## Wednesday, May 13, 2009

### EU Commission steals 1 billion euros from Intel

A hardcore anti-capitalist mafia in the European Commission, led by Ms Neelie Kroes, has decided to steal 1.45 billion U.S. dollars from Intel Corporation:
Because Intel's net income in 2008 was 5 billion dollars and Europe amounts to 30% of Intel's market, you could say that the fine approximately destroys one full year of the European profits of the company. Unfortunately, it seems sensible to imagine that such an anti-market intervention may occur every year.

The previous record EU fine crime - almost one billion dollars against Microsoft - was committed approximately one year ago. Radek Hulán, a top Czech IT expert and blogger, has pointed out that the European Union had standardized the vagina on that day. On behalf of the consumers, Kroes had also invented Windows N, a randomly castrated edition of Windows. No one is buying this crap but no one seems to care that everything that Kroes has ever presented to be in the interests of the consumers was bullshit.

Bitches like Ms Kroes justify their monstrous theft by saying that Intel has hurt the consumers by selling cheap microprocessors to the computer makers. Wow! What a logic. This is just so breathtakingly stupid that I don't believe that any person with IQ above 90 could buy such a thing.

Making products cheaper is always good for the buyers (and it always increases the risk of a loss for the seller). The computer makers benefit and they can make their own products cheaper, too. The final consumers also benefit. If Intel offers the rebate as a part of a loyalty program, it's simply a part of the package. Such a loyalty is good for the producer and it is often good for the consumers, too.

Long-term contracts surely add some stability to the market which can be good or bad. In advance, we don't know how much stability there should be - and how quickly technologies and approaches will evolve - so different companies have the right and must have the right to answer the question differently - and bet their profits. Also, innovations sometimes come from new companies but they often come from old companies. It is completely wrong for the government to help one of these groups. If being new is the only thing that a new company can offer, it simply shouldn't survive.

Companies in other industries - e.g. cell-phone providers - have their loyalty programs, too. Just look at the number of different marketing approaches to the question whether the calls to a cell phone served by the same provider should be cheaper. Partners and consumers can always choose between one package and the competitors' offers. These different marketing strategies are a crucial part of the capitalist economy. If most of them have chosen the Intel package, it simply means that Intel has been a better company.

In the same way, Intel has the unquestionable right to pay its partners (by the discounts) to release Intel-inside products faster than the AMD-inside products. As long as we are talking about the market economy, such things simply can be bought for money. The computer makers must still obey their contracts with AMD as well as Intel. On the other hand, they are still free to decide whether they will sign a new contract with one company or another.

Communist bastards in the EU Commission don't like the idea that the managers - and people in general - are free to choose their strategy. They would prefer to control everything by themselves. I can imagine that I would tolerate someone's communist delusions about the "unjust capitalism". Many people are idiots and communists and they have the right to be idiots and communists. But these stories are no longer about delusions: they are about acts.

Even if you hypothetically imagined that there was something illegal about the standard Intel approaches, how does it happen that the European Commission would pocket the money? How will the consumers benefit if Intel is not allowed (and won't have funds) to offer rebates? How will e.g. the European visual center benefit if Intel starts to think that the profits from their hard work may be stolen again - so it makes no financial sense to invent new ideas, projects, and solutions? How can anyone possibly justify billions of euros going to carmakers in the form of scrappage while the #1 microprocessor company is being robbed? Can the deformation of the markets get more flagrant than that? Will the PC market recovery continue?

The old-fashioned U.S-style capitalism was able to invent and realize the x86 architecture: recall that Intel 8086 was introduced by Intel in 1978: we may say that Intel even has the moral right to exclusively use the architecture. The Soviet Union couldn't quite compete but its engineers were able to reverse engineer the chip (and use industrial espionage) and produce K1810BM86 which was pin-compatible even though the internal architecture differed. (The Moscow University also developed their own digital clock haha.) On the other hand, the European Soviet can only steal, using the same communist propaganda.

I am worried about the rule of law in Europe.

Is there a mechanism that can prevent such self-serving self-elected bitches from stealing billions of dollars from randomly chosen successful companies (or individuals?) on the European territory? If it turns out that the mechanisms no longer work, it would be the time to say that I don't particularly support assassinations but in the case of Ms Kroes, I would have a full understanding for such a decision of the chipmaker - that could hopefully discourage similar outrageous decisions in the future - because her arrogance has surpassed the Stalinist dimensions and the fine brutally exceeds the price of life of Ms Kroes and many of her comrades. Not even Stalin has ever fined a company such an amount of money.

Meanwhile, Intel Corporation is not getting discouraged from the real work and they have a great new project to power cell phones and similar gadgets. Also, the stock price is unaffected, a fact that I consider irrational because the stockholders will see an impact of the decision in the near future if the appeal to the Luxembourg court doesn't work.