Samsung and SK Hynix halt expansion plans to prevent SSD and memory price drop

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

NAND & RAM prices dropping > 2 company agrees to artificially limit supply. If this isnt price fixing IDK what is. I know several ppl who like me waits for DDR4 prices to come down to earth along with cheap huge capacity SSD's.....

You have no proof they agree to artificially do anything, so far they have sufficient cause to reduce production without the complications of a price fixing scheme. 

[mr moose]

4 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

 Now the real thing that would determine if it was price fixing is if there is a legitimate oversupply. Because if there isn't then yeah they might be in some trouble. 

Given that several market researchers have said there is a decline (with Supply already above demand for GPUs and DRAM was predicted to exceed demand by the end of this year),  that Samsung has lost market share, they would have to provide some serious evidence (like emails or taped conversations) to prove collusion.

 

Also I think you and @Tech Enthusiast are saying the same thing, but something got lost in interpretation. 

[Brooksie359]

9 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Given that several market researchers have said there is a decline (with Supply already above demand for GPUs and DRAM was predicted to exceed demand by the end of this year),  that Samsung has lost market share, they would have to provide some serious evidence (like emails or taped conversations) to prove collusion.

 

Also I think you and @Tech Enthusiast are saying the same thing, but something got lost in interpretation. 

I was just explaining that price fixing doesn't mean it has to be setting a specific price. It could be simply trying to increase or decrease it. It is a bit counter intuitive because the name price fixing makes it seems like you have to be fixing it at a set price when that isn't  the case. 

[Tech Enthusiast]

24 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Also I think you and @Tech Enthusiast are saying the same thing, but something got lost in interpretation. 

1

Nah, i doubt that. It is simply different laws. The US laws enforce court time for every possible reason. EU laws try to only use courts for criminals.

Two very different mindsets and i only know EU laws. US law is something i only see in sketches about silly law things that happen in the world tbh. So not claiming to be an expert at all.

This topic clearly shows why the US law is part of those sketches. It is kinda silly, yet it still is a law. Just like so many other silly things. ;-)

 

That being said: Which laws would be enforced here? Neither of those companies is US-based, right? Aren't both based in Asian countries? So yet another law to take into account?

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Tech Enthusiast said:

Nah, i doubt that. It is simply different laws. The US laws enforce court time for every possible reason.

I don't think that is the case, I am pretty sure charges have to be brought first, which means sufficient evidence has to exist before the relevant government authority considers legal action.   As you say, car manufacturers reducing supply in the face of reduced demand is not price fixing so in the US someone would have too make the accusation it was, then an investigation would be carried out to see if their is any merit to the accusation.  Only if evidence is found does it proceed to legal action.  Thus the courts aren't involved until pretty much the FTC or suing party is sure enough of their position.

 

This of course is just my interpretation of the US system based on other cases I have read.

 

[Tech Enthusiast]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I don't think that is the case, I am pretty sure charges have to be brought first, which means sufficient evidence has to exist before the relevant government authority considers legal action.   As you say, car manufacturers reducing supply in the face of reduced demand is not price fixing so in the US someone would have too make the accusation it was, then an investigation would be carried out to see if their is any merit to the accusation.  Only if evidence is found does it proceed to legal action.  Thus the courts aren't involved until pretty much the FTC or suing party is sure enough of their position.

 

This of course is just my interpretation of the US system based on other cases I have read.

 

Still seems like food for a sketch, if all that work is done to bash companies for not expanding as fast as OTHERS want them to. Even if it never reaches a court. Just thinking about the possibility is crazy.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Tech Enthusiast said:

Still seems like food for a sketch, if all that work is done to bash companies for not expanding as fast as OTHERS want them to. Even if it never reaches a court. Just thinking about the possibility is crazy.

I am pretty sure the system is similar in the EU,  if a company makes an accusation the EU will investigate.   Although it does look like the EU sometimes just goes looking for companies to fine,  but that might well be just the way the media presents it. 

 

I guess there has to be enough checks and balances in the system to ensure criminal activity has its day in court while ensuring that nuisance accusations are weeded out. 

[Tech Enthusiast]

Just now, mr moose said:

I am pretty sure the system is similar in the EU,  if a company makes an accusation the EU will investigate.   Although it does look like the EU sometimes just goes looking for companies to fine,  but that might well be just the way the media presents it. 

 

I guess there has to be enough checks and balances in the system to ensure criminal activity has its day in court while ensuring that nuisance accusations are weeded out. 

Yes, the system is the same, of course.

But the laws that even allow such an investigation are different. You basically have to present your case. If no law is affected, you will be told to shut up and go home.

Pretty sure that is identical. 

 

The difference is the wording of the law itself. The EU has very, VERY precise wording for everything. 

The US law we are talking about here seems to be wide open to interpretation. So open, that about every action a company takes can fit the definition.

 

That is where EU and US differ. And also the reason we actually had a debate in the first place. I did not know that laws can be so.... unprecise. But it seems to be like that, so no reason to argue with it. It is dumb in my book, but it is like it is. So, the guys claiming they can be sued for that are correct. Under US law at least. 

So the question should not be if they can be sued under US law, but if they actually fall under US law. They are not US based, but I guess they have plenty of factories all over the world, not sure.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Tech Enthusiast said:

That is where EU and US differ. And also the reason we actually had a debate in the first place. I did not know that laws can be so.... unprecise. But it seems to be like that, so no reason to argue with it. It is dumb in my book, but it is like it is. So, the guys claiming they can be sued for that are correct. Under US law at least. 

So the question should not be if they can be sued under US law, but if they actually fall under US law. They are not US based, but I guess they have plenty of factories all over the world, not sure.

Yes, many laws are left intentionally open to debate.  Copyright law and the policy of fair use are intentionally left unprecise.  This gives the lawyers and the judge room to be fair when deciding a copyright violation between a 14 Yo child with a mix tape of his favorite Sclub7 hits and a massive Chinese counterfeit operation selling DVD's online.  Both would technically be guilty of the same crime but giving a 14 yo the same consequences as organised criminals is out of touch.  

 

On the topic of being sued. If they have a presence in the US and sell their products to the US then they can be. Although I am not sure how that would look.

[Tech Enthusiast]

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

Yes, many laws are left intentionally open to debate.

 

You are mixing up two things here: A Law that defines what is wrong,... and the outcome range, or however that is called in English. 

An openly defined law just means more stuff falls under the law in question, a bigger range of possible outcomes can be used to do a well-fitting sentence for the kid AND for the operation in your example. So leaving a law unprecise only makes sense if you really want to sue people a lot. Having a bigger range means you can differentiate between small offenders and flat out criminal organizations. 

 

That being said: This topic kinda showcased what people mean by "making a case". I never got that phrase. We don't have that here! Something is either against the law, or it is not. There is no talking that can bend a law to "make a case". This totally makes sense for US laws, if they are more or less as stated here. Obviously, with an unprecise law, it is literally up for debate if someone is an offender. So "making a case" really makes sense all of a sudden. You can absolutely use fancy words to make people believe that the law actually fits. 

While that is strange as hell for someone living in a county with precise laws, it is interesting. I always thought US judges where bribed left right and center for that crazy stuff we hear. But they may actually follow the law and just fell victim to someone using fancy words to spin the law. "Spinning the law" is another phrase I never really understood, but it also makes sense now. Both those phrases are totally part of the system.

 

Funny how you can learn stuff like that on a tech topic about companies slowing down their expansion.

 

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Tech Enthusiast said:

You are mixing up two things here: A Law that defines what is wrong,... and the outcome range, or however that is called in English. 

An openly defined law just means more stuff falls under the law in question, a bigger range of possible outcomes can be used to do a well-fitting sentence for the kid AND for the operation in your example. So leaving a law unprecise only makes sense if you really want to sue people a lot. Having a bigger range means you can differentiate between small offenders and flat out criminal organizations. 

 

That being said: This topic kinda showcased what people mean by "making a case". I never got that phrase. We don't have that here! Something is either against the law, or it is not. There is no talking that can bend a law to "make a case". This totally makes sense for US laws, if they are more or less as stated here. Obviously, with an unprecise law, it is literally up for debate if someone is an offender. So "making a case" really makes sense all of a sudden. You can absolutely use fancy words to make people believe that the law actually fits. 

While that is strange as hell for someone living in a county with precise laws, it is interesting. I always thought US judges where bribed left right and center for that crazy stuff we hear. But they may actually follow the law and just got a victim to someone using fancy words to spin the law. "Spinning the law" is another phrase I never really understood, but it also makes sense now. Both those phrases are totally part of the system.

 

Funny how you can learn stuff like that on a tech topic about companys slowing down their expansion.

 

I'm not too sure if I agree or not.  I think I get where you are coming from and to that end yes,  US law can be a bit funny, especially for those of us who are not used to the system.  But I am not too sure it is quite that unprecise, I think your first instinct about judges being paid off might be closer to the truth, especially in case like the judge who ruled plan caps didn't apply to ISP's who had no competition in an area. 

[Tech Enthusiast]

9 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I'm not too sure if I agree or not.  I think I get where you are coming from and to that end yes,  US law can be a bit funny, especially for those of us who are not used to the system.  But I am not too sure it is quite that unprecise, I think your first instinct about judges being paid off might be closer to the truth, especially in case like the judge who ruled plan caps didn't apply to ISP's who had no competition in an area. 

1

Well,... yes. I'd be happy if I could honestly say I disagree, but I can't. Even with unprecise laws, stuff like that you mentioned screams of bribery. Also that anti-net-neutrality guy. Everyone knows he is abusing his positions for companies that pay him. It is so obvious and so much "in your face", yet he still has that job. Maybe someone needs to make a case against him. I am pretty sure price fixing is part of his bribery, so,... ;-)

[Sniperfox47]

29 minutes ago, Tech Enthusiast said:

You are mixing up two things here: A Law that defines what is wrong,... and the outcome range, or however that is called in English. 

An openly defined law just means more stuff falls under the law in question, a bigger range of possible outcomes can be used to do a well-fitting sentence for the kid AND for the operation in your example. So leaving a law unprecise only makes sense if you really want to sue people a lot. Having a bigger range means you can differentiate between small offenders and flat out criminal organizations. 

 

That being said: This topic kinda showcased what people mean by "making a case". I never got that phrase. We don't have that here! Something is either against the law, or it is not. There is no talking that can bend a law to "make a case". This totally makes sense for US laws, if they are more or less as stated here. Obviously, with an unprecise law, it is literally up for debate if someone is an offender. So "making a case" really makes sense all of a sudden. You can absolutely use fancy words to make people believe that the law actually fits. 

While that is strange as hell for someone living in a county with precise laws, it is interesting. I always thought US judges where bribed left right and center for that crazy stuff we hear. But they may actually follow the law and just fell victim to someone using fancy words to spin the law. "Spinning the law" is another phrase I never really understood, but it also makes sense now. Both those phrases are totally part of the system.

 

Funny how you can learn stuff like that on a tech topic about companies slowing down their expansion.

 

I'm not sure what you're talking about. There's a ton of vague and imprecise laws in the EU just like there is in the US and Canada. Look at the case of Google's shopping search and the Android "anticompetitive" cases recently. In both Google has been responsible for making a case why their actions don't hurt competition because there's no clear cut "this specific thing you did is Anticompetitive".

[ZacoAttaco]

14 hours ago, mr moose said:

I think your first instinct about judges being paid off might be closer to the truth, especially in case like the judge who ruled plan caps didn't apply to ISP's who had no competition in an area. 

Yeah there's no way a judge came up with that ruling on his own. The statement in itself is an oxymoron. No neutral judge would come to that conclusion.

[asus killer]

7 hours ago, ZacoAttaco said:

Yeah there's no way a judge came up with that ruling on his own. The statement in itself is an oxymoron. No neutral judge would come to that conclusion.

i'm not even that familiar with the US court system for this type of things, but in any country i know that is not an issue, any type of ruling is subject to appeal and most of the type for more than 1 appeal, and you shouldn't be able to buy several judges in different courts and at the top of the appeal you have a panel of judges.

If in the US you can bypass all this then it's no better than some 3rd world dictatorship.

Weird judges and decisions happen in every country but the appeals system solve it, if there is something to be solved, for the most part of course.