03.11.09
Gemini version available ♊︎Korea Offers a Glimpse Into Intel’s Serious Crimes
Summary: Criminal activity (or practices bordering the criminal) inside Intel are finally detailed by regulators from Korea
ON MANY OCCASIONS before we’ve shown how Intel became Microsoft’s partner in crime, an accomplice [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. Unlike Microsoft, Intel gets a break too often, but it should not be passed over. At the bottom we append many previous posts rather than repeat lists of offences with accompanying evidence.
Intel’s collusion with Microsoft is a very serious crime that harms not only GNU/Linux but also consumers in general and the latest news finding is this ruling from Korea.
Samsung was one of the firms named in the suit as having been bullied into choosing Intel CPUs over AMD’s back in 2002. Apparently, Intel “continuously requested” Samsung stop buying from its competitors, and when the word “please” didn’t work, Intel decided to get abusive, significantly reducing its volume of rebates to the electronics giant in the first and second quarter of 2002. Chipzilla then asked again. With a little ‘aggressive’ tone on the “please” no doubt.
Come May 2002, Intel purportedly realised it needed to take things to another level, implementing a “long term support plan” offering sweeteners like maximum-level rebates on the condition, of course, Samsung spent its cash buying blue.
The AAI document reckons Intel put an $800 million rebate proposal on the table in exchange for Samsung dumping AMD CPUs. No prizes for guessing whether or not Samsung took the bait. After all, it would be bad business not to, right? To hell with the moral high-ground.
Here is a semi-formal translation of this decision.
The Korea Fair Trade Commission issued a decision late in 2008 finding Intel liable for abuse of dominance in the microchip market. This 131-page document has not been available in English. This translation by AAI Research Fellow Byung-Geon Lee presents the highlights.
In closing, to endorse Intel is to endorse crime. And this is far from promoting freedom, let alone fair competition.
Freedom aside, Intel does not even obey the law and it still gets prosecuted for this in several continents (independently). █
Related posts:
- Microsoft on Intel’s Anti-Linux: “Please Keep Confidential. This is a Nightmare”
- Microsoft Accused of Profiteering ($1.5 Billion) from Crime with Intel
- A Gradual Fall of W|Intel… Thanks to OLPC?
- A Federal Court Judge Might Force Microsoft to Pay Up Money It Hardly Has
- Microsoft Accused of Profiteering ($1.5 Billion) from Crime with Intel
- William Poole of NComputing (Formerly Microsoft) Blamed in the Big Collusion
- Might Steve Ballmer be Deposed for Collusion After All?
- The Return of Vista Collusions: Will Ballmer be Deposed Soon?
- Eye on Microsoft: Intel Collaborations, Dumping, and Search Redux
- The Collusion/Collaboration Club Strikes Again
- SpikeSource is Not Open Source
- It’s Not Innovation, It’s Collusion
- Do Intel and Microsoft Use SpikeSource to Fight GNU/Linux?
- What We Can Learn About Novell from Intel-Microsoft-Dell-Hewlett-Packard Collusions
“Behind every great fortune there is a crime.”
–Honor de Balzac
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA
Yuhong Bao said,
May 6, 2009 at 1:46 am
BTW, the “Criminal Inside” logo you use to describe Intel reminds me of the similar “Evil Inside” logo used for the same purpose.
Kabatology said,
May 14, 2009 at 9:05 am
I certainly missed this one – its good to know the EU has nothing personal with the Evil-Duet (Microsoft – Intel -?) and that Korea preceded the EU – - No excuses!!!
Roy Schestowitz Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 9:07 am
There are several cases prior to these two. Intel never ceased its illegal practices.