between 1998 and 2002, these same three companies, Samsung, Hynix (the predecessor of SK Hynix), and Micron, took part in a criminal conspiracy to fix the prices of DRAM ...
As a result, several Samsung executives went to prison.
this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2026
294 points (99.3% liked)
PC Master Race
21761 readers
5 users here now
A community for PC Master Race.
Rules:
- No bigotry: Including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. Code of Conduct.
- Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No NSFW content.
- No Ads / Spamming.
- Be thoughtful and helpful: especially when new beginners have questions.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I got like $75 out of that one, I think.
Bombshell
:-/
That's not a fucking bombshell, this was known for 30 years, it's only now that people are noticing because prices went up 400-500%.
But i don't have much hope in this lawsuit because those that are in charge of these companies and their investors should be held accountable, but due to criminals making laws to protect themselves they'll get a slap on the wrist and a few million to pay and we won't get the pre rampocalypse prices back.
How can you say that? We might get $30 10 years from now
I'm shocked! Shocked I say!
... well not that shocked.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jVzeHTlWIDY https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9A-eeJP0J7c It been like this since the 90s and we still haven't done shit about it.
I don’t get it.
Do they not all have the incentive to drive up ram prices? How is colluding any worse than every player being aware of what benefits them and acting accordingly?
The distinction lies in competitive risk. Under independent action, if one firm cuts supply to raise prices, rivals are incentivized to increase production to steal market share, which naturally caps price hikes. Under collusion, firms agree to cut supply simultaneously, eliminating this competitive check. This creates artificial scarcity, allowing all participants to charge monopoly prices without fear of being undercut. The lawsuit argues this is especially damaging in the DRAM market, where $15–20 billion entry barriers prevent new competitors from entering to discipline prices.
rivals are incentivized to increase production to steal market share
How so? Wouldn’t you be incentivized to also cut supply to raise prices knowing that your “competition” is in the same boat?
The logic you outlined only works if there are many, many players, not a handful.
You're seeing an oligopoly in a prisoner's dilemma. I'll try to better explain what I thought I said at the end of my last post:
The suit alleges that because these three firms control ~95% of the market and face huge entry barriers ($20B+ for a new fab), they successfully suppress the natural incentive to compete. Instead of one firm expanding to capture the DDR4 market (which would lower prices), they allegedly coordinated to all exit that market simultaneously, creating an artificial scarcity that independent self-interest would rarely sustain.
When this prisoner's dilemma operates "correctly", every firm fears being the "sucker" who cuts production while others don’t. This fear often forces them to compete (produce more) rather than collude, keeping prices lower than they would be under a true monopoly.
The lawsuit argues that the market should naturally suffer from this instability, protecting consumers. Collusion removes this natural check.
I don’t think the author of this article has ever experienced a bomb explosion.