The European Commission has re-imposed a fine of around €376.36 million on Intel for a previously established abuse of dominant position in the market for computer chips called x86 central processing units ('CPUs'). Intel engaged in a series of anticompetitive practices aimed at excluding competitor...

The European Commission has re-imposed a fine of around €376.36 million on Intel for a previously established abuse of dominant position in the market for computer chips called x86 central processing units (‘CPUs’). Intel engaged in a series of anticompetitive practices aimed at excluding competitors from the relevant market in breach of EU antitrust rules.

With today’s decision, we are re-imposing a €376.36 million fine on Intel for having abused its dominant position in the computer chips market. Intel paid its customers to limit, delay or cancel the sale of products containing computer chips of its main rival. This is illegal under our competition rules. Our decision shows the Commission’s commitment to ensure that very serious antitrust breaches do not go unsanctioned. - Commissioner Didier Reynders, in charge of competition policy

  • sadreality@kbin.social
    30·
    9 months ago

    So EU charges them 400m but then turn around give them 10 billion to build a plant in Germany

    Setting up proper incentives ;)

    • jay9@lemmy.worldEnglish
      42·
      9 months ago

      This seems pretty reasonable to me - just because someone gets a parking ticket doesn’t mean they should get their government benefits cut off

      • sadreality@kbin.social
        3·
        9 months ago

        I guess once you accept that legal entities are people subject to preferential treatment by the state, this logic checks out.

        Money for buy backs of shares does not come from no where, taxpayers got to pitch in.

      • BloodSlut@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        9 months ago

        Yes, but fines for financial crimes should be greater than, or at the very least, equal to the money gained from said crimes.

  • AlmightySnoo 🐢🇮🇱🇺🇦@lemmy.worldEnglish
    714·
    9 months ago

    They do that because that’s the only way they can survive against AMD given how much behind Intel is in terms of CPU and GPU tech.

    I have a really slim laptop featuring an AMD APU (Ryzen 7 7735U with Radeon 680M) and nearly 8 hours of battery life (browsing and office stuff), and which I can use to game (mid settings in games like Genshin Impact, on a Wayland desktop thanks to high quality open-source Linux drivers) and do GPGPU programming exactly as if I was writing CUDA thanks to their open-source HIP SDK (again, on a slim as fuck laptop with just an APU, AMD is surprisingly catching up very quickly in the GPGPU programming space this year, a few months ago I wasn’t able to get HIP code to run).

    Neither Intel nor NVIDIA offer anything similar right now (Intel’s OneAPI DPC++ doesn’t count as “exactly as if I was writing CUDA”).

    • Ottomateeverything@lemmy.worldEnglish
      155·
      9 months ago

      They do that because that’s the only way they can survive against AMD given how much behind Intel is in terms of CPU and GPU tech.

      This is just blatantly false and disengenious.

      Sure, Intels GPU tech is pathetic. But it’s also not their business. Their only reasonable market use case is making a serviceable on board gpu for people who aren’t going to buy a real GPU. AMD makes actual fucking graphics cards. Of course their GPU tech is ahead.

      But Intel CPU tech is not blatantly behind AMD. Sure, there have been points where AMD has leapt ahead. But the same could be said for Intel. Sure there are advantages to some techs on the AMD side, but the same could be said for Intel. They’re in competition and neither is wholy ahead of the other.

      Yeah, you go on to pinpoint one specific use case that you have, which is very specific, and something less than 1% of 1% of 1% of their customers care about. Same could be said the other way.