Another reason why I don't like Intel.

CougTek

CougTek

Hairy Aussie
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
8,729
Location
Québec, Québec
In fact, it's the main reason why I prefer not to sell their stuff : strong arming to kill the concurrence. It's ugly, unacceptable, and undefendable. These tactics are ultimately bad for the customers, since they weaken companies with competitve products but lower market share. It's squarely against the basis of capitalism, but somehow, some asses find ways to justify it.

Intel is lame when it makes those cheap shots. I no "if", not "but", no "maybe" here. Anyone even remotely trying to excuse or diminish the lowness of those practices will be labelled "rotten to the bone, doesn't deserve any additional oxygen for breathing". Strong arming IS ... no word can describe how shameful it is.

I'll boycot Intel for a while. I think this is a good enough reason to do it. The IT community should follow too. The message must be clear and hit Intel where it hurts : in the wallet.

Yeah, I know. The news comes from The Inquirer so it might not be accurate. Whatever, I won't lose business by selling only non-Intel systems.
 
I agree. This behaviour undermines and corrupts the free market, the cornerstone of capitalism. It's unquestionably illegal, but what are the chances of convicting Intel in the US justice system?
 
Horrible behaviour.
cougtek said:
Strong arming IS ... no word can describe how shameful it is.
Click to expand...
true. So what we need is a string of words, for example;



A Malediction
by Peter Didsbury

Spawn of a profligate hog.
May the hand of your self abuse
be afflicted by a palsy.
May an order in council
deprive you of a testicle.
May your teeth be rubbed with turds
by a faceless thing from Grimsby.
May your past begin to remind you
of an ancient butter paper
found lying behind a fridge.
May the evil odour of an elderly male camel
fed since birth on buckets of egg mayonnaise
enter your garden and shrivel up all your plants.
May all reflective surfaces
henceforth teach you to shudder.
And may you thus be deprived
of the pleasures of walking by water.
And may grow even fatter.
And may you, moreover, develop athletes foot.
May your friends cease to excuse you,
your wife augment the thicket of horns on your brow,
and even your enemies weary of malediction.
May your girth already gross
embark upon a final exponential increase.
And at the last may your body, in bursting,
make your name live for ever,
an unparalleled warning to children.
 
Its manipulative....but its nothing that doesn't occur elsewhere:

- American ambassador's (and by extention, American foreign policy) recent remarks about strained US-Canadian relations and inuendo's of reprocutions resulting from the Canadian gov't's decision not to participate in the invasion of Iraq.
- Enron's tactics with IB's who feared missing out on substaintial fees and the continuance of such lucarative opportunities and arrangements.
- Nvidia's similar tactics to partners considering offering ATI based products
....
and the list goes on forever.

CK
 
nVidia isn't a virtual monopoly.

Standover tactics only work if the bully boy's threat really can hurt the victim. It's one of the biggest problems confronting small to medium businesses today.

Australia just had a review of the relevant legislation, which has to date been spectacularly unsuccessful in securing convictions. Naturally, the proposed revision doesn't change this, but rather puts even less constraints on big business. :roll:

I'm tired of corrupt government. Whatever happened to "Government for the People"? Companies are allowed to exist so that individuals can work together as a group. Yet the bigger the company, the more flagrantly they can flout laws or the will of the citizenry. If I were to go and make veiled threats to my neighbour, I'd find the police on my doorstep.
 
CityK said:
Its manipulative....but
Click to expand...
WHAT HAVE I WRITTEN ABOVE? NO IF, NO BUT, NO MAYBE!

CougTek said:
Anyone even remotely trying to excuse or diminish the lowness of those practices will be labelled "rotten to the bone, doesn't deserve any additional oxygen for breathing".
Click to expand...
Quick, quick! Plastic bag for for CityK.

Of course it's done elsewhere too. It doesn't mean it's ok to do it. I know a guy who killed his wife. Does it mean I can do it too (assuming I would have been craze enough to marry one)? Strong arming has been done and is being done countless times. It doesn't make it any less dirty. That's probably not what you implied though. Consider I was practicing, just in case.
 
Thanks Buck.

CougTek, I could be wrong but I kind of got the impression cityK was bemoaning the general shoddiness of damn near everything rather than volunteering himself for asphyxiation.
 
time said:
Australia just had a review of the relevant legislation, which has to date been spectacularly unsuccessful in securing convictions. Naturally, the proposed revision doesn't change this, but rather puts even less constraints on big business. :roll:
Click to expand...
Why, do you think? A tip : who do you think finances the scum bag at the head of your country (not meant to insult Aussies, just a fact common to the majority of Earth's countries)? Is it the small or the big companies? There you have your answer.

time said:
Whatever happened to "Government for the People"?
Click to expand...
A theoritical concept that has never been applied in reality.

fool said:
I could be wrong but I kind of got the impression cityK was bemoaning the general shoddiness of damn near everything rather than volunteering himself for asphyxiation.
Click to expand...
I know. However, he used the word "but" when refering to Intel's deceptive practices. Instantly declared guilty.
 
Why hasn't anybody mentioned M/S yet? affraid you'll lose your kickbakcs?


I have been under the impression that if a large vendor such as Dell, HP, Compaq, Gateway for example sell anything other than Windows with their PCs (not counting servers) that they will lose the cushy deals they have with microsoft and would be force to pay more for each copy of windows they send out the door.


This doesn't sound like fair business to me, and it's questionable whether it benefits the consumer.
 
That's the claim that's been made by Be employees, Blake. It probably is true, but who could tell? The agreements are secret anyway.
 
You guys need to understand that this is the way business works. That is why small companies aspire to become big -- to gain market position and be able to use it against competitors.

Everything goes in business. If there isn't a court order stopping you from doing something, you do it. If I'm an Intel shareholder, I would be pissed if Intel didn't do that. This is the big leagues; you do whatever it takes to win. All the successful companies share that same drive; Intel is no different.
 
Blakewry said: "I have been under the impression that if a large vendor such as Dell, HP, Compaq, Gateway for example sell anything other than Windows with their PCs (not counting servers) that they will lose the cushy deals they have with microsoft and would be force to pay more for each copy of windows they send out the door."

Mercutio said: "That's the claim that's been made by Be employees, Blake. It probably is true, but who could tell? The agreements are secret anyway."

Nope. It ain't a claim or a rumour or an allegaton. It is a matter of demonstrated fact. That exact crime (for yes, it is a crime under US law) was:
  • Proven by the prosecution in the big recent Microsoft vs DOJ case.
  • Not seriously opposed by Microsoft's lawyers, who (one assumes) figured that there was no way they were going to get off on that one, so they had better look elsewhere in the evidence to find a defence case.
  • Accepted by the judge in his written verdict.
  • Not contested by Microsoft in the appeal.
  • Not overturned by a higher court.
It is not a rumour. It is L A W law.

There was another case at around the same time, a civil case. Microsoft tried to have it thrown out numerous times, failed completely. On the day after the plantiff's lawyers, on the opening day of the trial, announced what written evidence they planned to bring, which witnesses they had lined up, and what they were going to attest to, Microsoft made a huge out of court settlement offer, which was accepted, unfortunately.
 
e_dawg said:
You guys need to understand that this is the way business works. That is why small companies aspire to become big -- to gain market position and be able to use it against competitors.

Everything goes in business. If there isn't a court order stopping you from doing something, you do it. If I'm an Intel shareholder, I would be pissed if Intel didn't do that. This is the big leagues; you do whatever it takes to win.
Click to expand...
That's the kind of piss poor mentality that makes the system stinks.
 
I never got the point of the interesting times curse.
Not because I fail to see the euphemism, but I can’t think of a single time or place where life wasn’t ’interesting‘ one way or another. Sure, Switzerland has had a few peaceful decades from epoch to epoch, But a whole lifetime? And do you really want to live in Switzerland? So if the curse boils down to “may you live in times pretty much like all other times”, how exactly is the cursed person worse off?
I’ve been thinking about e-dawgs point as to the nature of business.
I think its certainly true that almost every business will take any opportunity to increase its profits, regardless of the fairness of that action.
That doesn’t make it right and it definitely doesn’t mean I have to like it.
The question is; Are we in this together or not? If we are then the interests of one member or subsection of society cannot be allowed to prejudice the interests of the whole. If we hold that competition is beneficial, and further that choice is a good thing, Intel, or anyone else, shouldn’t be allowed to get away with this shit. That they would even wish to confirms their moral bankruptcy. That they can get away with it confirms the hypocrisy and ethical cowardice of those politicians/civil servants who have the responsibility to enforce, and if necessary rewrite the statutes dealing with anticompetitive practices.(can’t remember who that is in the US). That we put up with it confirms our lassitude with regard to our own best interests.
If were not in this together, if your ability to do something is the only criterion for judging your actions, could somebody please explain to me what exactly is the point of breathing?
 
fool said:
That they can get away with it confirms the hypocrisy and ethical cowardice of those politicians/civil servants who have the responsibility to enforce, and if necessary rewrite the statutes dealing with anticompetitive practices.(can’t remember who that is in the US).
Click to expand...
I think it is *([supposed to be])* the DOJ. I cannot really say that I'm in admiration for them either.
 
well if you don't like Intel strong arming, what about Via. I've heard thay do it as well.... that leaves SiS and Nvidia, and uh AMD.... gee.... Personally I don't think I'm going to buy a chipset based on the merits of its CEO.


On the cpu side you've got the winchip, the crusoe.. the athlon (havent heard of any AMD strong arming)... and I guess the powerPC.... and that about does it if you don't want to get into companies that have had a few claims against them.
 
fool said:
The question is; Are we in this together or not? If we are then the interests of one member or subsection of society cannot be allowed to prejudice the interests of the whole.
Click to expand...

I would say that we are not in this together. This isn't communist Russia; collectivism does not exist in 21st century America. Part of the premise of laissez-faire capitalism requires that government cannot control the competitive outcome of a market by undermining the success of a strong company.

If we hold that competition is beneficial, and further that choice is a good thing, Intel, or anyone else, shouldn?t be allowed to get away with this shit. ... That they can get away with it confirms the hypocrisy and ethical cowardice of those politicians/civil servants who have the responsibility to enforce, and if necessary rewrite the statutes dealing with anticompetitive practices.(can?t remember who that is in the US). That we put up with it confirms our lassitude with regard to our own best interests.
Click to expand...

Despite the conflict that occurs between completely laissez-faire capitalism and anti-competition laws, the DOJ is not exactly allowing Intel and others to get away with this due to "hypocrisy and ethical cowardice". It is difficult to prove the kind of allegations that you and the Inquirer are suggesting and to have it hold up in a court of law. Quite frankly, it's quite amusing how the Inquirer article has got everybody flying off the handle when it wouldn't even have the credibility of 'heresay' in court.

That they would even wish to confirms their moral bankruptcy.
Click to expand...

The directors and managers of Intel have an ethical and moral obligation to its employees and shareholders as well as to the employees and shareholders of its partners to compete to the best of its abilities. If they didn't, their competitors are handed an opportunity to take profits away from Intel. Then what happens? Intel's future profits are reduced. Analysts write about how they see AMD's fortunes improving and Intel's waning. Intel's market cap falls, and they now have to cut jobs. So now Intel's distribution manager in Brisbane has to explain to Jill his neighbour why he had to lay off her husband Joe right after they had their second child with mortgage and car payments hanging over their heads.

If were not in this together, if your ability to do something is the only criterion for judging your actions, could somebody please explain to me what exactly is the point of breathing?
Click to expand...

If everyone is in this together, then we would be living in Mother Russia under Lennin. Obviously, that system failed miserably. There is no way you can get everyone to look out for each other. Human nature simply doesn't allow for that. You have to use a system where you tap into the much more powerful motivator of personal wealth and success thereby creating enough wealth that some of it can eventually be redistributed to less fortunate individuals. Of course, this system is not perfect, but it has proven to be the best of all possible alternatives.

------

I'm sorry, fool, but your musings -- while thoughtful and well communicated -- are a little naieve and idealistic. The world does not and cannot possibly work the way you would like it to without severe tradeoffs. You can do something about this if you want -- don't buy anything from companies that have engaged in "immoral" business practices -- but I fear you would be living somewhat like a mennonite, churning your own butter without any electricity or consumer goods as luxuries.
 
e_dawg said:
I would say that we are not in this together. This isn't communist Russia; collectivism does not exist in 21st century America. Part of the premise of laissez-faire capitalism requires that government cannot control the competitive outcome of a market by undermining the success of a strong company.
Click to expand...

That, E-dawg, is flat wrong. Governments exist in order to defend their citizens - all their citizens. Governments have two primary tasks:

(a) To defend the nation against external aggression

(b) To protect the citizens of the nation from harm.

It has nothing to do with "undermining the success of a strong company". It has to do with (a) protecting all citizens from attempts to extort higher than market prices or other unconscionable and unfair practices, and (b) to maximise wealth by providing a free, fair, and competitive market.

Companies that compete to provide the best product at the best price have nothing to fear from the proper operation of government. Only companies that attempt to subvert the system need be concerned.
 
Tea,

I do agree that governments do need to protect their citizens, but "protecting citizens from harm" is a far cry from ensuring that they receive the best possible prices on luxury goods. That is the market's job.
Consumers don't have to buy a pricey product if they don't want to. It's not like CPU's are essential foodstuffs. They are luxury items that are price elastic. The price goes up, demand goes down. If you're talking about heating oil, dairy, and wheat, then yes, the government has a right to step in and regulate the market to make sure its citizens aren't starving or freezing to death.

Companies that compete to provide the best product at the best price have nothing to fear from the proper operation of government. Only companies that attempt to subvert the system need be concerned.
Click to expand...

Now that's funny. What type of non-profit organization are we talking about here ;) All profit-maximizing firms play the market power game against each other (and obviously, those with more market power take advantage of those with less market power). I don't know how you can cite the role of government as a clear-cut argument for government intervention when there are a hundred shades of grey here. In fact, market power plays are so prevalent in business that Havard Business professor Michael Porter spelled out such market dynamics years ago; any business student should be able to recite "Porter's Five Forces" to you.

-------------

... Well, you know what, Tea? We've been through this before with the debates over Microsoft. Looks like we're never going to agree on this one either. I'd rather call it a day, myself.
 
e_dawg,
I can't claim to be knowledgable about economics. If there is anything I'm woefully ignorant about it is money and it's forces. But...

It is my understanding that markets work on supply and demand. If a company is able to supply something at a cheaper price due to cheaper labor or say technological advances/investments then the other players must lower prices or risk only meeting the demand the lower price company can't meet, right.

If one company can lose sales based not on the demand it can meet or the price it can offer, but based on the influence of another company on the purchaser how is this the same as I described in my first para.

Where does this lead? Any company that gets a leg up on its competitors can drive it into the ground even if the dying company has a better product and is run better.
 
Doggy one, you are proposing a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between the role of governnment and the role of the market.

First, for the purposes of this discussion, I will stipulate that the right-wing model of a free-market, capitalist society with minimal government is the only "true" or "correct" one. (In reality, of course, that is a deeply questionable assumption, but let's assume that we agree on that. We can ponder alternative conceptions of the proper role of government at some other time. For now, let's just agree to take the extreme right-wing view that it is the duty of government to get out of people's lives as far as possible.)

In the view of the extreme right, and also in the view of many more moderate groups) the best, indeed the only efficient regulator of economic activity is the market. Only a free, competitive market (this view argues) can divide up the spoils of production fairly, and (more importantly in this context) maximise productive efficiency by ensuring that we have the best possible allocation of resources to different tasks. The laws of supply and demand (Adam Smith's "invisible hand"), acting invisibly, and without any conscious intent on the part of government, automatically reallocate resources to the tasks tha most need them. This is because the most demanded products increase in price until such time as producers reallocate productive resources away from non-demanded products and, before too long, equilibrium is restored.

Now the only thing the government must do to achieve this happy and efficient state is preserve the market. Everything else "just happens" as if by magic. (Sounds crazy, I know, but it really is true. The entire science of economics is based on this fact, on the "invisible hand", and while much of economics remains fuzzy and contested, this one great truth shines through and is unchallenged by evidence to the contrary.)

Obviously, a government has the duty to guard against acts of war from outside the country and civil insurrection. It is only marginally less obvious, but equally true, that it must prevent more subtle damage to the market, which we can define quite simply as anything which prevents the market functioning as a market.

One example of this is where non-market forces are used to influence market events. If I hold a gun to the head of passers-by and require then to buy my wares at any price I care to set, this is not a market transaction, and it is the duty of the government to put a stop to it.

A more difficult (but equally fundamental) example is the circumstance where a market participant uses non-market means to gain or maintain control over common (i.e., shared) resources. If, for example, I were to fence an area of sea off the coast of California and, without payment, permission, or negotiation, simply assert my sole right to a monopoly over the entire fish stocks in that area, simply because that is what I wanted to do, then it would be the duty of the government to put a stop to it. Similarly, if I were to do the same thing by means of bribery or subversion (as Standard Oil did with United States oil reserves), the government must take action.

A third and rather similar circumstance is the situation where, by whatever means, I manage to establish an externality - a situation where I do not pay a fair market price for the thing I consume. The classic example of this is the situation where a mining company (perfectly legitimately) extracts (say) copper from a hillside. So far, so good. For the purposes of the example we will assume that the mining company is paying a fair and reasonable (i.e., a market) rate for the right to extract that copper. But in the course of smelting the ore, the company discharges massive amounts of toxic waste into the river, destroying the livelihood of the fishing village downstream. This is "externality" - the company has managed to externalise the cost of their toxic waste: i.e., make someone else pay for it. Again, it is the duty of the government to prevent this.

These three duties of government to preserve the market against particular threats, however, pale into insignificance compared the most important threat of all: not the threat of non-market interference with the market or of externalities to it, but the threat to the market itself.

This one is really, really easy to understand. Even bankers (and apes) can get their minds around this one: a market consists of many buyers and many sellers.
If you do not have many buyers and many sellers, you do not have a market, and from here on in the only thing you can do is turn away from the science of economics (for without a market, normal economics does not exist) and invoke the ghost of Joe Stalin.
 
Howell,

I see two recent examples of behaviors that don't meet your expections of how competition works to improve the product and/or the price.

The first is where the cheaper price comes from a subsidy that others don't get. An example wouold be The Japanese steel industy getting a Govt. subsidy and then exporting their product at a cheaper price than others can manufacture it. The Jap. industry is making a profit and running the local industry to banruptcy; After that happens, the Jap. can set the price because of the monopoly it now has and make far more money than they lost.

Another example would be where a company (as an example lets say Microsoft) has enough cash to make a product (let say the X-box) and sell it below the cost (The last time I heard every X-box sold loses MS. over $100) so that they can out-compete the other players in the market untill they go out of business(MS has enough $$$ that it can out wait their competitors) and MS has formed a monopoly that can set the price to more than make-up any monies previously lost.

Note in the above examples, the product does not have to be better or there exists any efficiency that actually improves the market. Rather just the reverse - The market is harmed. In the end the Govt needs to step in to protect the market or there will be no market.

In cases like this, the Govt often steps in and protects the market.
 
From the Inquirer: Intel: "has caught a group of 17 artists in American town jeopardising its intellectual property by using the word "inside". A report in the Boston Globe said that Intel has asked the artists' cooperative in Shelburne Falls, in Massachusetts, to stop using the phrase Art Inside as a name for its activities."

No further comment required
 
Tea said:
From the Inquirer: Intel: "has caught a group of 17 artists in American town jeopardising its intellectual property by using the word "inside". A report in the Boston Globe said that Intel has asked the artists' cooperative in Shelburne Falls, in Massachusetts, to stop using the phrase Art Inside as a name for its activities."

No further comment required
Click to expand...

Those freakin artists. What atrocities will they undertake next?
 
We had a very clear example of very questionable tactics here in Québec. It happened a few years ago.

In the oil market here, there are two kinds of distributors. There's those affiliated with an oil company (Shell) and the independents.

Back then, the price of gas was about 60 cents/l. Then one day (without warning), the distributors affiliated with big oil companies all dropped their prices to about 35 cents (if I remember). Of course, the independents had to follow, or they lose their business.

However, big oil companies were supplying their distributors with cheap oil so that the distributors would not have to absorb the deficits. Independents, however, still paid full price for the oil and had to absorb the deficits.

This went on for weeks. While motorists were very happy, independent distributors were going out of business. You see, this tactic of lowering prices in an "investment" by big oil companies (they lost money too) to eliminate independents from the market. Plus, all big oil companies worked together to achieve this.

A few weeks later, oil prices returned to normal.

Many independents went out of business. People lost their job. The big oil companies have more clients (more profits) and less competition (more profits). Plus, the market is less competitive than before.

Letting the "free" market uncontrolled is a definite way to make become a controlled market. In other words, instead of Stalin controlling prices, big companies would do it instead.
 
Ahh, thankyou, ZX. You have provided a perfect example to illustrate the point with which I was bludgeoning the Doggy One about the head a little while ago.

Now there are two things you could do about that problem.

(a) Launch a prosecution for illegal trade practices against the oil companies. This will work very nicely, as it will show that you have your heart in the right place, get you lots of votes, provide a small boom in the local legal industry (thus creating some employment), and not really threaten the nice, pubic-spirited donations that the oil companies make to your political party, as they know perfectly well that the thing will drag on through hearings and depositions and rehearings and appeals for as long as it takes for the TV news guys to get bored with it, and then quietly dissapear. You get to walk around looking stern and businesslike, they get to wave their arms around and make speeches about the benefits of hard work, innovation, and free enterprise, the consumer gets to pay another 10 cents a gallon, and the scumbag small businessmen get it in the neck. So, when look at it all at the end of the day, everybody's happy. Everybody that matters, anyway.

(b) Reflect on your past mistakes. If you have a single company (or an associated group of companies acting as a cartel) that can even afford to contemplate this sort of anti-market action, then it is obvious that you have already failed in your prime duty - that of maintaining a healthy, competitive market. And a "market", let us remember, is a thing that, above all else, has many buyers and many sellers.

That is what a market is.
 
What the government actually do is impose a minimum price for oil. This prevents big oil companies to sell a ridiculously low prices. This minimum price depends on the price of a barrel on the world market. I think it’s a very good move.
 
Damn, I need to think quicker. I read e-dawgs post, started to consider a response, and the next thing I know half the arguments I was going to use are already posted by the antipodean orang utang.
however,
”e-dawg” said:
Of course, this system is not perfect, but it has proven to be the best of all possible alternatives.
Click to expand...
Proven? When, to what standard and by whom?
And by possible do you mean conceivable or practicable?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top