Infineon To Pay $160 Million For Fixing RAM Prices

Jerrod K writes "Infineon Technologies pleaded guilty to charges of price fixing in an international conspiracy. The Justice Department said this is the third largest antitrust settlement ever. Other memory chip makers involved include Hynix, Samsung, and Micron Technology." Reader phalse phace adds a link to CNET's coverage.

FINALLY!

[Silverlancer]

For the past 2-3 years, RAM prices haven't dropped--they've gone up. The RAM that I bought with my current computer costs MORE now than it did when I bought it a year ago, and not only that--its crap quality too! Its supposedly PC3700, but won't hit PC3700 speeds on stock timings even with extra voltage!

This is one of the few great examples where we get to love the American legal system ;)

Infineon Financial Stuff / Payments

[webword]

Interestingly, there is a press release [infineon.com] on this topic on the Infineon web site. Please note a discrepancy between what the Register says and what their press release says...

Register: "Infineon has agreed to pay a $160m fine to the US government for fixing the price of computer memory from 1999 to 2002, one of the biggest ever penalties imposed by the DoJ's Antitrust division."

Infineon: "The wrongdoing charged by the DoJ was limited to certain OEM customers. Infineon is already been in contact with these customers and has achieved or is in the process of achieving settlements with all of these OEM customers."

So, is the government getting the money or the OEMs. Note that either way, the trickle down to regular folks (i.e., you!) will take a long time.

p.s. I love this quote from the Infineon press release: "Infineon strongly condemns any attempt to fix or stabilize prices. Infineon is committed to vigorous and fair competition based solely on superior products and services."

Infineon 0, U.S. Department of Justice 1.

Re:Correct the %^&$# summary!

[nuclear305]

If you were to actually pay closer attention to TFA, You'd have noticed the related articles linked at the bottom. More specifically this [theregister.co.uk]

"The case centres on allegations that between the end of 2001 and mid-2002, Samsung, Hynix, Micron, Infineon and others covertly agreed to up prices. The alleged jump in prices followed a two-year slump in demand that drove most memory production lines into operating at a loss."

They may not have been named in the settlement, but they certainly have been named at one point or another.

Re:FINALLY!

[tukkayoot]

I doubt you'll see any change, as the article mentions that the price fixing was limited to certain OEMs between 1999 to 2002.

Re:Correct the %^&$# summary!

[antifoidulus]

Um, not only did you not RTFA, but you don't seem to realize what the term, "price fixing" means. In a non-monopoly environment(like memory), if one company raises it's prices, it's not price fixing, it's capatilism. If the market doesn't like the higher memory prices, then nobody buys their stuff and either the prices drop or they do.
In this case though, it was a bunch of memory manufacturers who make up a very large chunk of the market colluding to keep prices high. This is kind of like a "Monopoly Voltron"->together they combine forces to become a virtual monopoly, even though they are seperate parts.

Re:Now thats fair.

[Daniel]

My dictionary (written circa 1911) says:

CORPORATION, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.

Does that answer the question?

Daniel

Re:The $160 million dollar tax question...

[Martin Blank]

It's a fine, not a settlement. They're expected to cut a check for the amount to the government, not reimburse consumers.

This is good for rambus..

[MasterDater]

Too bad they've already been pushed out of the PC ram business. Hey, shit happens, right?

Re:Sweet.

[mobby_6kl]

I'm not sure if they currently do this, but they (and the CPU guys) do something similar for speed: if this module can't do stable 533, rate it at 400, if it can't do 400, rate it at 333 but just sell it.

Re:OPEC?

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference, my child, is that OPEC is an international entity with no "place of business" in the United States. As such, they have no need to obey U.S. Anti-trust laws in exactly the way the average U.S. citizen has no need of obeying the laws of the United Arab Emirates.

--AC

Re:No, That's Impossible

[corngrower]

Micron Technology was mentioned. It is an American company based in Boise, Idaho.

Re:Big cartel, this one? Pffft.

[Cecil]

Because they're a group of countries, not a business, and countries aren't subject to any sort of anti-trust law. They're free to do whatever they want with the their own resources, including gouging other countries. It's one of the wonderful rights you get by being a soverign country.

I realize that globalization is busy blurring the line between the two sets of entities, but at the moment businesses don't have militaries.

That's the real difference.

Circuit complexity.

[uberdave]

It's not so much the die size, but the circuit complexity. A memory chip is basically the same circuit duplicated several million times. A CPU has registers, ALUs, pipelines, control circuitry, and who knows what else. Memory chips are cheaper to design, and sell in greater quantities.

Re:Sweet.

[captaincucumber]

They're not any smaller. Also, it's not just a transistor per bit, it's a transistor and a capacitor.

Re:Big cartel, this one? Pffft.

[cr0sh]

However, that day is probably coming.

Actually, that day has already been there, done that - look into the East India Company [ucla.edu], circa 17th century. Basically a large "multinational" corporation with its own Navy and Army. More or less ruled India in the day, and controlled major trading routes (shipping). Its rule lasted for 200 years, until the British finally stepped up to the plate and dissolved the company.

History - learn it or repeat it. It happenned then, it could easily happen today (some might say it *is* happenning). Also, witness the rise of corporate military training and weapons systems suppliers, along with corporate mercenary squads (DeBeers, anyone?)...

Re:Conflict of Interest

[jale37]

The fines all go into a fund that goes to all victim's of crime. Contrary to popular belief, the DOJ does not collect any of the funds. Under the Victim's of Crime Act of 1984, here's where the money goes:

• Crisis intervention.
• Emergency shelter.
• Emergency transportation.
• Counseling.
• Criminal justice advocacy.

Victim's of Crime Act of 1984
Title 42 USC Section 10601 establishes the Crime Victim's Fund

"There shall be deposited in the fund ALL fines collected from the person's convicted of offenses against the state"

This applies to cases that are settled as well. As you can see, we all benefit indirectly.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/publications/factshts /vocacvf/fs_vocacvf.html [usdoj.gov]

Re:Circuit complexity.

[mkldev]

Not only cheaper to design, but much cheaper to fab. The technology for CPUs is currently at 90nm. RAM, by contrast, is moving from a 130nm to 110nm process this year, and there are talks of plans to move to 90nm next year. That means that by the time the DRAM vendors switch to a smaller process, the industry as a whole typically has had a whole year to work out the kinks for them.

Re:Sweet.

[mkldev]

I've used a lot of generic RAM in Macs---a bunch of 61/71/8100 machines, a 7600, a beige G3, a Pismo, a white iBook, a G4/450, and a DP G5 2GHz. In all that time, I've only had one single failure and that was because the chip turned out to be non-compliant with the JEDEC specifications. (It was at a higher density than the specification allowed. It didn't work in my Athlon machine, either, yet the vendor tested it and claimed that it worked.)

That's not saying that your mileage won't vary, but generally if a RAM vendor says "check compatibility", it's non-compliant garbage and should not be put into any machine at any cost. Anything else should generally work in just about any hardware you might use.

Just MHO.

Re:Now thats fair.

[DAldredge]

Yes, the devils dictionary, I love it.

http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict3&Database=d evils [dict.org]

Re:Definitions

[Hockney Twang]

Collusion: You and everyone else agree to charge the same price, eliminating that pesky "competition."

Dumping: You sell at a loss, driving competitors who cannot afford that kind of loss out of business, then you jack up your price and recoup when you're the only shop in town.

Price fixing: See collusion, except that everyone has agreed to keep raising their price.

And it's not like these corporations are "starving artists" or anything. They're making big bucks in this horribly hostile market, where antitrust laws obviously make it impossible to do business. Right?