The minute I read that the EU had decided to stick Intel with a fine of over one billion Euros for purported anti-trust violations, I almost threw a heavy object at a nearby wall. Adding insult to injury, the EU provided a whole host of reasons why this move would ultimately benefit consumers, which I doubt it will. This looks to me like a clever way for the EU to levy a tariff on American goods without violating trade agreements.

But let us take a few steps back. The EU brought a suit against Intel, the world's largest microprocessor manufacturer, for engaging in some practices it deemed anticompetitive, such as offering computer manufacturers discounts for large orders or for signing exclusivity agreements. The EU argued (and continues to argue) that these practices drove other players out of the market, principally AMD, which hurt consumers by reducing the incentive to innovate and restricting their choice. It also helped the EU's case that Intel has about 80% market share: market dominance the EU claimed was only possible through Intel's various business strategies.

None of this makes any sense. Many companies offer other large buyers or exclusive partners preferential pricing or other benefits. BMW, I believe, outfits all of its vehicles with Michelin brand tires. Yet I doubt the EU would impose an enormous fine on BMW if they discovered Michelin offered the German carmaker lower prices than Audi, provided Audi buys their tires from some other manufacturer.

Furthermore, I don't see how the bundling practices the EU so dislikes hurt consumers. First and foremost, the agreements Intel had with computer manufacturers gave consumers cheaper computers! While Intel may have the personal computer microprocessor market cornered, there exists heated competition among computer manufacturers to produce the cheapest computers possible. Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that, if Dell managed to procure processors for its computers at a lower cost, Dell would sell the computers to consumers at a lower price. Could someone please explain why having access to cheaper computers hurts consumers?

The EU also fails to recognize the fact that Intel plain and simple makes a better product. I recommend people buy laptops with Intel processors not because Intel pays me to do so, but rather because Intel makes the best notebook processors. It hardly seems reasonable to punish a company who has, by and large, managed to obtain market dominance by providing a superior product to its competitors.

Not that average consumers really care whether their computer has an Intel band microprocessor anyway. Saying that a shopper will prefer one laptop to another solely because the preferred laptop has an Intel processor would be akin to a car buyer opting for an Audi over a BMW because the Audi has a Bose brand sound system. Yes, I can imagine there are some people who might do that (crazy people at that), but I doubt whether the average or "reasonable" person would.

Intel has appealed the decision, and I'm sure they have a top-notch legal team to combat the EU's absolutely ludicrous ruling. By imposing this fine, the EU does nothing to help consumers, unless forcing people to spend more for computers fits their definition of "help consumers." The ruling also cements the perception that the EU's is a place hostile to business, something I'm sure the millions of unemployed Europeans will love when they go looking for jobs. It just makes no sense.