Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Nvidia settle price fixing lawsuitFollow

#1 Sep 28 2008 at 8:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
This basiclaly confirms what most of us computer builders have suspected for several years now. Thoughit looks like the only people who will be seeing money are those who bought direct reference boards. This likely also affects ATI boards too since the filing would not be moving forward unless both companies had agreed.

http://www.custompc.co.uk/news/604923/nvidia-settles-gpu-price-fixing-class-action-case.html

Nvidia settles GPU price fixing class action case

Posted at: 12:32pm 26th September 2008 by Ben Hardwidge

Class to receive $1.7 million US fund, while plaintiffs receive $112,500 from Nvidia and dismiss their claims

Following the legal class action case in California that saw Nvidia and ATI accused of colluding together to fix GPU prices, Nvidia has offered a settlement agreement to the certified class that brought the action. This class can include anyone who bought a graphics card directly from Nvidia or ATI’s website in the US between 4 December 2002 and 7 November 2007.

The settlement agreement is detailed in an 8-K form that was filed on 24 September. The agreement calls for Nvidia to pay $850,000 into a total fund of $1.7 million, with AMD/ATI presumably paying in another $850,000 to make up the other half, although we’re waiting for AMD to confirm this. However, the 8-K form says that the agreement is still ‘subject to court approval.’ If the agreement is approved, then Nvidia says that it ‘would dispose of all claims and appeals raised by the certified class in the Action against Nvidia.’

The 8-K form also details a settlement agreement with the individual plaintiffs who brought the case to court, saying that Nvidia will ‘pay $112,500 in exchange for a dismissal of all claims and appeals related to the Action raised by the individual indirect purchaser plaintiffs.’ This settlement, says Nvidia, ‘is not subject to the approval of the District Court.’ According to the form, this agreement has already been accepted, and the plaintiffs have now ‘dismissed their claims and withdrawn their appeal of the class certification ruling.’

The antitrust case alleged that ‘Nvidia and ATI conducted numerous secret meetings and communications in which they conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize prices of GPUs sold in the United States. At these meetings, Defendants also colluded to coordinate the timing of new product introductions that were based on similar, competing technologies which also had the effect of fixing, raising, maintaining, and stabilizing GPU prices.’

With the plaintiffs dismissing their claims, and the settlement agreement waiting for court approval, it looks as though this is the last we’ll see of this antitrust case. However, it’s interesting that neither company has been proved innocent in this case, with the claims being dismissed out of court instead.


____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#2REDACTED, Posted: Sep 29 2008 at 8:12 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Our anti-trust laws are ridiculous. Think about it, if you charge the same as another company, is collusion, if a company charges more, it's price gouging, if a company charges less, they are undercutting and attempting a monopoly. Of course the circumstances have to get reviewed by a judge or jury, but then it's still left to their opinion and there is no objective guideline as to whether or not the company was doing anything illegal. Of course, when the government regulates businesses in an attempt to "fix, raise, maintain and stabalize" a market, it's ok.
#3 Sep 29 2008 at 8:30 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
JPizzleofBahamut wrote:
Of course, when the government regulates businesses in an attempt to "fix, raise, maintain and stabalize" a market, it's ok.
...or they can fail to fix, raise, maintain or stablize a market. They can stand-by and watch while a market cheats itself out of existance, but not before the CEOs are gazillionaires and the average joe is out his retirement. AND then government can come in with a costly bail-out plan funded by us:)
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#4REDACTED, Posted: Sep 29 2008 at 9:48 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) This gets into so many other issues. If only it were as simple as you make it sound. I agree about the CEO's, though. There needs to be some accountability for any person making the decisions for a business if that business fails.
#5 Sep 29 2008 at 10:02 AM Rating: Excellent
**
907 posts
JPizzleofBahamut wrote:
Quote:
...or they can fail to fix, raise, maintain or stablize a market. They can stand-by and watch while a market cheats itself out of existance, but not before the CEOs are gazillionaires and the average joe is out his retirement. AND then government can come in with a costly bail-out plan funded by us:)


This gets into so many other issues. If only it were as simple as you make it sound. I agree about the CEO's, though. There needs to be some accountability for any person making the decisions for a business if that business fails.


Capital punishment? Sounds reasonable to me...
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 272 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (272)