Wednesday, September 6th 2017

Intel's €1.06 billion EU Antitrust Fine to be Reviewed Back in the General Court

You may remember the EU's historical May 13th 2009 decision to slap Intel with a €1.06 billion fine for antitrust practices. Well eight years later, that odyssey isn't over just yet. The ECj (European Court of Justice), the European Union's supreme court, ruled today for a retrial of Intel's appeal against the €1.06 billion antitrust fine. The argument: the European Commission's accusations and Intel's counter-arguments weren't "delved enough" so as to arrive at the fine's decision. Specifically, the ECJ states that "The General Court was required to examine all of Intel's arguments … which the General Court failed to do (...)".

This decision pretty much guarantees more years of respite for Intel towards payment of the imposed fine, originally levied upon the company in 2009. It also shakes the European justice system's credibility, in the sense that a historical fine decision, which should be the EU's poster-case for antitrust violations and a free, just market, were based on incomplete information and ignorant of some of the counter-arguments raised by the blue giant. Specifically, the title of the ECj's press-release states that "The case is referred back to the General Court in order for it to examine the arguments put forward by Intel concerning the capacity of the rebates at issue to restrict competition."
The ECj further states that the original court had not properly considered the "efficient competitor test", a technical assessment of how Intel's activity impacted AMD's ability to compete against it. At the time, commission regulators concluded Intel, which was experiencing a dominating position in the x86 CPU market (with over 70% market share), offered rebates or even directly paid customers Dell, Lenovo, HP, NEC and to Europe's largest IT retailer, Media Markt, on condition they shun rival AMD's products in favor of Intel-branded ones. Further, the decision presented cases of Intel paying computer makers to cancel or delay the launch of systems using chips made by AMD, and even of selling its CPUs for server computers below production cost to large customers such as governments and universities. Sources: Politico, Intel picture, European Union's Court of Justice Press Release, Engadget, IT World, Kitguru
Add your own comment

21 Comments on Intel's €1.06 billion EU Antitrust Fine to be Reviewed Back in the General Court

#1
GhostRyder
Yea...They are just bidding time with it, plus they do not have much to lose trying to get it overturned. Its been proven at this point that they did it and it was wrong regardless of how Intel wants to spin it. However, money is money so they obviously are not going to hand it over quietly as 1 billion is quite a substantial sum.
Posted on Reply
#2
FreedomEclipse
~Technological Technocrat~
GhostRyder said:
Yea...They are just bidding time with it, plus they do not have much to lose trying to get it overturned. Its been proven at this point that they did it and it was wrong regardless of how Intel wants to spin it. However, money is money so they obviously are not going to hand it over quietly as 1 billion is quite a substantial sum.
One billion is but a drop in the ocean for intel.... In 2016 their total revenue was 59.38 billion. 2017 Q2 they are currently sitting at 14.8 billion at time of the report.... Its probably closer to 16-17 billion by now.
Posted on Reply
#3
Vya Domus
FreedomEclipse said:
One billion is but a drop in the ocean for intel.... In 2016 their total revenue was 59.38 billion. 2017 Q2 they are currently sitting at 14.8 billion at time of the report.... Its probably closer to 16-17 billion by now.
Considering they have spent billions on a ton of arguably useless acquisitions and failed attempts to enter some markets , they might want to hold onto every billion from now on.
Posted on Reply
#4
Aldain
FreedomEclipse said:
One billion is but a drop in the ocean for intel.... In 2016 their total revenue was 59.38 billion. 2017 Q2 they are currently sitting at 14.8 billion at time of the report.... Its probably closer to 16-17 billion by now.
Um dude not even close to 17 billion and Samsung is now number 1 not intel..
Posted on Reply
#5
FreedomEclipse
~Technological Technocrat~
Vya Domus said:
Considering they have spent billions on a ton of arguably useless acquisitions and failed attempts to enter some markets , they might want to hold onto every billion from now on.
Easily recoverable...unless everyone starts going AMD for CPU's. That 59.38 billion wad last years revenue. They probably have much more than that stowed away somewhere

Aldain said:
Um dude not even close to 17 billion and Samsung is now number 1 not intel..
I wasn't aware it was a pissing contest. Thanks
Posted on Reply
#6
HD64G
I would make them pay much more if it will get into a trial again, as now numbers are sure to be more clear about hwat happened for years and what was the damage for AMD and customers for the next decade (they both kept cpu performance almost stagnant and performance per value diminished to much worse levels having 4-core cpus for $300 or more till now that Ryzen forced them to put 6-core cpus into the mainstream i7s with the 8 series.
Posted on Reply
#7
R-T-B
Aldain said:
Um dude not even close to 17 billion and Samsung is now number 1 not intel..
I reported on that. To yodasize my opinion, Profits exceeding for one quarter, number one does not make.
Posted on Reply
#8
HTC
Let's help the ECJ by showing them this:

<div class="youtube-embed" data-id="osSMJRyxG0k"><img src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/osSMJRyxG0k/hqdefault.jpg" /><div class="youtube-play"></div><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osSMJRyxG0k" target="_blank" class="youtube-title"></a></div>

Perhaps they'll increase the fine ...
Posted on Reply
#9
Tomorrow
HTC said:
Let's help the ECJ by showing them this:

<div class="youtube-embed" data-id="osSMJRyxG0k"><img src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/osSMJRyxG0k/hqdefault.jpg" /><div class="youtube-play"></div><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osSMJRyxG0k" target="_blank" class="youtube-title"></a></div>

Perhaps they'll increase the fine ...
The fine should be percetange of the profit Intel made during the years anticompetitive practices took place. Not a predefined fixed sum. Although in the current case EU should double the fine due to intentional avoidance by Intel. Intel has misused the legal system and needlessly prolonged proceedings to avoid payment.
Posted on Reply
#10
techy1
Tomorrow said:
The fine should be percetange of the profit Intel made during the years anticompetitive practices took place. Not a predefined fixed sum. Although in the current case EU should double the fine due to intentional avoidance by Intel. Intel has misused the legal system and needlessly prolonged proceedings to avoid payment.
"...anticompetitive practices took place", "... has misused the legal system" - why exactly are you using the past tense?
Posted on Reply
#11
Tomorrow
techy1 said:
"...anticompetitive practices took place", "... has misused the legal system" - why exactly are you using the past tense?
Feel free to inform us of their latest dealings if you have info. I'm talking past tense because that's the topic here.
Posted on Reply
#12
R0H1T
Tomorrow said:
Feel free to inform us of their latest dealings if you have info. I'm talking past tense because that's the topic here.
Contra revenues, while not illegal it certainly pushed the boundaries of what could be deemed legal.
It's also the reason why AMD's Mullins & Beema never took off in the cheapo laptop market i.e. $200~300 or x86 tablets.
Posted on Reply
#13
GreiverBlade
FreedomEclipse said:
One billion is but a drop in the ocean for intel.... In 2016 their total revenue was 59.38 billion. 2017 Q2 they are currently sitting at 14.8 billion at time of the report.... Its probably closer to 16-17 billion by now.
then why they battle against that fine .... as they are probably just as guilty as they are charged to be ...
if 1b is nothing

Vya Domus said:
Considering they have spent billions on a ton of arguably useless acquisitions and failed attempts to enter some markets , they might want to hold onto every billion from now on.
nahhhh they still have enough ... i'm pretty sure ... probably not in "public" view

my tic was blue/green my toc will be red/green, just need to wait a bit more ....
Posted on Reply
#14
FreedomEclipse
~Technological Technocrat~
GreiverBlade said:
then why they battle against that fine .... as they are probably just as guilty as they are charged to be ...
if 1b is nothing


nahhhh they still have enough ... i'm pretty sure ... probably not in "public" view

my tic was blue/green my toc will be red/green, just need to wait a bit more ....
Probably because its 'their' drop in the ocean.
They would probably still fight it even if it was half the amount
Posted on Reply
#15
GreiverBlade
FreedomEclipse said:
Probably because its 'their' drop in the ocean.
They would probably still fight it even if it was half the amount
true that ... (thought i expected that much.... my question was not a real question tho :laugh: )

edit: i would have written it more like that "because it's a drop in 'their' ocean"
Posted on Reply
#16
Readlight
My first cumputer Fuyitsu Siemens had Athlon x2 cpu.
Posted on Reply
#17
AsRock
TPU addict
Readlight said:
My first cumputer Fuyitsu Siemens had Athlon x2 cpu.
And mine was a 386 but later IBM fast to replaced with AMD chip that ran much cooler.

And my last 2 PC's were Intel but was that due to Intel and all their crap they given AMD over the years ?. One thing over the 30 years the crap Intel has put AMD though it surly not helped.

I hope they get what should happen, maybe others will start to talk and get them more fines if found in wrong doing.

But money talks.
Posted on Reply
#18
KhatSilverwing
Just to correct one point mentioned in a number of the comments - Intel paid the fine in full back in 2009. They haven't been engaging in the appeals process to avoid paying the fine, but rather to recover what's already been paid.
Posted on Reply
#19
lewis007
If Intels reach could convince multi billion dollar companies to sway their way, how hard would a few Judges and a jury be for Intel to corrupt.
Posted on Reply
#20
riffraffy
HTC said:
Let's help the ECJ by showing them this:

<div class="youtube-embed" data-id="osSMJRyxG0k"><img src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/osSMJRyxG0k/hqdefault.jpg" /><div class="youtube-play"></div><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osSMJRyxG0k" target="_blank" class="youtube-title"></a></div>

Perhaps they'll increase the fine ...
Thanks' for the video but now I feel dirty for only buying Intel CPUs . How would the fine be paid, Would the EU keep some for expenses (Surly this has been no small undertaking by them) , or would AMD get the bulk ? Also as a company you may make deals with other companies , but not to suppress another ,so why are the paid-off companies not being sued?
Posted on Reply
#21
HTC
riffraffy said:
Thanks' for the video but now I feel dirty for only buying Intel CPUs . How would the fine be paid, Would the EU keep some for expenses (Surly this has been no small undertaking by them) , or would AMD get the bulk ? Also as a company you may make deals with other companies , but not to suppress another ,so why are the paid-off companies not being sued?
That's a very good question!
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment