Monday, May 11th 2009

EU Completes Intel Antitrust Case Investigations, Likely to Find it Guilty: Sources

The European Union trade regulatory body is expected to announce its verdict on the high-profile antitrust case against Intel on Wednesday. The company has been booked under charges relating to market malpractice, by influencing computer hardware manufacturers to postpone and/or cancel launches of their products that use CPUs made by its rival AMD. Intel allegedly abused its market position in the CPU industry, to cripple the growth of AMD in Europe, by offering special rebates to computer hardware manufacturers to restrict or eliminate the use of AMD processors. The company allegedly even influenced retailers by offering inducements to sell computers only with Intel processors installed.

The first violation by Intel is that it allegedly set set percentages of its own chips that it wanted PC makers to use, according to sources. Examples include NEC, which was told that only 20 percent of its products could use AMD processors. All Lenovo-made notebooks use Intel processors, while 95% of HP's product-line features Intel processors, sources said.

The second violation was where Intel bribed PC makers to delay or scrap the launch of their products that feature AMD processors, to favor Intel best. The Commission will characterize the payments as "naked restrictions" to competition, the sources said.

When found guilty, the commission will take two forms of action against Intel. A date will be set, following which, Intel cannot offer the rebates and other inducements EU finds illegal. A fine will also be collected from Intel. The commission can charge as much as 10% of Intel's annual revenue as fine, which was $38 Billion in 2008. The trade commission's decision set for Wednesday is said to be extremely complex and lengthy, in order to safeguard the antitrust enforcer against any possible legal challenges from Intel, which is likely to face one of the highest fines in Europe's antitrust history, according to Brussels-based lawyers. Intel's trouble in Europe began in 2000, when AMD complained that Intel was blocking its access to the European market.
Sources: Reuters, The Wall Street Journal
Add your own comment

82 Comments on EU Completes Intel Antitrust Case Investigations, Likely to Find it Guilty: Sources

#76
Wile E
Power User
SugarushIt's amazing how people go on and argue that Intel is innocent, because they just don't believe that Intel did it. - Well that sounds like a good argument and proof all in one, case closed, Intel didn't do anything illegal.

Others argue that Intel just offered rebates etc. and that it's legal and the EU should stop whining about the way the "free market" works. I guess these guys were there when Intel was just offering rebates and can testify that in court. Rebates are legal, but that's not what Intel is being accused of.

Oh and then there are the enlightened ones, who have seen the true (i.e. greedy and bureaucratic) face of the EU, which is just trying to milk some cash out of Intel from the land of the free and the brave.
No one should have to show proof of innocence. The burden or proof lays in the hands of the accusers. Innocent until proven guilty. Where's the proof of Intel's guilt in this case?

And be honest, what bureaucratic body isn't greedy? They all are, including the EU.
Posted on Reply
#77
TheMailMan78
Big Member
Wile ENo one should have to show proof of innocence. The burden or proof lays in the hands of the accusers. Innocent until proven guilty. Where's the proof of Intel's guilt in this case?

And be honest, what bureaucratic body isn't greedy? They all are, including the EU.
In Soviet EU, you do not work for industry. Industry works for you.
Posted on Reply
#78
Easy Rhino
Linux Advocate
TheMailMan78In Soviet EU, you do not work for industry. Industry works for you.
lmao!
Posted on Reply
#79
mdm-adph
Wile ENo one should have to show proof of innocence. The burden or proof lays in the hands of the accusers. Innocent until proven guilty. Where's the proof of Intel's guilt in this case?
You're thinking of criminal court. IANAL, but in civil court (fines, money, this kind of stuff), all you need is a "preponderance of evidence" -- all someone has to do is convince a judge (and/or jury) that Intel is "very likely" guilty.

At least, this is the way it is in most of the English-speaking world.
Posted on Reply
#80
Wile E
Power User
mdm-adphYou're thinking of criminal court. IANAL, but in civil court (fines, money, this kind of stuff), all you need is a "preponderance of evidence" -- all someone has to do is convince a judge (and/or jury) that Intel is "very likely" guilty.
Which is total and utter bullshit. This is not the way it should be at all.
Posted on Reply
#81
mdm-adph
Wile EWhich is total and utter bullshit. This is not the way it should be at all.
That's the way it's been for most of civilized history. ;)

Do you think you have a better way?
Posted on Reply
#82
Wile E
Power User
mdm-adphThat's the way it's been for most of civilized history. ;)

Do you think you have a better way?
Yes I do. Proof of guilt.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
May 2nd, 2024 19:09 EDT change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts