Wednesday, May 13th 2009

Statement by Intel President and CEO Paul Otellini on EC Ruling

Paul Otellini, Intel Corporation president and CEO today issued the following statement regarding the European Commission decision on Intel's business practices:

"Intel takes strong exception to this decision. We believe the decision is wrong and ignores the reality of a highly competitive microprocessor marketplace – characterized by constant innovation, improved product performance and lower prices. There has been absolutely zero harm to consumers. Intel will appeal."

"We do not believe our practices violated European law. The natural result of a competitive market with only two major suppliers is that when one company wins sales, the other does not. The Directorate General for Competition of the Commission ignored or refused to obtain significant evidence that contradicts the assertions in this decision. We believe this evidence shows that when companies perform well the market rewards them, when they don't perform the market acts accordingly."

"Intel never sells products below cost. We have however, consistently invested in innovation, in manufacturing and in developing leadership technology. The result is that we can discount our products to compete in a highly competitive marketplace, passing along to consumers everywhere the efficiencies of being the world's leading volume manufacturer of microprocessors."

"Despite our strongly held views, as we go through the appeals process we plan to work with the Commission to ensure we're in compliance with their decision. Finally, there should be no doubt whatsoever that Intel will continue to invest in the products and technologies that provide Europe and the rest of the world the industry's best performing processors at lower prices."

Intel's Position on the AMD Antitrust Case
Since the 1990s Intel's principal competitor has been on a concerted campaign to get regulators and courts around the world to prevent Intel from competing aggressively in the market. The aggressive marketing campaign by Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) has included numerous complaints to regulators in multiple jurisdictions which all stem from the same set of allegations and source. It has included a private lawsuit in the U.S. and two in Japan. By all accounts the U.S. lawsuit could become one of largest antitrust cases in the history of U.S. Courts.

AMD's objectives are clear; it is seeking price protection and wants to become more successful by deterring Intel from aggressive competition. Stripped of hyperbole AMD's complaints around the world accuse Intel of competing too aggressively by offering customers attractive prices and marketing, and technical support to win their business.

The microprocessor market is fiercely competitive. That competition has resulted in tremendous benefits to consumers worldwide by providing continuous improvement in technology innovation, performance and capability at consistently lower prices. Intel believes in competition and has never shied away from it. As you will see from information contained on this site Intel believes it operates well within the law.

More information about Intel and "Competition in the Innovation Economy" is available here.Source: Intel
Add your own comment

128 Comments on Statement by Intel President and CEO Paul Otellini on EC Ruling

#1
IcrushitI
[/quote]= The incentive is cost cutting like we see with auto dealers usually sticking to only one brand of cars (only have to stock one set of parts for replacement).[/quote]I wouldn't be using the auto sector as an example. Were seeing whats happening in the Auto sector. Eg GM or Chrysler.
Posted on Reply
#3
Wile E
Power User
wiak said:
last time i checked AMD owned Intel with their Athlon 64 chips, but why did AMD only get upto 20% of the market when they had alot better CPUs in 2003?

99% of the time you go into a retailer you only see intel based PCs just a frew years ago
Because AMD couldn't afford to sell their cpus at the low prices Intel could offer OEMs.

Again, I think this ruling is BS. There is no evidence that Intel bribed OEMs to NOT sell AMD. It just appears that they offered better deals that AMD couldn't match. AKA: they undercut AMD. How is that illegal?
Posted on Reply
#4
Paintface
Wile E said:
Because AMD couldn't afford to sell their cpus at the low prices Intel could offer OEMs.

Again, I think this ruling is BS. There is no evidence that Intel bribed OEMs to NOT sell AMD. It just appears that they offered better deals that AMD couldn't match. AKA: they undercut AMD. How is that illegal?
sorry to disappoint but not even Intel is trying to claim they didnt, read and think before posting.
Posted on Reply
#5
snakeoil
Wile E said:

Again, I think this ruling is BS. There is no evidence that Intel bribed OEMs to NOT sell AMD. It just appears that they offered better deals that AMD couldn't match. AKA: they undercut AMD. How is that illegal?
if you have problems determining what is legal and what not then you will probably end up in jail.
people with that kind of problems are called criminals.
Posted on Reply
#6
Easy Rhino
Linux Advocate
Steevo said:
Are they preventing Intel from going there? Nope.

Did Intel prevent AMD from selling to major chains, thus forcing the hand of the majority purchasing a PC to have only one option, aka a monopoly. Yep.



Seems clear cut to me.


Provide proof of EU dropping "billions" to support AMD. as far as I know AMD has chosen the Dresden facility as they don't have the money to really have all their own production done in house. And as I remember they sought outside funding from private parties to do so.

AKA Put up or shut up.
the problem here is that you believe that intel was acting anti-competitively and i do not. i believe the law is wrong and is actually designed to only benefit the EU and not AMD. notice the money went to the EU, not to AMD. and notice that this ruling will not change anything for AMD because they are still run my morons.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090513-716543.html?mg=com-wsj

and the EU has invested billions in the area called silicon saxony

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/dec2008/gb20081222_939565.htm?site=cbs&campaign_id=djm

and doing so gives the EU a vested interest in protecting companies located there. if those companies shutdown then there are jobs lost and moved and tax dollars no longer coming in. again, notice how the fine money goes to the EU and not AMD. if anything, this will only cause intel to raise their prices, they will still control 80 percent of the market, you will pay more for chips when you buy intel and you wont have any more of a choice since AMD cant get their heads out of their collective ass.
Posted on Reply
#7
Wile E
Power User
snakeoil said:
if you have problems determining what is legal and what not then you will probably end up in jail.
people with that kind of problems are called criminals.
I have no problems determining right and wrong. I see nothing that shows Intel did something wrong. Whether it's legal or not is another story. If it is illegal to offer a better deal, then it shouldn't be. It's called competition.
Posted on Reply
#8
Hayder_Master
intel open the hell door when they begin fight AMD about x86 license before few months
Posted on Reply
#9
IcrushitI
Easy Rhino said:
the problem here is that you believe that intel was acting anti-competitively and i do not. i believe the law is wrong and is actually designed to only benefit the EU and not AMD. notice the money went to the EU, not to AMD. and notice that this ruling will not change anything for AMD because they are still run my morons.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090513-716543.html?mg=com-wsj

and the EU has invested billions in the area called silicon saxony

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/dec2008/gb20081222_939565.htm?site=cbs&campaign_id=djm

and doing so gives the EU a vested interest in protecting companies located there. if those companies shutdown then there are jobs lost and moved and tax dollars no longer coming in. again, notice how the fine money goes to the EU and not AMD. if anything, this will only cause intel to raise their prices, they will still control 80 percent of the market, you will pay more for chips when you buy intel and you wont have any more of a choice since AMD cant get their heads out of their collective ass.
Slow down, don't get your panties tied into a knot. Intel has as far as i've read 6 billion invested in europe, Ireland comes to mind. Just recently did they not shut the chip plant down. Ops I see tears swelling up in your eyes for the workers who lost their jobs. What penalty, read my lips, as W Bush would say, American companies are allowed under USA law to write off fines and penalties as a tax write off. Some American companies have no incentive to change their corrupt ways, the American people right now are paying for the ill gotten gains of these corrupt companies. When was the last time you read the business section or watched your own news stations, the stories about American corruption are their every night.
When the system changes from " Hey George we just got fined a billion", "don't fret it Fred, just put it in the same loss column as the rest of our fines and at the end of the year the taxpayers will take care of it." to " Hey George, I'm off to jail for I don't know for what."
Posted on Reply
#10
TheMailMan78
Big Member
IcrushitI said:
Slow down, don't get your panties tied into a knot. Intel has as far as I've read 6 billion invested in Europe, Ireland comes to mind. Just recently did they not shut the chip plant down. Ops I see tears swelling up in your eyes for the workers who lost their jobs. What penalty, read my lips, as W Bush would say, American companies are allowed under USA law to write off fines and penalties as a tax write off. Some American companies have no incentive to change their corrupt ways, the American people right now are paying for the ill gotten gains of these corrupt companies. When was the last time you read the business section or watched your own news stations, the stories about American corruption are their every night.
When the system changes from " Hey George we just got fined a billion", "don't fret it Fred, just put it in the same loss column as the rest of our fines and at the end of the year the taxpayers will take care of it." to " Hey George, I'm off to jail for I don't know for what."
:laugh: I called it. Here come the anti-American rhetoric. I love it how when people talk about a company thats based in the United States the argument always leads to Bush or the massively corrupt government. As if the EU is completely immune to corruption. You are from Canada IcrushitI I guess you guys are angles huh.

But lets get down to brass tacts here. When did the EU take away the power to attack "cartels" from the European commission?
In the EU, the Modernization Regulation 1/2003 means that the European Commission is no longer the only body capable of public enforcement of European Community competition law. This was done in order to facilitate quicker resolution of competition-related inquiries. In 2005 the Commission issued a Green Paper on Damages actions for the breach of the EC antitrust rules, which suggested ways of making private damages claims against cartels easier.
The EU isn't "protecting" anyone but their own pockets. It sucks a lot of people buy into their crap. But then again it shows peoples true colors.
Posted on Reply
#11
DrPepper
The Doctor is in the house
Another day another fine.

Anyway I believe marketing practices such as undercutting the competition and destroyer pricing are illegal in the EU and not in the US. So it does not surprise me that they were fined for something in the EU which is legal in the US. I disagree with those laws that limit companies such as intel from being competitive but for now we should respect EU law because in the end they won.
Posted on Reply
#12
TheMailMan78
Big Member
DrPepper said:
Another day another fine.

Anyway I believe marketing practices such as undercutting the competition and destroyer pricing are illegal in the EU and not in the US. So it does not surprise me that they were fined for something in the EU which is legal in the US. I disagree with those laws that limit companies such as intel from being competitive but for now we should respect EU law because in the end they won.
DrPepper see my post above yours. I was in an edit when you posted. The EU modifies the law to make themselves paydays. They found a pot of gold in 2005. I wonder whos next.....
Posted on Reply
#13
aGeoM
No, new news, for me.

It's a common practice by Intel, are you guys forgetting this one: http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=62140

Intel, do this moral (my ass...) thinking way, of doing business, for a long time, it's just a question of time an more will come to surface...
Posted on Reply
#14
TheMailMan78
Big Member
aGeoM said:
No, new news, for me.

It's a common practice by Intel, are you guys forgetting this one: http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=62140

Intel, do this moral (my ass...) thinking way, of doing business, for a long time, it's just a question of time an more will come to surface...
Naa didn't forget. Just thought that was BS too.
Posted on Reply
#15
DrPepper
The Doctor is in the house
TheMailMan78 said:
DrPepper see my post above yours. I was in an edit when you posted. The EU modifies the law to make themselves paydays.
I'm not saying its a just system but if they change the law intel would need to change their marketing in europe. I personally love competition. It forces other companies to innovate which causes great advances. Now the EU limiting competition to be "fair" is only causing large companies to lose money because the competition can't compete because they're incompetant etc. If AMD cpu's were so good and intel saw it as a threat to their market share they would do all they could to block the sales of AMD cpu's and if that means selling theirs at low prices and subsiding the cost themselves to keep market share is their choice and obviously they can't keep that up forever. Anyway I was meandering off there in my own thoughts. Since the EU targets larger companies E.G microsoft and Intel because they dominate the market because the competition can't keep up is rediculous because as we know each other company has a chance to gain market share and if they don't then they go bust and thats how it works. How is it right for the EU to decide what is fair in a market that is as fiercely competitive as the CPU industry where billions are spent every year to be the latest and greatest. Where those who innovate and can sell at the lowest price deserve the large market share they earned. If that doesn't make sense its because I'm insanely tired and exhausted.
Posted on Reply
#16
TheMailMan78
Big Member
DrPepper said:
I'm not saying its a just system but if they change the law intel would need to change their marketing in europe. I personally love competition. It forces other companies to innovate which causes great advances. Now the EU limiting competition to be "fair" is only causing large companies to lose money because the competition can't compete because they're incompetant etc. If AMD cpu's were so good and intel saw it as a threat to their market share they would do all they could to block the sales of AMD cpu's and if that means selling theirs at low prices and subsiding the cost themselves to keep market share is their choice and obviously they can't keep that up forever. Anyway I was meandering off there in my own thoughts. Since the EU targets larger companies E.G microsoft and Intel because they dominate the market because the competition can't keep up is rediculous because as we know each other company has a chance to gain market share and if they don't then they go bust and thats how it works. How is it right for the EU to decide what is fair in a market that is as fiercely competitive as the CPU industry where billions are spent every year to be the latest and greatest. Where those who innovate and can sell at the lowest price deserve the large market share they earned. If that doesn't make sense its because I'm insanely tired and exhausted.
Just go cover yourself up with a kilt and have a sip of whiskey. Well know what your saying. shhhhhhhhhhhh. Nighty night.
Posted on Reply
#17
aGeoM
TheMailMan78 said:
Naa didn't forget. Just thought that was BS too.
:toast:

There will be more BS to come. :laugh:

Be kicked hurts :nutkick:
Posted on Reply
#18
DrPepper
The Doctor is in the house
TheMailMan78 said:
Just go cover yourself up with a kilt and have a sip of whiskey. Well know what your saying. shhhhhhhhhhhh. Nighty night.
:laugh::toast:

Yeah I'm going to look at that in the morning and think wtf.
Posted on Reply
#19
TheMailMan78
Big Member
aGeoM said:
:toast:

There will be more BS to come. :laugh:

Be kicked hurts :nutkick:
Well if the BS keeps coming then you'll lose Intel. I hope you enjoy 10,000 Euro AMD cpus you'll soon have.
Posted on Reply
#20
DrPepper
The Doctor is in the house
TheMailMan78 said:
Well if the BS keeps coming then you'll lose Intel. I hope you enjoy 10,000 Euro AMD cpus you'll soon have.
I don't think either company would stick the prices up that much. Or else they wont have as much as if they sold them super cheap en masse. :p
Posted on Reply
#21
aGeoM
TheMailMan78 said:
Well if the BS keeps coming then you'll lose Intel. I hope you enjoy 10,000 Euro AMD cpus you'll soon have.
No if Intel plays fair, and put out some good stuff as they do, they sell, less but sell, I'm sure. This it's just to put a stop on greed, pure and simple.

Just another note: Why, Intel CPU's are infact, more expensive than AMD's, if they can afford selling them to OEM's at better price? ;)

Think a litte about it.
Posted on Reply
#22
IcrushitI
TheMailMan78 said:
:laugh: I called it. Here come the anti-American rhetoric. I love it how when people talk about a company thats based in the United States the argument always leads to Bush or the massively corrupt government. As if the EU is completely immune to corruption. You are from Canada IcrushitI I guess you guys are angles huh.

But lets get down to brass tacts here. When did the EU take away the power to attack "cartels" from the European commission?
The EU isn't "protecting" anyone but their own pockets. It sucks a lot of people buy into their crap. But then again it shows peoples true colors.
(In the EU, the Modernization Regulation 1/2003 means that the European Commission is no longer the only body capable of public enforcement of European Community competition law. This was done in order to facilitate quicker resolution of competition-related inquiries. In 2005 the Commission issued a Green Paper on Damages actions for the breach of the EC antitrust rules, which suggested ways of making private damages claims against cartels easier.)

" If I got this right, the reason was to hurry the proceedings, because in the states you can stall a case untill the party dies or a company goes bankrupt. This was designed to fast track proceedings."
As for being Canadian I have already admitted in this and any other forum that we in Canada were economically taken over years ago and are the 51st state. Just ahead of Puerto Rico. So yes we also have corruption.
Posted on Reply
#23
TheMailMan78
Big Member
aGeoM said:
No if Intel plays fair, and put out some good stuff as they do, they sell, less but sell, I'm sure. This it's just to put a stop on greed, pure and simple.

Just another note: Why, Intel CPU's are infact, more expensive than AMD's, if they can afford selling them to OEM's at better price? ;)

Think a litte about it.
Well they do have faster CPU's. You get what you pay for. Plus they can sell THEIR product for whatever price they want.

IcrushitI said:
" If I got this right, the reason was to hurry the proceedings, because in the states you can stall a case until the party dies or a company goes bankrupt.
Nice jab at our judicial system but its a no go. The EU changed its own laws and made them retroactive to penalize companies and create "paydays". If anyone is acting like the mob its the EU in this case. You can't change the rules in the middle of a game.
Posted on Reply
#24
aGeoM
Guys! This have nothing to do with EU, USA, or any Region in the world, have to do with a business practice done by one company, in this case Intel, could be any other one with the same practices, there have been other similar cases, with other company's from different areas of economy, all over the globe, so please, be rational.
Posted on Reply
#25
aGeoM
TheMailMan78 said:
Well they do have faster CPU's. You get what you pay for. Plus they can sell THEIR product for whatever price they want.
ya, sure... on an Monopoly market, yes... I guest they can...

Man open your eyes, if you don't see it it's because you don't want to see.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment