Infineon To Pay $160 Million For Fixing RAM Prices 356
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.
Sweet. (Score:5, Interesting)
I mean, seriously. The prices were ludicrous for high-end manufacturers, and the low-end can sometimes die, and you have no recourse.
Huzzah!
Re:Sweet. (Score:5, Interesting)
A lot more engineering goes into a CPU, but the price of memory compared to a CPU isn't really that surprising.
A lot of the microcontrollers I work with are basically a tiny sliver of processor on the edge of a large field of memory.
Jason
ProfQuotes [profquotes.com]
Re:Sweet. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Sweet. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure (but not certain) that a memory fab plant costs more to produce than a CPU plant, but the memory plant will produce far more chips over its lifetime.
Jason
ProfQuotes [profquotes.com]
Circuit complexity. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Circuit complexity. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sweet. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yields would go up, prices would go down.
I can't be the only person to have thought of this; why isn't it done?
-Z
Re:Sweet. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sweet. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Sweet. (Score:3, Insightful)
I've only found one manufacturer to never sell me an underclocked chip: Kensington. Of course, I suspect they sell their underclocked chips to other vendors as an OEM, but I can still trust the Kingston label. Others may be as good, but I haven't tried 'em all and Kingst
Re:Sweet. (Score:3, Informative)
That's not saying that your mileage won't vary, but generally
The old sinclair spectrum (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Sweet. (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, I can't speak to the cost-intensive part of your assertion, since I am not privy to some details about the economics of chip production. But intricate? Not hardly. DRAM and SRAM chips are laid out mostly in a grid, with very little real-estate set aside for control logic. The only complexity is the control logic; the rest of the chip is just a matrix of transistors (and, in the case of DRAM, one capacitor per transistor to actually store the bit).
RAM chips are pretty easy to design and lay out because of the inherent regularity in their structure.
Re:Sweet. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Sweet. (Score:3, Interesting)
To bolster my point, let's look at the definition [reference.com] of the word intricate: "1. Having many complexly arranged elements; elaborate. 2. Solvable or comprehensible only with painstaking effort. Complex."
The physical structure does not satisfy the definition of "intricate." The complexity o
The $160 million dollar tax question... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The $160 million dollar tax question... (Score:3, Interesting)
Since sending out a cheque to every buyer affected would be next to impossible, they should have to sell their chips below (or at) cost until the fine is made up. That way, those who were harmed would have a chance to recoup some loss.
Re:The $160 million dollar tax question... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The $160 million dollar tax question... (Score:3, Funny)
Of course they don't. 640k should be enough for anybody.
Re:The $160 million dollar tax question... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The $160 million dollar tax question... (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you realize how messed up our anti-trust system is? So, Infineon engaged in price-fixing, and gouged the consumers for more money. Now, the government says "pay up", and Infineon just has to raise prices in order to cover this $160 million loss. In both cases the consumer got shafted. Once by the company, and the second time by the government. These settlements should go directl
Re:The $160 million dollar tax question... (Score:3, Insightful)
Odd Concept (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Odd Concept (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Odd Concept (Score:3, Funny)
Fine line between "dumping" and fixing (Score:4, Insightful)
If you sell at too low a prices then you're "dumping" and that's illegal too.
One law is there to protect the consumer and the other is there to protect other suppliers.
Unless companies can sustainably make profit from their silicon sales we're doomed to boom and bust cycles where we oscillate between RAM surpluses and RAM shortages. In the long run, we all lose if these companies cant stabilise and make reasonable profits.
Re:Fine line between "dumping" and fixing (Score:5, Insightful)
Fixing: I get together with my competitors and we all agree to sell products at a certain price. Since we're no longer competing against each other, we can negate the downward pressure on prices (and thus profits) that usually results from a competitive market.
Dumping: If I happen to have a bunch of money, instead of cooperating with my competitors, I try to kill them off. I price my products below the cost to make them, ensuring that nobody can run a sustainable business in the market. Since I have a bunch of money, I can last longer than my competitors. Once they die off or move on, I have a monopoly and can jack up prices far above what a competitive market would support.
We all lose if these companies can't stabilize, but we all win if the companies that can't manage their freaking inventory die off and make room for companies that actually read their history and learn from it. Collusion won't end the boom/bust cycle. It'll just ensure that the consumer gets screwed on prices regardless of whether there's a shortage or a surplus.
Re:Problem is production methods... (Score:3, Interesting)
And just how do I benefit? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not like I expect them to send me a check in the mail. And if they did, it would cost me more in time and effort to collect it than it's value.
The lawyers should have to be paid just like everyone else that sees any part of this settlement.
Re:And just how do I benefit? (Score:5, Funny)
Each lawyer gets a new yacht, and we get a check for $4 in the mail.
Re:And just how do I benefit? (Score:5, Funny)
I must be missing the joke. Why is it bad I get a yacht?
Re:And just how do I benefit? (Score:3, Insightful)
that's the whole point of those fines, you make the RISK of running such price fixing schemes too high that they don't want to take it.
like the fairly recent cartel busts in metal and paper industries(northern+mid europe)... you don't directly get anything but by punishing with hefty fines (also in the 100m+ range)they send a message that "don't fucking do this".
Re:And just how do I benefit? (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, these wonderful lawyers who are doing this for the little people like you and me. The fact that they're making millions of dollars is inconsequential to them.
I mean, look at the music industry! They've definitely changed their ways now that 20 different lawyer firms have made millions off of them and we've all gotten $2.85 checks in the mail.
Re:And just how do I benefit? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, yes. Imagine that, a lawyer can right a social wrong AND get paid well at the same time. Sounds like a noble profession.
Disclaimer: IANAL
BTM
Re:And just how do I benefit? (Score:2)
You realize who ends up paying these lawyers, right?
Here's a hint: It's not the companies. It's not the insurance companies. It's not the government.
Here's the answer: It's the consumers (that's you and me).
Now thats fair. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do large corps get away with crap like this, hell the goverment doesn't even go after those whitecollar criminals that skip bail...
But, normal crimes they come down hard on.
Re:Now thats fair. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Now thats fair. (Score:5, Interesting)
A perfect example is MCI/Worldcom. After imploding under massive amounts of fraud, screwing tons of people out of investments, employment, 401ks, etc, the company gets to "re-organize," pay a fine, then get government contracts. I bet if I'm punished for fraud, I would be shunned for life in any type of business setting.
This corporate crime problem will continue as long as it can be solved by fines, admitting no wrongdoing, and the limited minor punishments for those involved. I imagine if we held these people personally liable for all damage, put the company under 5-10 years probation, and made sure large jail sentances were required, we'd see a lot less of this trickery.
Then again, we don't want to hurt the innocent employess, and we don't want excessive government regulation.
Re:Now thats fair. (Score:3, Interesting)
Your pick:
1. One huge count of stealing millions as if it were from a federal bank.
2. Hundreds of thousands of smaller counts of stealing from the individuals and companies who paid higher prices for their RAM.
Th
Re:Now thats fair. (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually we could- we just don't because we don't have any politicians left to write the laws to do so, just corporate puppets.
How to put a corporation in jail for 20 years: take away it's bank accounts for 20 years and give the interest to the victims.
How to give a corporation the death penalty: Let the government confiscate it and start competing with other businesses in that industry.
Bet if you had those two punishments instead of the fines, the corporations would shape right up.
Re:Now thats fair. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Now thats fair. (Score:4, Insightful)
The CEO of Infineon obviously knew they were price fixing. There's no reason that he should be allowed to get away with it. There ought to be a chunk of that fine coming from HIS pocket, and a nice long stay in club fed afterwards. As it is now, there's no incentives for the CEOs not to break the law- if they don't get caught, they make tons of money, if they do, the corporation pays the fine and they've STILL made money.
Re:Now thats fair. (Score:5, Interesting)
Punishing the guilty should not be seen as excessive govt regulation. The solution is simple. Dissolve the corporation and confiscate all the assets.
It's imperitive that the shareholders get screwed in the worse possible way possible. It was their job to make sure their company was run responsibly and it's their fault that the company committed crimes.
Once the assets get liquidated the money should be given as severence pay to all the employees starting at the bottom and working your way to the top until the money runs out.
Re:Now thats fair. (Score:5, Informative)
CORPORATION, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.
Does that answer the question?
Daniel
Re:Now thats fair. (Score:2)
On the other hand, they'd be pretty lucky if they could explain several white-collar crimes to more than 60% of the population. Most people can't "touch" the concepts of white-collar crime, and in some cases, o
Oh well (Score:4, Funny)
Free market isn't perfect (Score:5, Insightful)
Cases like this remind me why I don't think the libertarian philosophy towards free markets is all that realistic. Many libertarians believe that things such as this should be left to the marketplace to settle, and that government "interference" like this ultimately harms the market. I emphatically disagree. There are inherent flaws with the free market that the justice system can and should remedy so that the overall market is healthier thereby. Collusion does no one -- consumers, industries, or the economy as a whole -- any favors, and I fail to see how letting the market handle it would do anything but unfairly fatten the pockets of those who benefit.
Re:Free market isn't perfect (Score:5, Insightful)
The Liberal side would be more in favor of government taking care of business like this but trying for the most part to stay out of other places like social laws (most especially privacy). The Conservative side is more set on seeing government stay out of business entirely as well as the social aspects.
I'm primarily a Libertarian Left because I'm more moderate on business than a Democrat, but far more liberal on social issues than a Republican, and I think both parties have sold out when it comes to privacy. However in this case I think the matter was solved properly.
Re:Free market isn't perfect (Score:5, Interesting)
In the end, the manufacturers failed as well, because they gave so little money to their employees and other population groups, that no one could affort their products anymore.
People have to abide by rules, and so do companies/corporations. corporations try to be an "individual" anyway, so they should accept the responsibilities that come with it.
Limitations on what powerful entities can do to the rest of the population is good for the population. In the end it's also good for the powerful because rules make sure that no one can leech the population dry with cartels and monopolies and people will be able to afford the products and services.
Re:Free market isn't perfect (Score:2)
Not true in America. Corporations operating within the free market only made up a tiny fraction of the American economy right up to 1900, no matter what you learned in your school textbooks. More than 90% of the entire economic output of the U.S. was in the hands of small businesses, most of these family-operated.
In those businesses working conditions were
Re:Free market isn't perfect (Score:2)
Sorry, but I don't see the problem. The economy isn't a zero-sum game. Even if some RAM manufacturers managed to unfairly fatten their pockets, so what? A free market will not let any cartel kee
Re:Free market isn't perfect (Score:2)
Re:Free market isn't perfect (Score:2)
And now they have government thugs to do it for them. That is, if the government doesn't decide to make it illegal for the workers to strike at all "in the national interest".
You also failed to mention that the regulations in question forced THOUSANDS of small family-owned and operated coal mining businesses to fold. Not a single major corporation suffered in any conceivable way, nearly all of the small businesses
Re:Free market isn't perfect (Score:2)
The free market does alright. Its weakness is that it requires lots of information to work well. The *necessary* function of government in such cases is that it has the power to compel the disgorgement of hidden information and to come in and sift through everything until it is found.
We all assume that, having discovered something wrong, "the government" should go on and make it right, but it doesn't have to be that way. Given enough information, the market can simply
Re:Free market isn't perfect (Score:2)
1) you don't have to buy something no matter what the cost. If they want to charge you $100 for 16MB of RAM, you can either do that, or go without RAM
I sure as hell DO have to buy it if my business is selling computers.
2) you can always enter the business yourself. If they are colluding to lower prices, it would be in your (and other businesses) self-interest to undercut them and make an even heftier profit (an economical fact if the market price is above equilibrium).
Unreasonable, inefficient, and unt
Re:Free market isn't perfect (Score:3, Interesting)
Justice? I do not believe there is any law or right whereby a supplier is required to sell something to you, at any price.
And if prices were raised via collusion after I got into that market? What then? Screw it, change businesses?
Yeah, it happens. Even in our society. Deal. Alternatively, you could expand your business so that it encompasses RAM production. Or you could wait for someone else, not affiliated with the cartel, to jump in
Re:Free market isn't perfect (Score:2)
And who benefits from this? (Score:4, Interesting)
My Head Just Exploded (Score:5, Funny)
From the article (condensed for brevity):
Infineon Technologies announced today that it has plead guilty to a single and limited charge related to the violation of US antitrust laws in connection with the pricing in its Dynamic Random Access Memory.
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.
It really shocks other libertarians when.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Anti-trust laws are nothing more than a way to provide a check on corporate power. They exist to keep companies, especially big corporations, from becoming in Locke's words "a law unto themselves."
Anyone who calls themself a libertarian, opposes antitrust laws and has a sympathetic view of the south in the civil war would do well to read some of the founders of the CSA's opinions on monied corporations. The short summary is that they considered them to be a plague on basic liberties and the free market and were fighting more against the corporations who saught the tariff which taxed the southern economy terribly and used the money to line the pockets of corporations, than it was for "states' rights." The major state's right was to "be free from being sucked dry by monied corporations."
I will say this about monopolies. The government creates many of these headaches that it has to later solve by having expansive IP laws which allow patent holders to rape and pillage innovators. Would someone please tell me why we can patent online shopping carts and file formats? How about business processes in general? What about things we have never even fully or at all implemented ourselves?
If the government were to be reconstituted on classical liberal values, most of these monopolies would die like vampires in the morning sunlight.
Re:It really shocks other libertarians when.... (Score:2)
Now go look at what the CSA was complaining about. You yourself say they were seeking tariffs. The problem with the monied corporations at that time was that they were receiving *government* privilege!
Would someone please tell me why we can patent online shopping carts and file formats? How about b
FINALLY! (Score:3, Informative)
This is one of the few great examples where we get to love the American legal system
Re:FINALLY! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:FINALLY! (Score:2)
Dell referred to the memory makers as a cartel.... (Score:2)
Re:Dell referred to the memory makers as a cartel. (Score:2)
Still. (Score:2, Insightful)
Conflict of Interest (Score:5, Interesting)
Once again, the companies profit and the US government gets cash... and joe six-pack gets screwed. I mean, with the government receiving all these settlements from Microsoft and the tobacco companies... why aren't our taxes going down?
The US government has more than a bit of conflict of interest in its role as protector of the public from price-fixing and monopolies, yet recipient of huge settlements when they are allowed to grow and blossom.
I'm sure Infineon, a company that has annual GROSS PROFITS of over $2 BILLION USD a year made a hell of a lot more that $160m. So Infineon makes out, and the government makes out.
But where's my money? You remember me, the guy that got ripped off?
Re:Conflict of Interest (Score:2, Insightful)
Mine did. Tax tables changed, I took more money home. I bought a house, deductable interest, even lower taxes. Don't know what you problem is.
So how do you vote? (Score:2)
Government's primary purpose is to further itself. Any entity's primary purpose has to be, else said entity would cease.
It's secondary purpose, then, is to govern, ie regulate and control it's people.
It's third perpose would be to a side effect of the second, and that is benefit those goverened.
Sounds to me like Crucialcould do this cheaper (Score:2, Funny)
Damn. I would've thought a Crucial.com web programmer or database technician could've done that pretty easily by having each stick of RAM on the website subtract, say, $20 - $30.
That's what? $22.50 for the hour spent making the change? Hell -- even cheaper if Crucial.com outsources its website/database operations to Bangalore.
IronChefMorimoto
No, That's Impossible (Score:5, Funny)
Re:No, That's Impossible (Score:2, Interesting)
You should have seen the retarded idiot go through multiple waves of ideological panic in trying to fit th
Re:No, That's Impossible (Score:3, Funny)
Re:No, That's Impossible (Score:3, Informative)
Infineon Financial Stuff / Payments (Score:4, Informative)
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.
And there's still Rambus to deal with (Score:4, Insightful)
Word dectives saw this case coming... (Score:3, Insightful)
Big cartel, this one? Pffft. (Score:5, Interesting)
How are they any different?
Re:Big cartel, this one? Pffft. (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Big cartel, this one? Pffft. (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a good thing, too. However, that day is probably coming. I believe this much of the "dark future" scenarios that we find in the much-maligned (usually deservingly so) "cyberpunk" genre: Some governments are going to collapse. Some corporations are going to become sovereign powers. And it's going to go very, very badly. Hopefully it will only be a fad...
Re:Big cartel, this one? Pffft. (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:Big cartel, this one? Pffft. (Score:4, Insightful)
Lets not forget about BlackwaterUSA [blackwaterusa.com] which IS a business military, currently hired by our government.
Re:Big cartel, this one? Pffft. (Score:3, Interesting)
Antitrust! (Score:5, Interesting)
- The Incredible Bread Machine [vex.net]
There are no rules, save "Don't Succeed". Gotta love America - they love capitalism, and someday they intend to give it a go.
This is good for rambus.. (Score:2, Informative)
The reason for this (Score:4, Interesting)
Reasonable prices now? (Score:3, Insightful)
I tried to price it on Dell's site for notebooks. In retail, 2x256 is the same price as 1x512, more or less. (All prices that follow are Canadian)
Dell charges 200$ for the DIFFERENCE between them.
To upgrade from 2x256 to 2x512, they charge 600$. They should be charging about 150$. When I purchased a DDR333 512MB SODIMM, I paid 144$.
Now, even when using ultra-premium ram (Which they don't), there's a big difference between 144$ and 600$.
Why do we fine coporations and jail humans? (Score:5, Insightful)
RAM prices are fluctuating wildly (Score:3, Interesting)
Or is it the US extorting money from foreign companies because they can? Does it also happen the other way round? (And don't give MS vs. EU as an example, MS hasn't paid a penny yet and probably never will).
Who gets the 160 Million? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Does this mean memory prices will fall? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Does this mean memory prices will fall? (Score:5, Insightful)
Then I guess this will be like my rates with progressive going lower after they had the class action law suit over adjusting rates based on credit... oh, wait... that didn't happen either.
The only peopel to benefit from this will be the lawyers and the major companies - the rest of us will be lucky to get a coupon for a dollar off.
Re:Does this mean memory prices will fall? (Score:2)
You can get new releases at Best Buy and Circuit City for like $13. It wasn't like that 5 years ago.
LK
Re:Correct the %^&$# summary! (Score:2)
Re:Correct the %^&$# summary! (Score:5, Informative)
"The case centres on allegations that between the end of 2001 and mid-2002, Samsung, Hynix, Micron, Infineon and others covertly agreed to up prices. The alleged jump in prices followed a two-year slump in demand that drove most memory production lines into operating at a loss."
They may not have been named in the settlement, but they certainly have been named at one point or another.
Re:Correct the %^&$# summary! (Score:4, Informative)
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:OPEC? (Score:3, Informative)
--AC