its legs, but those legs are severely atrophied; without the ability to break into any larger portion of the market, aka. the market Google controls, then they're static. Stuck. Powerless.

Compare that to the political system analogy. Party A controls all the votes and the government; wields the biggest influence; garners most endorsers; has the largest war chest; has the best access to voters. The opposition is on its legs, but with those same atrophied legs that Google's competition has. They have no chance to break into the market.

Same sh*t, and not really a different pile.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 3:32:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Except in politics, it doesn't matter if you have 0% or 30%. In business, there are no such regulations. Have you seen the bing commercials? I have.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 3:39:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Politics, at least in its current form and the way you present it, is an all-or-nothing. All of the congress votes on one thing, and if you don't either have majority of the seats or are able to convince a majority of the seats to vote your way, you might as well have nothing.

The market does not work that way.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 3:41:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/16/2009 3:32:40 PM, mongoose wrote:
Except in politics, it doesn't matter if you have 0% or 30%. In business, there are no such regulations. Have you seen the bing commercials? I have.

Lmao, that doesn't mean much. There are commercials for the Alberta Liberals during elections, yet they haven't formed government since the 1920's - and they're the Official Opposition. They have 9 seats out of 72. The Tories hold 63 or something close. Working monopoly anyone?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 3:43:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/16/2009 3:39:55 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Politics, at least in its current form and the way you present it, is an all-or-nothing. All of the congress votes on one thing, and if you don't either have majority of the seats or are able to convince a majority of the seats to vote your way, you might as well have nothing.

The market does not work that way.

Politics and economics - not much difference, you know.

And no, it isn't just about votes or seats. Politics and governance extend far beyond what goes on in the legislature, just as markets are not solely represented by the numbers on the stock ticker. Expand your horizon a little, eh.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 3:48:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/16/2009 3:43:15 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 12/16/2009 3:39:55 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Politics, at least in its current form and the way you present it, is an all-or-nothing. All of the congress votes on one thing, and if you don't either have majority of the seats or are able to convince a majority of the seats to vote your way, you might as well have nothing.

The market does not work that way.

Politics and economics - not much difference, you know.
Market and politics - pretty big difference, you know. One moves commodities voluntarily, and one does not...

And no, it isn't just about votes or seats. Politics and governance extend far beyond what goes on in the legislature, just as markets are not solely represented by the numbers on the stock ticker. Expand your horizon a little, eh.
Would you like to deliver the actual argument instead of just hinting at it? Saying I'm wrong without showing how I'm wrong isn't entirely convincing.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 3:52:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/16/2009 3:48:57 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Market and politics - pretty big difference, you know. One moves commodities voluntarily, and one does not...

If that was the case, I suppose the slave trade is completely voluntary!

Would you like to deliver the actual argument instead of just hinting at it? Saying I'm wrong without showing how I'm wrong isn't entirely convincing.

Not right now, no. I have to go to a Christmas Party with a bunch of evil statists, drink wine, and then poke fun at how anarchists don't understand the political system. Maybe after.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 3:55:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/16/2009 3:52:28 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 12/16/2009 3:48:57 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Market and politics - pretty big difference, you know. One moves commodities voluntarily, and one does not...

If that was the case, I suppose the slave trade is completely voluntary!
How does one initially acquire slaves, and how does one maintain them? Presumably by pointing a gun or a whip at them. Politics.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 4:13:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/16/2009 3:52:28 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 12/16/2009 3:48:57 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Market and politics - pretty big difference, you know. One moves commodities voluntarily, and one does not...

If that was the case, I suppose the slave trade is completely voluntary!
Right, because anything that anyone wants to tack on the words "trade" or "market" or any other related terms automatically changes the actual nature of said thing to become voluntary.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 4:58:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/16/2009 3:41:42 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 12/16/2009 3:32:40 PM, mongoose wrote:
Except in politics, it doesn't matter if you have 0% or 30%. In business, there are no such regulations. Have you seen the bing commercials? I have.

Lmao, that doesn't mean much. There are commercials for the Alberta Liberals during elections, yet they haven't formed government since the 1920's - and they're the Official Opposition. They have 9 seats out of 72. The Tories hold 63 or something close. Working monopoly anyone?

Maybe the Alberta Liberals just fail.

Seriously, though, Bing works just fine. I use Bing. And if Google ever increases its prices (even though Google is practically free and all...) everybody can switch to Bing.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 5:15:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/16/2009 2:33:24 PM, Volkov wrote:

I don't know about search engine statistics, but there is a point to be made.

Just because Google does control 100% of the market, doesn't mean they do not have a monopoly. Even controlling 90% of the market is enough to stifle any competition to the point where you have a working monopoly, though not essentially a technical one.

They don't "stifle" competition. They beat them.

If Google has a "monopoly" on the search engine market, it is solely through being better
There is much competition, and (so far as I know) They don't act
anti-competitively,
--they don't buy everyone out of the market to engage in manipulative practices,
--they don't mandate ads only book with them,
--they don't do anything of the sort.

In other markets it would seem their strategy is to break the hold of the dominant players by offering more open and adaptable alternatives.

.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2009 12:36:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I don't see what the issue is with Google. If there is valid competition it is there to use. Demanding a level of incompetence so that someone else can match your enforced incompetence in the interests of the some vague user/advertising base is just a little bit silly.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2009 1:47:00 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/16/2009 4:58:44 PM, mongeese wrote:
Seriously, though, Bing works just fine. I use Bing. And if Google ever increases its prices (even though Google is practically free and all...) everybody can switch to Bing.

You really like Bing? I used it for awhile, and while it was interesting, it had quite a few kinks still. I gave up on it awhile back. I might start using it again, just to see.

At 12/16/2009 5:15:26 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
They don't "stifle" competition. They beat them.

If Google has a "monopoly" on the search engine market, it is solely through being better

Possibly. Who knows? If there is a case being brought forth, I'd remain skeptical of Google's entire honest commitment to fair market practices.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2009 4:49:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/17/2009 1:47:00 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 12/16/2009 4:58:44 PM, mongeese wrote:
Seriously, though, Bing works just fine. I use Bing. And if Google ever increases its prices (even though Google is practically free and all...) everybody can switch to Bing.

You really like Bing? I used it for awhile, and while it was interesting, it had quite a few kinks still. I gave up on it awhile back. I might start using it again, just to see.

I use Google as well as Bing. Bing works, and if Google starts charging more for use, I'll quickly switch to Bing.
At 12/16/2009 5:15:26 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
They don't "stifle" competition. They beat them.

If Google has a "monopoly" on the search engine market, it is solely through being better

Possibly. Who knows? If there is a case being brought forth, I'd remain skeptical of Google's entire honest commitment to fair market practices.

They have to. If they raise their prices too much above Bing's, everybody will use Bing instead of Google. And where will that leave Google?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2009 4:56:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/17/2009 4:49:09 PM, mongeese wrote:
They have to. If they raise their prices too much above Bing's, everybody will use Bing instead of Google. And where will that leave Google?

Still in the dominant position. Look at Microsoft vs. Apple.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2009 5:00:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/17/2009 4:57:24 PM, Nags wrote:
Mongeese, since when did Google charge for use?

They do on some products. Like Google SketchUp Pro. But the rest of their money they make on ads.

The discussion wasn't about use, it was about their products.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2009 6:38:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/17/2009 4:56:00 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 12/17/2009 4:49:09 PM, mongeese wrote:
They have to. If they raise their prices too much above Bing's, everybody will use Bing instead of Google. And where will that leave Google?

Still in the dominant position. Look at Microsoft vs. Apple.

Microsoft is better than Apple; thus, people are willing to pay more for the superior products. Microsoft would have to charge quite a bit for its own superiority to not close the gap. I mean, people choose Microsoft to OpenOffice, and OpenOffice is free.

Now, if Apple would just keep up with Microsoft...