PDA

View Full Version : Samsung Pleads Guilty in Price-Fixing Case



zippyjuan
11-30-2005, 06:39 PM
Samsung Pleads Guilty in Price-Fixing Case

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. Chief Financial Officer Dahm Huh tries to block his face as he leaves a San Francisco Federal Building, Wednesday, Nov. PAUL SAKUMA
By MATTHEW FORDAHL (AP Technology Writer)
From Associated Press
November 30, 2005 9:01 PM EST
SAN FRANCISCO - Samsung, the world's largest maker of computer memory chips, pleaded guilty Wednesday to a charge it participated in a worldwide price-fixing conspiracy that damaged competition and raised PC prices.

After accepting the plea and a previously arranged deal with prosecutors, U.S. District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and its U.S. subsidiary, Samsung Semiconductor Inc., to pay $300 million - the second-largest fine in a criminal antitrust case.

It was the culmination of a three-year investigation into price fluctuations in the dynamic random access memory market from April 1999 to June 2002. Prosecutors said Samsung, which is based in Seoul, South Korea, and other companies conspired in e-mails, telephone calls and in-person meetings to fix the price of chips used in personal computers and other electronic devices.

Earlier this year, Seoul-based Hynix Semiconductor Inc. agreed to pay a $185 million fine; rival Infineon Technologies AG of Germany agreed to pay $160 million last year. A fourth chip maker, Micron Technology Inc. of Boise, Idaho, has been cooperating with prosecutors and was not expected to face charges.

On Wednesday, Samsung Semiconductor's chief financial officer, Dahm Huh, spoke on behalf of the company and answered a series of routine questions about the defendant's ability to pay, the company's understanding of the deal and the waiving of various rights.

Huh answered "yes" or "no" to the questions but offered no elaboration and did not speak to reporters after the hearing. The company's spokeswoman, Chris Goodhart, also declined to comment afterward.

The plea deal, which was announced in October, requires the company to pay $300 million, plus interest, in installments over the next five years. The government agreed to not pursue additional prosecutions against Samsung or most its officers and employees.

Seven people, including Samsung Semiconductor President Y.H. Park, are specifically excluded from such protection and could still face prosecution.

The others are Tom Quinn, senior vice president of sales and marketing for memory products; marketing vice presidents Kim Il-ung and Kang Yeong-ho, and memory chip sales vice presidents Lee Sun-woo and Lee Young-woo. The seventh, Rha Young-bae, is no longer with Samsung.

Niall Lynch, a Justice Department antitrust attorney, declined to comment on the status of the seven people who were "carved out" of the deal. He said the investigation is continuing to look at other companies and people.

He did note that the government will now have Samsung's assistance in its investigation.

The deal also did not seek restitution from Samsung. Instead, victims - ranging from other chip makers and computer makers to private individuals - can sue for damages.

"We're letting that be the vehicle for victim compensation," Lynch said outside the courtroom.

Victims, according to federal prosecutors, included Dell Inc., Compaq Computer Corp., Hewlett-Packard Co., Apple Computer Inc., International Business Machines Corp. and Gateway Inc.

Apple and Dell raised PC prices to compensate while others reduced the amount of memory installed on their systems to compensate.

The Justice Department investigation began in 2002, a year after memory chip prices began to climb even though the rest of the tech industry was suffering its worst downturn in history. At the time, then Dell CEO Michael Dell blamed the high prices on cartel-like behavior.

The outcome of the investigation also is expected to help fuel a private antitrust case filed by Rambus Inc., which licensed a memory technology that had been embraced by Intel Corp., the world's largest maker of the microprocessor brains of computers.

In 1996, Intel chose Rambus technology to help speed up systems running its then-upcoming Pentium 4.

But the chip makers did not want to pay Rambus royalties. DRAM prices fell sharply - so much so that Intel agreed to support non-Rambus technology in the fall of 2001.

Shortly after that, DRAM prices nearly quadrupled.

In 2004, Rambus filed a private antitrust suit against several chip makers. That litigation is ongoing, as are other cases related to memory prices.

"We are continuing to pursue our own antitrust case, which is based in part on the price fixing now being admitted by key members of the DRAM industry," said John Danforth, Rambus' general counsel.

Lynch refused to comment on whether the government believes Rambus was a victim.


http://start.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20051130/438d31d0_3ca6_1552620051130958478222

Bires
11-30-2005, 06:58 PM
Uh wow. I mean...wow.

Imagine, all this time, we could be using RAMBUS memory...

DarkFury
11-30-2005, 07:21 PM
In 1996, Intel chose Rambus technology to help speed up systems running its then-upcoming Pentium 4.

But the chip makers did not want to pay Rambus royalties. DRAM prices fell sharply - so much so that Intel agreed to support non-Rambus technology in the fall of 2001.

Shortly after that, DRAM prices nearly quadrupled.


So I wonder if that means that those of us who bought memory at those "inflated prices" in 2001 will get some kind of settlement from this? I sure know that I paid a "pretty penny" (I bought 2 512MB sticks of Samsung memory that cost me nearly $400 back then... but now you can buy that memory for less than half of that.)

bachviet
11-30-2005, 07:32 PM
Good thing is that we don't have to stick with Rambus.

shocky123
11-30-2005, 08:19 PM
WTF? 'victims included...[list names of huge vendors here:]"
...what about the consumer that decided to actually buy the chips from wholesale.
I think it's bullshi* that all this money goes to the vendors that were in part the cause of the price-hikes. It's really not hard at all to say:
"I am responsible for 30% of your total annual revenue, would you like to lower prices a little, and then I can purchase more from you.."

What a bunch of crap, the huge vendors are just as responsible for the high prices as the manufacturers, however, they did nothing 'illegal' (..which has still yet to be proven..).

This settlement will not be seen by the consumer in any way/shape/form, and that's a disgrace. Except for those who can afford to spend $50,000 in court fees to get their $200 back.

[Hope you enjoy your Christmas bonus' Dell/Compaq/HP exec's]

I'd much rather this payoff be accessible to the consumer. The vendors got their cut back then, there should be no reward for their ignorance of their own purchasing power.

yeah, I'm bitter, I cannot afford a lawyer to get a piece of this pie :(

I'd be satisfied if this was handled similar to the Compact Disc cases... though not as drawn out if at all possible.

~Kyle

Jeffbx
12-01-2005, 05:09 AM
Why the bitterness towards the machine mfrs? The mfrs didn't see any additional profit from this -it all went to the chip mfrs. That's why they're the ones paying the fines (which, by the way, go to the governement & not to the 'victims' - they have to sue on their own to get any restitution). It's certainly not in IBM or Gateway or any other mfr's best interest to charge more for machines & make no additional profit on them.

But yeah, I'm peeved at the chip companies too - I have a big handful of RAMBUS machines here at work that are pretty useless since I can't (won't, actually) upgrade the memory. Our software is beginning to require 2GB RAM on the machine... guess how much 2GB of RAMBUS RAM costs? Oh, about the same as a brand new machine with 2GB already in it - $1200.

But of course, this makes me wonder how this is going to affect the memory market. I bet prices go up again now.