DRAM Makers Accused of Price Fixing 177
AdamWeeden writes "According to the EETimes, many of the states in the U.S. have entered into a class-action lawsuit against a group of eight DRAM manufacturers. The companies are accused of price-fixing computer memory for over five years, beginning in the late 1990s." From the article: "Four companies and 12 executives have so far pleaded guilty to participating in the conspiracy and have been assessed more than $730 million in fines. In May, three of the four companies, Samsung Electronics, Hynix Semiconductor Inc. and Infineon Technologies AG agreed to pay a total of $160 million to settle class action suits related to price fixing. Elpida Memory Inc., the fourth company to plead guilty, is still involved in the class-action suits."
DRM; oh nos! (Score:4, Funny)
Price Fixing (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Price Fixing (Score:5, Insightful)
This way you are actually helping them by creating a gold rush which will clear their stock inventory in the next 90 days and they can even write it off as a loss as well.
A penalty is supposed to hurt the penalised, not the improve its financial and inventory positions.
Re:Price Fixing (Score:2)
You do understand that the write-off doesn't go directly against the tax bill, right? Assuming the tax rate is 20%, "writing off" a $100 loss only reduces the tax bill by $20, they still have that other $80 that is lost.
Re:Price Fixing (Score:2)
Re:Price Fixing (Score:2)
Yes, he did. He has donated to charity more than any other person, and there is no real reason for him to worry about paying taxes. He has billions of dollars.
If he cared about indian kids and being impartial, may be he should have donated cheap computers without an OS installed.
Those would be useless. Most people cannot install
Re:Price Fixing (Score:2)
Re:Price Fixing (Score:2)
Re:Price Fixing (Score:2)
So let's see.
You write off 100 in BoGoF (Buy one get one free) by court decision. You lose 80, win 20 by taxes. That is what it seems.
Well... Not so.
You do that with old inventory only (after all you used to infringe and do not do it any more, why should you compensate punters with items that have nothing to do with the offence). You would have had to sell these at a loss to clear inventory anyway. So your loss is not 80, it is more like 40. As in any BoGoF case a certain percentage o
Insightful?????? (Score:5, Insightful)
A penalty is supposed to hurt the penalised, not the improve its financial and inventory positions.
Huh! If this is going to be good for them, then why don't they do it themselves?
Is anybody going to stop them?
Re:Insightful?????? (Score:4, Informative)
If all of them will do it that will be price fixing and collusion.
Lose, lose.
But if the DOJ forces them to do that... Hmm... That is an entirely different matter...
Re:Insightful?????? (Score:2)
I like it when they sell under cost too, but I wouldn't go that far.
Re:Price Fixing (Score:2)
Bwahahaha. Sorry, can't keep a straight face any more, even I don't believe it...
Great news! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Great news! (Score:2)
Re:Great news! (Score:3, Interesting)
Smart people, and I'm extreamly jealous of the ability they have to cash in big on class action suits. When the claimant tends to get a modicum of the settlement/judgement.
The consumer, in the end continues to get ripped off; if not by one side, the other.
Re:Great news! (Score:5, Informative)
The compensatory damages would not amount to very much.
The idea of punitive damages is to, well, punish the guilty. It does not matter, where the money goes — the consumers benefit from the companies' not doing it again.
Re:Great news! (Score:2)
Thankfully I haven't purchased from any of those companies directly, nor shall I in the near future.
That's the true punishment, when people stop paying to play the fool.
Re:Great news! (Score:2)
Re:Great news! (Score:5, Interesting)
Punitive damages should be paid to the government, with no lawyers' cut. Then we'd see how concerned the plaintiffs and lawyers really are about serving humanity through lawsuits.
Re:Great news! (Score:2)
EXACTLY! I think it's important to allow punitive damages because sometimes they're the only incentive an entity has to act responsibly. However, I don't see any justification for allowing another entity to profit from that penalty.
If a policeman writes me a speeding ticket, he doesn't get a percentage of the fee, and that's
Re:Great news! (Score:2)
No money for lawyers, no class action, no punitive damages, no responsability....
Re:Great news! (Score:2)
"Give lawyers more money" is never, never the correct solution. The honest ones won't change their practice, but the scummy ones will flock to it instantly. Well, right now we're in the position that only the scummy ones seem to be profiting - when was the last time you heard of a morally legitimate class action lawsuit? - so that would tend to indicate we've gone way too far in the wr
Re:Great news! (Score:2)
Do you really hate lawyers even more than the government? Do you really prefer, say, Eliot Spitzer's political motivations over the lawyers' financial ones? I don't...
It is impossible to root out the greed. The best practical solution — one that America has been exploiting since its early days — is to pitch one gre
Re:Great news! (Score:2)
In fact, we should abolish salaries in general. If people don't want to do their work for the benefit of humanity as a whole, well, fuck 'em!
Re:Great news! (Score:2)
Oh... I thought it was to inflate the legal team's percentage...
Re:Great news! (Score:2)
I mean, the article even says the statement was release by the NY Attorney General's office.
So while I'd normally agree with being cynical about lawyers, it wasn't necessary in this case.
Re:Great news! (Score:2)
Different standards (Score:2)
Wait... (Score:4, Funny)
I wonder if the summary author knows that it's 2006.
Re:Wait... (Score:3, Informative)
Corporate Charter (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Corporate Charter (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Corporate Charter (Score:2, Insightful)
As a shareholder in a limited-liability corporation, should the government decide to dissolve the corporation, they'd be out their stock, and that's it. This was the risk they signed up for when they invested in the company.
My personal belief is that we should stop using the "corporate veil" to protect everyone in the company. Take Merck for instance, if I went out and gave people pills that I knew could kill them and they do, I'd probably be
Re:Corporate Charter (Score:2)
Re:Corporate Charter (Score:2)
Re:Corporate Charter (Score:2)
Don't you mean "the government?" Shareholders are the company. They probably think that breaking the law is good if it turns a profit and they don't get caught.
Re:Corporate Charter (Score:2)
Re:Corporate Charter (Score:2)
One: Shareholders are not the company. They are the owners of the company. They are driven by profit motive, obviously, however, doing anything illegal to the point where the shareholders can find out is WAY too high a risk for the shareholders.
Your entire statement shows a critical misunderstanding of how a publicly traded business works. Do you
Re:Corporate Charter (Score:2)
Doing anything illegal to the point where shareholders can find out might be the same as getting caught, and if so it fits under my initial argument of not getting out.
What we can talk about here, though, is that few shareholders will drop a company because it's questionable if
Re:Corporate Charter (Score:2)
There's probably a reason my plan is faulty, too, but I'd much rather see any company guilty of price fixing lose the right to set its own prices. You do it, you give the government 200 grand a year to pay for a group of three guys (or however much and many is necessary for your company size) to continuously audit you and set your prices for you at some mandated lowered pro
Re:Corporate Charter (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Corporate Charter (Score:2)
You know a way for the government to shut down a company without government involvement? If they break the law, the government kind of has to get involved.
Although my plan doesn't work anyway. It would make it very difficult for competitors entering the market to compete, so the price would have to be mandated to be an estimate on what the product would be sold at by an honest company and then have the additional profits funneled into road repair or governm
Re:Corporate Charter (Score:2)
Your system requires a new branch of government that would set 'fair prices'.
Re:Corporate Charter (Score:2)
Yup. But only applicable to companies convicted of price fixing and paid for by the criminal. You'd have a hard time convincing me that's bad.
Re:Corporate Charter (Score:2)
This alone would collapse any business with variable costs, R&D, or any other nonstatc drain on their bottom line (ie: every company on the planet). If they survive the initial shock (for five to ten years), they will be able to utilize new technology and make rediculous profits on old tech.
Usually, this is only provided in combination with government mandated monopoly (like the airline industry of the pre-70'
Re:Corporate Charter (Score:2)
Why? The team of guys you're being forced to pay for are there to look at those things and adjust for them. That's what they're there for.
Re:Corporate Charter (Score:2)
But it's mostly "foe-show!" that "corporate entities" manage to escape punishment for breaking laws that ordinary people might otherwise be thrown in jail for.
At present, "breaking laws and getting away with it" is translated as business risk and just another part of doing business. Crimes against humanity and all that are just a part of it. There has been some improvements in the corporate accounting re
Re:Corporate Charter (Score:2)
Free market always solves the problem better. If those 8 companies were splitting the sales of ram, it only takes one company to come in and sell it at a proper price and take 100% of the business.
Re:Corporate Charter (Score:2)
The problem with price fixing is the same as with monopolies. It reduces your ability to choose competition. If company A and company B collude and sell otherwise identical products (e.g. they're not competing) and they sell them at the same price, they're effectively one company.
Also, price fixing usual
Re:Corporate Charter (Score:2)
Re:Corporate Charter (Score:2)
Re:Corporate Charter (Score:2)
Re:Corporate Charter (Score:2)
Really. For people who are against corporations, slashdotters do very little to research how they work, even at the public level.
Was it really that bad? (Score:4, Insightful)
In the end, the consumers will see none of it (who's really going to go through to paper work for a $3 rebate?), the lawyers will see millions, and the government will get the unclaimed payouts.
IOW, a complete waste of time.
-Rick
Re:Was it really that bad? (Score:3, Interesting)
I've seen a few places that now offer "e-rebates." So you can just fill out the rebate info at their website instead of mailing it in. Hopefully this will catch on.
Re:Was it really that bad? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Was it really that bad? (Score:2)
I've been an involuntary class member for several of these worthless fucking class action suits that only make the lawyers richer. And what did I get? Twenty minutes of free long distance phone calls, or maybe a free CD from the same damned company that screwed me in the first place.
Fuck that. These class
Re:Was it really that bad? (Score:2)
In other news, transistor densities doubled every 18 months or so during the same timeframe. Also, water is wet and the sun is hot. In what way does anything you or I said make it OK for a company to break the law?
Re:Was it really that bad? (Score:2)
So prices were dropping. That just means costs were dropping even more dramatically, and the memory companies were using it as a cover for their inflated prices.
Just think. By the end of the nineties, we could have been paying under a buck for 5 megs. By today, that could be 30-40/$.
IE: Just 'cos prices are dropping doesn't mean they're not still screwing you. It just means they're being smart enough about it to convince you you're gett
Re:So you're saying Price Fixing was OK then??? (Score:2)
Are you really? Did someone force you to spend your money on that DRAM module? If you didn't like the price then why did you buy it? The price gouging argument has some merit when circumstances dictate, such as ripping people off for gas and lodging while they are trying to escape a natural disaster, but since when is DRAM an emergency purchase?
questionable case?? (Score:2)
Why do I think it's not a real case? Because at the same time this was supposedly going on, Micron also accused Hynix 9the most famous, but several other too) of accepting government (Korean) bailouts because they nearly went bankrupt from the free fall of the dropping prices. Micron was arguing in the past that during the sa
Re:Was it really that bad? (Score:2)
Is it right for them to fix prices? No. Is this class action lawsuit going to benefit the consumers? No. Is this class action lawsuit going to fatten the wallets of lawyers? Yup.
I'm not against the punitive damages, but this class action lawsuit is a waste. I would rather see individuals from the corporate entities be held responsible. Instead of getting
Re:Was it really that bad? (Score:2)
So..... (Score:2)
Re:So..... (Score:2)
You will be recieving a $2.00 off voucher for your next purchase of $1000.00 or more at crucial.com
Haha (Score:5, Funny)
Free RAM to everyone (Score:2, Funny)
Yahooooo !!!
Re:Free RAM to everyone (Score:2)
Not so fast... (Score:2)
2) Maybe he was posting from Calgary [calgarystampede.com]
I want to see them on the stand. (Score:5, Funny)
DRAM MEMORY: Maybe, maybe not... I just woke up, so I can't remember anything before that.
FLASH RAM: He did! He did! I'm sure of it.
BUBBLE MEMORY: We never had this nonsense in my day, I tellya what. *cough cough*
PUNCH CARD: You're tellin' me. *wheeze*
Re:I want to see them on the stand. (Score:2, Funny)
Rambus (Score:2)
Re:I want to see them on the stand. (Score:2)
It's better known as Rambus memory.
$730 million Fine distribution (Score:2)
Okay, now that the lawyers have been paid, where do I pick up my share - a 10% discount coupon on future DRAM purchases?
They weren't very good at it (Score:5, Insightful)
2003 - 256 MB DIMM $160
Spitzer should go after real criminals, and stop using threats and publicity to extort big settlements.
Re:They weren't very good at it (Score:2)
Well, if it should have been "2003 - 512 MB DIMM $160" then they were pretty good at it. As it stands though, your post is meaningless."
Re:They weren't very good at it (Score:2)
Re:They weren't very good at it (Score:2)
There are worse crimes than carjacking too. Doesn't mean we don't prosecute them. So again, I don't see your point.
Re:They weren't very good at it (Score:2)
1-murder
2-rape
.
.
10-carjacking
.
.
.
129-DRAM price fixing
Re:They weren't very good at it (Score:2)
Three things. First, the fact that the AG gathered enough evidence against them to make a solid case caused them to plead guilty. That means that they'll have to pay the fines, and hopefully if the fines hurt enough, they'll be discouraged from trying it again (and this isn't the first time they've done it).
Second, the guilty plea
Re:They weren't very good at it (Score:3, Insightful)
1993 - 4 MB SIMM $160
2003 - 256 MB DIMM $160
Spitzer should go after real criminals, and stop using threats and publicity to extort big settlements.
That doesn't make much sense.
Suppose I then told you that in the alternate history with no price fixing, the 2003 line looked like this:
2003 - 256 MB DIMM $16
Surely you'd then agree that a >$100 profit per dimm from price fixing wasn't exactly a good situation for the consumer?
Price fixing is bad for the consumer, regardless of other improvements in the techno
DRM Makers Accused of Price Fixing (Score:2, Insightful)
Difficult situation for us anarcho-capitalists (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people believe that memory manufacturing is a VERY expensive business. This is true in terms of overall numbers (billions), but it is false in terms of actual products required on the market. Memory is used in much more than just computers (cars, microwaves, cell phones, digital cameras, DVD players, etc), and it is a huge market, possibly a trillion dollar one coming soon. When you have a big market, a big demand and a low supply of manufacturers, it doesn't take much to raise the billions needed to enter a market where there is obvious collusion. 1 million Americans risking US$3000 in a market that you can prove is selling at a overwhelming profit is not a big risk -- and many people were aware of the over-priced memory market back in the 90s.
Yet I think the debate is won by the free marketeers when you realize that one of the biggest reasons for the cartelization in this case is patent and copyright law. Memory chips are heavily burdened by patents, and many of those patents are cross licensed by those in the cartel. This smacks of government-paternalism and is one reason why patents generally help the cartels and the State rather than the inventor. The cartel:inventor ratio in terms of who is helped by patents is very very high (more cartels are helped than individual inventors).
I believe the government is wrong for starting class-action lawsuits. We all know that few companies are hurt by class-action lawsuits, and even fewer "victims" are helped. The lawyers (who are the biggest supporters of the expanding State) win the most! Why don't we roll back before the cartel-State collusion and see what the real cause of this problem is? The biggest barrier to the market is NOT money -- stop thinking that! No matter what the financial cost is, if there is a profit to be made, people will invest. I don't care if it is quadrillions that are needed, as long as it is profitable (and cartels can always be beaten in price), people will risk money. The real barrier is the State -- no one can raise enough "force" to overcome the force of government patents and copyrights.
Re:Difficult situation for us anarcho-capitalists (Score:2)
Can anyone answer this question for me ? (Score:2, Interesting)
err (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe because American laws against price fixing wouldn't apply to an internation organization of which the US isn't even a member?
What do you think that we can do? We're a large consumer of oil, so we can apply economic pressue. That already happens though, and we already get very good deals. Believe me, gas is much less expensive in the US than in just about any other country.
Re:Can anyone answer this question for me ? (Score:2)
Re:Can anyone answer this question for me ? (Score:2)
Meanwhile, if you don't like it, get your vehicle converted to diesel (expensive, but cost effective when you make your own fuel) or ethanol (almost pitifully easy, but less cost-effective when making your own fuel).
Im tired of this... (Score:2)
DRAM price "stuck" most of 21th century (Score:2)
Re-Occuring Theme (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:VLSI (Score:3, Interesting)
Assume the plant, the research and development has been paid for and the obvious thing must be stated...
How is this a remotely valid assumption, given that RAM chips have seen orders of magnitude increases in speed and capacity?
Re:VLSI (Score:2)
The costs of any given chip are probably something like this:
1% raw materials, 15% operating costs (electrical, labor, etc), 20% R&D, 74% paying back your capital costs before your plant becomes obsolete.
Re:VLSI (Score:2)
You realize you're also paying the salaries of the employees who have to design and implement the chips, the cost of machinery to fab them, the cost of labor to operate the fabbers, packaging, shipping, R&D, etc.
Yes, they price fixed. That doesn't mean it costs nothing to make RAM. Saying that just shows ignorance.
Re:Protectionism (Score:2)
Where did you get that ridiculous idea? I have had two Macs serviced with third-party memory installed (one of them this year), and although Apple won't support the third-party memory, they will support the machine itself.
Re:Is this really necessary? (Score:2)
The US has enough subsidization to depress the price of gas well below the 15-16 $ it would cost without.
Yeah. $15-$16. Think about that next time you bitch about $3 at the pump.
Meanwhile, converting your car to burn ethanol requires you to bore out exactly three easily replaced components, and fuel grade ethanol is currently $3 and change per gallon - though n
Re:Is this really necessary? (Score:2)
Gas on the other hand, that affects a greater portion of the US Market on a daily basis. I'd rather lose $5 on that one time investment in memory than be continually robbed for a products that requires more frequent purchases like music and gas.
Re:A time machine (Score:2)
Oops yesterday Air delivery.
Re:Fixing the Fixers (Score:2)
100% Troll
TrollMods think that if a bundle of truth mentions the catastrophic effects of the Iraq War, it must be stopped.
The truth, that is. They want the war never to stop. Of course neither will, though at least the Iraq War has that possiblilty.