This is a case from 2007 that got caught up in appeal after appeal. That they've lost ground since does mean they don't deserve fines they've been delaying for ~15 years.
Eh? Intel stock is basically flat in that time. It was ~28 around this time in 2007 (IIRC, was my hire date), and its now 32.
Intel stock is a lot of things, but 'up 80%' hasn't been something true since the early 2000s.
ETA: That was 16 years ago I was thinking of, I forgot about the nasty dip in 2008. I misremembered, it was ~26 when I was hired, dipped to 18 the next year, and slowly climbed a while and has been around that $30/share number for ages.
The initial claim included "below cost", intel argues it didn't sell units below cost. Likely they swamped the investigation team with spreadsheets of all processes and such included in those costs and then I can see it being hard to make progress since you need to go through it to determine if they sold below cost or not.
But the important part is that Intel stopped doing those things after the investigation started so that AMD could compete. If they didn't it would be very easy to prove that they are anti competitive. So even though the fines are late the effects have already been here for a long time with AMD doing well today.
Does below cost only apply for selling certain types of 1-off physical goods?
A lot of online apps tend to operate at a loss to gain a large audience and then once they've gained market share they often increase fees or more generally make it more expensive for users. Their business model forces smaller competitors out because a larger funded company can in theory hold out for a longer period of time at a loss.
It's surprising this is ok but selling a piece of hardware at a loss is not ok. What about Costco selling rotisserie chickens at a loss to get people in the store or the idea of a "loss leader"?
Not sure, but I think arguments like is why this lawsuit took so much time. For simpler goods and smaller scale "below cost" to hurt competition is very easy to prove, but when Intel did that for the entirety of Europe and their massive process it was apparently easy for Intel to hide what they did.
> What about Costco selling rotisserie chickens at a loss to get people in the store or the idea of a "loss leader"?
Isn't the usual argument that they got surplus stock in some way? Then it isn't below cost, it is loss minimization from a bad investment, and it doesn't hurt competition for chicken since it is a limited amount of time.
> Also, it isn't limited amount of time. This has been Costco's MO for decades.
Have they sold chicken at below cost for decades with no stop? Really? I think you mean they have sold small portions of their wares at below cost, not that they have sold a specific thing at below cost for extended amounts of time.
> Whether you have 100 chickens or 100 million, if they cost you $6 and you sell them for $5, that's below cost.
Yeah, but the store as a whole isn't selling at below cost, and on average since those chickens aren't sold at below cost all the time they still make money from chickens. Those things means that on average the store is net positive, and them selling chickens is a net positive. Hence overall they don't sell anything at a net loss, its just for short periods of time they do it and those can be hand waved away. There are a lot of laws surrounding limited time offers that they have to follow.
