Broadcom Offers To Scrap Exclusivity Deals To End EU Antitrust Probe (reuters.com) 20
U.S. chipmaker Broadcom has offered to scrap its exclusivity deals with TV and modem makers to end an EU antitrust investigation and stave off a possible hefty fine. Reuters reports: Broadcom, which makes chips to power smartphones, computers and networking equipment and is a major supplier to Apple, found itself in EU competition enforcers' crosshairs over its deals with six companies to buy chips exclusively or almost exclusively from it. That triggered an investigation in June last year and an order to stop such deals until the end of the probe on whether such practices were aimed at squeezing out rivals.
Broadcom has now pledged not to offer incentives to TV and modem makers to encourage them to acquire more than 50% of their chips and modems from the company for their worldwide or European production. Broadcom said its offer addressed the Commission's concerns and it expected the investigation to close before the end of the year. "In these uncertain times, we welcome the opportunity to avoid protracted litigation and to resolve the investigation without recognition of liability or the imposition of a fine," the company said in a statement. The European Commission said it would now seek feedback before deciding whether to accept the offer which would be valid for five years and without a finding of infringement by the company.
Broadcom has now pledged not to offer incentives to TV and modem makers to encourage them to acquire more than 50% of their chips and modems from the company for their worldwide or European production. Broadcom said its offer addressed the Commission's concerns and it expected the investigation to close before the end of the year. "In these uncertain times, we welcome the opportunity to avoid protracted litigation and to resolve the investigation without recognition of liability or the imposition of a fine," the company said in a statement. The European Commission said it would now seek feedback before deciding whether to accept the offer which would be valid for five years and without a finding of infringement by the company.
Preferring a slap on the wrist? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The EU has a handful of sources of income.
- Contributions from the members
- Import duties
- Fines
the last two are significant, so the machine of the EU is unlikely to give up on this huge fine.
(as an aside, they're also incentivised not to agree free trade deals with the world)
Re: Question... (Score:2)
You're breeding them.
You are literally creating them, with comments like this.
Congratulations, asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can't Accept (Score:3)
I don't see how the EU could accept an offer which says Broadcom did no wrong and has the temerity to say Broadcom will continue with their anti-trust actions after 5 years.
Please don't fine us, we promise to be good for a little while?!?!?? That's not a serious offer. They should be fined and you don't get to say whether or not you act lawfully after 5 years, that's absurd.
Obscene (Score:3)
So why should Broadcom - a corporation - expect to "get off lightly" in this way.
The name "corporation" comes from "corporeal", meaning "to have a body" (IIRC: "to be made flesh") and is a legal term used to describe a situation in which a business/company trading in this way takes on the legal persona of a corporeal person in the eyes of the law. In fact, the law looks favourably on corporations in that legal penalties against such business/companies are levied against the *corporation* and not against individual owners or directors (in the vast majority of cases).
It's also worth pointing out that the activities of which they have been accused in this case ("exclusivity" deals) are specifically designed to hurt individual consumers. This is because offering their technology through an "exclusivity deal" to a narrow selection of trading partners means that, as a consumer, if you want to access that Broadcom technology, you have to buy from one of those trading partners. Which means the partner can charge more for their products, because they know they won't have competition for features exclusive to Broadcom.
This sort of practice is difficult to spot when you're a person-in-the-street consumer, which makes it even more dangerous. It means you're being ripped off without you even realizing it.
Be under no illusion: letting them off compounds the harm against us as consumers. They need to pay the full price for their actions.
Re: (Score:2)
charged with the exact same criminal offence
It is a civil offence.
the chances of our being able to "wriggle out of it" in a way like this are pretty much zero.
Can you describe a scenario where a private individual would be charged with an anti-trust violation?
Re: (Score:2)
But, of course, the context of the original article refers to an EU Anti-Trust probe. That's likely going to be examined under Article 101 of the "TFEU", the "Treaty on the Functioning of the European U
"without recognition of liability" (Score:2)
The motherfuckers *still* want to act like they "did nothig wrong"!
Hitler was a coward. He should have also demanded to just pay a fine and not admit any liability or guilt. ;)
add one requirement (Score:3)
publish full documentation for all chips...
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations, you are now the proud owner of Slashdot comment #60000000.
Re: (Score:1)
Cyberflix (Score:1)