Archive for the ‘fine’ tag
European Commission Imposes €1.06 billion Fine on Intel
The European Commission (EC) today imposed a €1.06 billion fine on the Intel Corporation for “abuse of a dominant market position . . . by engaging in illegal anticompetitive practices to exclue competitors from the market for computer chips called x86 central processing units.” The Commission futher ordered Intel “to cease the anticompetitive practices to the extent that they are still ongoing.”
According to the Commission, Intel engaged in a practice of providing substantial rebates to PC manufacturers who either used exclusively or predominantly Intel processors. The rebates themselves were not the basis for the fine, but “the conditions Intel attached to those rebates.”
The Commission also found that Intel made direct payments to manufacturers to delay the launch of products containing processors from rival AMD. This “pay-for-delay” scheme, the Commission finds, was directly aimed at preventing AMD from selling its product on the open market and thus violative of EU Law.
Microsoft Fine Upheld
The Court of First Instance (CFI) upheld the 2004 fine imposed by the European Commission today for an “abusing a dominant position” (Article 82 TEC). The Court upheld the previous decision holding that, once a dominant position is established, “the refusal by the holder of a dominant position to grant a licence may infringe Article 82 EC unless the refusal is objectively justified.” (Case T-201/04, para. 333). Microsoft will have to pay its € 497 million fine.
Slow Down, Virginia Drivers
According to today’s Washington Post, Virginia is planning on imposing a series of “civil remedial fees” on drivers who violate the commonwealth’s driving laws. The new fines, applicable only to Virginia residents, will be imposed beginning July 1.
About time.
Many of the driving laws on the books today, such as laws prohibiting speeding, are simply not effective because the penalties for violating the law are too low. Under the new Virginia system (New Jersey has a similar system, according to the Washington Post), the incentive not to violate the law will change dramatically. With potential costs for breaking the law increasing by several hundred percent, drivers would be wise to reconsider their driving habits.
As the Washington Post notes, the law will have a greater impact on poor drivers than on rich ones, since poor drivers will be less able to absorb the cost of the new fines. However, this argument is somewhat bankrupt, since it does not address the purpose of having the law: to punish inappropriate behavior. There will always be inequity; the law must find some way to deal with this. In this particular case, drivers are all equally capable of controlling their own driving behavior; since there is no logical connection between driving behavior and income, there is no reason to set fines to a level that accommodates the low-income driver at the cost of the law’s dissuasive effect.
Worst case scenario, the law will not make any differences in individual behavior. If this is the case, then there is no problem. Instead of having to increase taxes to pay for road maintenance or construction, the fines will pad the budget. Of course, budget increases have a negative side as well: they cause legislators (particularly ones trying to buy votes) to rely on a “projected” fee income and either cut taxes (unwise) or increase spending in unrelated areas (against the purpose of the fee). I have no doubt that the commonwealth of Virginia will see a substantial increase in revenue from these new fees; I just hope that they are not squandered.
