Thursday, February 9th 2012
New York Attorney General Agrees to Terminate Antitrust Lawsuit Against Intel
Intel Corporation and the New York Attorney General have agreed to terminate the lawsuit alleging violation of U.S. and state antitrust laws that was filed by the New York Attorney General in November 2009.
The agreement, which follows a December 2011 court ruling that greatly reduced the scope of the New York Attorney General's lawsuit, expressly states that Intel does not admit either any violation of law or that the allegations in the complaint are true, and it calls for no changes to the way Intel does business. The agreement includes a payment of $6.5 million from Intel that is intended only to cover some of the costs incurred by the New York Attorney General in the litigation.
"Following recent court rulings in Intel's favor that significantly and appropriately narrowed the scope of this case, we were able to reach an agreement with New York to bring to an end what remained of the case. We have always said that Intel's business practices are lawful, pro-competitive and beneficial to consumers, and we are pleased this matter has been resolved," said Doug Melamed, senior vice president and general counsel at Intel.
A copy of the agreement is available at www.intel.com/pressroom/legal/nyag.htm.
The agreement, which follows a December 2011 court ruling that greatly reduced the scope of the New York Attorney General's lawsuit, expressly states that Intel does not admit either any violation of law or that the allegations in the complaint are true, and it calls for no changes to the way Intel does business. The agreement includes a payment of $6.5 million from Intel that is intended only to cover some of the costs incurred by the New York Attorney General in the litigation.
"Following recent court rulings in Intel's favor that significantly and appropriately narrowed the scope of this case, we were able to reach an agreement with New York to bring to an end what remained of the case. We have always said that Intel's business practices are lawful, pro-competitive and beneficial to consumers, and we are pleased this matter has been resolved," said Doug Melamed, senior vice president and general counsel at Intel.
A copy of the agreement is available at www.intel.com/pressroom/legal/nyag.htm.
13 Comments on New York Attorney General Agrees to Terminate Antitrust Lawsuit Against Intel
$6.5 million costs? You mean the "costs" of some fat salaries and bonuses of the legal team running that office! And if not bonuses, sounds like one hell of an after-party!
If Intel did nothing wrong, then the Attorney General's office and the City of New York should pay the cost of investigating a BS claim and these people should lose their jobs...or shove that blame on the party that requested the investigation in the first place.
IF everything WAS on the level, then a private company should not have to pay a fee for the right to be investigated, that's just extortion :wtf:
If they found Intel was operating in violation of some law or code of ethics, and they are taking this money in exchange for dropping those charges...then this is bribery and these corrupt a-holes should all go to jail... :wtf:
I'm ashamed to call myself an American sometimes :(
Intel is trying to earn debt any way it can the USD is so depreciated it is actually better to be in debt than to be rich but we are diving into a different topic
^for the third world comment
But, this is usual for Intel
www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=U.S._Department_of_Justice/Salary
So if I get this strait, the NY Attorney General's office has had 24 full time lawyers (from junior to senior) working 27 months, non stop, on this case.
Does that sound overkill to anyone?
The Gov't is non profit remember so they are not allowed to make a cent extra than what it cost them to run the investigation... if the Gov't receives more than the cost, this would have to be deemed a penalty. No penalty in this case.
How does the Attorney General's office justify this cost? I haven't read much on this so if anyone can clarify it would be appreciated.
If Intel is guilty of something, and should pay $6.5MM, why isn't their a judgement against them? If they are innocent you can bet 100% they will not give a cent... appeal after appeal is what would happen. So how do we come to the road we are at now? I really don't follow this; to me, this is like wanting to fold in poker but you throw a few chips in the middle before saying fold. No logical reason for Intel paying $6.5MM.
Intel's Response to the New York Attorney General's Complaint
On November 3, 2009, the New York Attorney General ("NYAG") filed a complaint against Intel in Delaware alleging that Intel violated antitrust law. The NYAG alleges that Intel obtained exclusive or near-exclusive agreements from large computer makers "in exchange for payments totaling billions of dollars, and threatening retaliation against any company that did not heed its wishes. . . ." (Id.) Using colorful language, snippets of email communications out of context, and ignoring directly contradictory testimony, the NYAG further accuses Intel of "bribing or coercing OEMs either not to offer, or severely limit, AMD CPUs." (Id. at ¶ 40) Intel strongly disputes the NYAG's allegations. We explain below some of the basic factual and legal problems with the NYAG's complaint and why Intel believes this complaint is without any merit. Intel will follow-up with a more detailed analysis once we have completed and filed our formal answer on December 11, 2009.
""Too much work with the sizes. switching to bold.""
The NYAG's Complaint is Grounded More in Rhetoric and Politics than Fact and Law Rather than setting forth a clear statement of facts upon which its claim is based, the NYAG's allegations are deliberately inflammatory, apparently made for the political purpose of providing sound bites for media attention. The NYAG's conscious decision to use repeatedly the legal term "bribery," to characterize Intel's discounting, for example, is an outrageous hijacking of the meaning of language. As even the NYAG concedes, Intel provides rebates, or credits, against amounts owed to Intel, to reduce the cost of microprocessors to its customers. This is common in business and in every day life. A "bribe," on the other hand, is a well-known legal concept. It means offering a payment to induce an employee of a company to breach a fiduciary duty to his or her employer -- not a discount offered to the company to win more business. When a person goes to the store and is offered a lower price, no one considers that a bribe. Yet, that's what the NYAG is attempting to argue in its case.
The NYAG certainly knows the legal definition of a "bribe," and that it is not even remotely applicable in this case. As we explain below, the discounting that Intel does has been endorsed by the Supreme Court as activity protected by the antitrust laws, not condemned. But even beyond the complaint itself, "bribery" figured prominently in the NYAG's statements to the press and the headlines generated by the filing of the complaint. It is unfortunate that Intel must defend itself from such clearly unfounded and scurrilous characterization, but it illustrates the core problem with the NYAG's lawsuit – it is not grounded in fact and law, and betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the complex dynamics of the microprocessor business.