It's no secret that we think that EU antitrust regulators are way too aggressive in pursuing antitrust claims against US tech companies. The EU continues to view market size as a problem, rather than looking as closely at actual anticompetitive behavior. And, now, it's coming out that the EU's antitrust regulators may be so overzealous to take down companies that they'll ignore evidence that goes against their hypothesis. The EU's ombudsman has apparently issued a report scolding EU antitrust regulators for flat-out ignoring evidence from a Dell executive concerning Intel and AMD. The EU, as you probably know, fined Intel €1 billion a few months back, finding that the company had abused monopoly powers to force hardware makers into using its chips. But, the EU's ombud discovered that the antitrust regulators had interviewed Dell execs who said simply that AMD's chips didn't have the performance of Intel chips. In fact, in their tests, AMD's chips were "very poor," so they chose Intel chips entirely on the basis of performance. And... conveniently, the EU's antitrust regulators simply failed to record this info and did not include it in their report. Of course, you can make anyone appear to have violated antitrust rules if you purposely ignore all evidence to the contrary.

We've never quite understood Nicholas Negroponte's position when it comes to the $100 Laptop/OLPC/XO (whatever it's called these days). While the idea behind creating a super cheap, super durable useful computer for children in developing nations is good, Negroponte has always approached the idea as one where only he should be allowed to see that vision through. When other companies decided it might be a good idea and wanted to target that market themselves, Negroponte flipped out and started attacking them for trying to undermine his project.

Sorry, Nicholas, but competition isn't undermining.

In fact, competition is generally what drives all parties to be better at what they do, in order to fend off the competition. Yet, somehow, the UK's Times Online has bought into Negroponte's side of the story and written up an article bashing Microsoft and Intel for trying to "kill" the OLPC. The article is riddled with factual errors and opinion substituting as fact, but the worst is in the central point of the article. The author mistakes companies all aiming for the same market as a nefarious attempt to "kill off" Negroponte's pet project -- as if he has some universal right to the market that no one else can attempt to enter. It also brushes over some simple facts, like the one where many countries have looked at the OLPC and realized it doesn't really serve their needs just yet. That, if anything, should be even more reason why competition is necessary. It helps create better products that actually serve the needs of people in those markets, rather than just what Negroponte decides they must want in his top-down manner.

With the positively yawn-inducing news over the weekend that Yahoo had rejected yet another offer from Microsoft, Joel West is reminding people that big acquisitions almost never make sense and very often destroy value. As an example, he points to the news that AMD is writing down $880 million on its acquisition of ATI only 8 months after it already wrote down $1.6 billion. That's $2.5 billion wiped out in a very short period of time. As West notes, small acquisitions can make sense for small companies, at least in allowing their founders to cash out -- but for big companies it's usually more about ego: helping them move up the Fortune 500. But those deals almost never work out:

The fundamental problem of acquiring public companies is that you have to pay more than the market price -- so the claim is either you know better than the market (never true) or that you will realize synergies that increase the value of the acquired company (almost never true). So the choice is between buying overpriced good companies, or troubled companies not worth buying at any price. Acquiring a troubled company means you acquire their troubles -- whether it's exposure to an industry past its peak (AOL Time Warner, Viacom-Blockbuster) or a company with a justifiably lousy market position (Daimler Chrysler).

The other aspect that he doesn't touch on is that with big companies, there are always investment bankers crawling all over management trying to convince them to buy up other companies one week, and sell off pieces the next. This "buy 'em up, sell 'em off" strategy almost never works for anyone but the investment bankers who take their fees both coming and going. So as the silly battle continues around Microsoft and Yahoo, rest assure that pretty much whatever happens, you can expect to see a destruction in value rather than any "synergies" revealed.

Over the summer, we wrote about problems with the merger between AMD and ATI, and folks in the comments insisted we were being too harsh and not giving the deal nearly enough time (along with some words bizarrely suggesting that we were "in bed" with Intel for suggesting any problems at AMD). Turns out that AMD actually agrees with our assessment that the merger has been something of a mess. The company has admitted that it's going to do a material write-down on the merger, though it hasn't yet figured out how much. Either way, it's yet another reminder that merging two big companies isn't a particularly easy process.

Commoditization is always a threat to PC manufacturers like HP and Dell, although by most accounts HP has done a better job of differentiating its products than the competition. But there's also an upside to commodization for these companies: cheaper components. A new research note from a Wall Street analyst argues that both HP and Dell will realize meaningful benefits from cheaper components when they report their coming quarterly earnings. In addition to lower DRAM and LCD prices, the ongoing price war between Intel and AMD will prove particularly beneficial. Whether these companies are actually taking advantage of these savings or whether they've been forced to completely pass them on to consumers depends on the market dynamics. Between Dell and HP, they may have enough of a grip on the market to avoid an all-out price war themselves, but such a situation can only be temporary as they'll be forced to cut their own prices eventually.

On Wall Street, there's a constant battle between growth and margins. Ideally, a company can show good growth and healthy margins, but often one gets sacrificed for the other. Last night, Intel came out with quarterly earnings that were up by 44% over the year-ago period -- perfectly respectable, particularly considering the headwinds facing the industry. But in order to keep sales high and keep AMD at bay, the company had to fall on its sword with respect to pricing, which proved a disappointment to investors. The company says it foresees continued growth, but it's hard to imagine that it could keep up this clip at the same time everyone else in the industry is suffering. Still, the fact that it managed to grow while remaining quite profitable is a further indication of how badly the company is drubbing AMD right now.

One of the biggest losers in the tech world right now is AMD, which has been getting its clock cleaned by Intel. Just a year ago, AMD was taking market share away from Intel, and with its acquisition of graphics chip maker ATI, it was supposed to establish technological supremacy over its much larger rival. But that dream has turned into a nightmare. The company announced today that David Orton, ATI's former CEO, would be stepping down, as plans to integrate the two companies' technology has been going slowly. Orton insists that he's still optimistic about AMD's chances (whatever that's worth), but it definitely appears that the company bit off way more than it could chew, in trying to do a major acquisition while simultaneously getting itself into a brutal price war with Intel.