Intel Sued by FTC Over Monopoly Issues
Just as Intel clears one problem, another one appears.
Despite Intel's $1.25 billion settlement with AMD being already paid, the world's largest chipmaker's headaches are far from over.
Today the U.S. Federal Trade Commission launched an antitrust suit against Intel for anticompetitive practices.
"Intel has engaged in a deliberate campaign to hamstring competitive threats to its monopoly," said Richard A. Feinstein, director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition. "It's been running roughshod over the principles of fair play and the laws protecting competition on the merits."
The FTC expects that the complaint will be heard by an FTC administrative law judge next September, Bloomberg reported.
Follow us on Twitter for more tech news and exclusive updates here.
- CherryPal Launches Cheap-as-chips $99 Laptop
- Apple Wins Permanent Injunction Against Psystar
- Tuesday Deals: Just 10 Days Till Christmas!
- Intel Hexacore Gulftown to be Core i7 980X EE
- Israeli Security Opens Fire on a MacBook. Thrice.
- Microsoft Pulls Juku Amid Code Plagiarism Claim
- 31% of Windows 7 Problems Are From Install
- Play Age of Conan For Free Forever
- Rambus Buys Patents for LED, LCD Technologies
- EU Ends Microsoft Antitrust Probe; Hello Browsers!
- McDonald's to Offer Free WiFi Starting 2010
- Intel to FTC: We Didn't Do Anything Wrong
- Microsoft: EU Deal Will Require 'Significant Change'
- Wednesday Deals: Nine Days Till Christmas!
- AT&T Crippling Flashmob Organizer Backtracks
- Report: Google to Design Chrome OS Netbook
- Nvidia: AMD's Lead in DirectX 11 is ''Insignificant''
- Nvidia CEO Celebrates FTC's Case Against Intel
Good Lord man!
Don't those greedy 'turds have any common sense in their heads?
Intel and AMD already straightened things out and that 1.25 Billion dollar fine really had to hurt.
Is the FTC really trying to kill Intel or just do away with their ability to drive innovation to come out with newer processors and other products?
Why does it seem like everything "consumer advocacy" groups do has less to do with helping the consumer and more to do with milking money out of companies?
Is FTC the new Rambus?
Isn't the FTC a monopoly?
How is this lawsuit helping the consumers? I don't think I will see a dime of the outcome...
How did my comment get a Neg mark. I thought is was rather accurate since FTC Dismisses Rambus Antitrust Case, and right after that they filled their own lawsuit. I think it's rather ironic!
Good thing Intel's lawyers are now freed-up from the AMD mess!
If Intel has a "monopoly", and has used it to hold back other companies with threats and the like, then they deserve to be fined.
This had nothing to do with Intel vs AMD or Consumer Advocacy groups. It is between Intel and the FTC.
What would happen if Intel pushed everyone out of the market? How much would they be able to jack up the price, and no one could say/do anything about it? Look at MS right now. From $99 for an XP upgrade, to $199 for a Windows 7 Pro upgrade?
I don't know if they are guilty or not, but that is what an investigation and trial are for. We can only wait and see what happens.
Who are the socialist idiots who are neg-voting all of these very valid comments?!
The fact of the matter is that the FTC does very little to actually help or safe-guard consumers anymore. Between this, and their recent warnings about adult content in online social environments (thank you, Captain Obvious), and their recent chastizing of the movie and game industry for supposedly targeting kids with too much violence and sex, what we are seeing is, yet another, bloated government agency who thinks they have a mandate from on high to dictate to us what is and is not socially acceptable. I think the FTC, as well as numerous other federal agencies, should be defunded and their bureaucrats made to find real jobs (if that is even possible given their lack of real-world experience).
This is just sad because whether or not is is warranted, the only effect we as enthusiasts are going to see is slowed technological progression and higher CPU prices.
This is a bad time in our country to be a successful company. Too many politicians in power loathe success in the private sector.
Seriously is Jon Leibowitz a member of these forums? There are way to many Neg marks here on valide comments.
How did my comment get a Neg mark.
Who are the socialist idiots who are neg-voting all of these very valid comments?!
I typically will give someone a thumb down for asking why others have given them a thumb down. How/why you got a thumb down is irrelevant to the article.
If Intel could post on these boards, I'm sure it would look like this:
Who the heck just gave us a thumb down!? We already paid AMD!
The money Intel gave AMD to settle out of court is nothing compared to the money AMD lost due to intels wrong doings. I am glad the FTC is getting involved, i hope they hit them with the biggest fine in America history. If you don't play fair you must be punished, now it's time for Intel to get their spanking.............
How did my comment get a Neg mark. I thought is was rather accurate since FTC Dismisses Rambus Antitrust Case, and right after that they filled their own lawsuit. I think it's rather ironic!
It's because other people (like me) probably read "Is FTC the new RambO?" I didn't -1 as I re-read.
Hamid: What's that?
Rambo: It's blue light.
Hamid: What does it do?
Rambo: It turns blue.
*facepalm
How is this lawsuit helping the consumers? I don't think I will see a dime of the outcome...
Do you actually not understand how competition helps consumers?
Why does it seem like everything "consumer advocacy" groups do has less to do with helping the consumer and more to do with milking money out of companies?
To be only fair the FTC worked better before Obama appointed a former lobbyist for the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), by the name of Jon Leibowitz. Since then it has dropped the ball on a lot on principal arguments.
This has nothing to do with innovation, and everything to do with the way Intel tries to steamroll competitors. People shouldn't be bitching about how the FTC is trying to "stifle the free market economy" or "socialize capitalism" or "blah blah blah". Duplicitous market practices are what got Intel into this mess in the first place, and there's plenty of evidence to show that.
Leave Intel alone! Let them work and make better CPUs instead of feeding you money you fat greedy FTC!
Lets just hope this time the fine is something that would really hurt a giant like Intel, not puny 1.25 billion. Nasty business has to stop and if such is price, it has to be paid
Leave Intel Alone
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVlWl-up5K0
I dunno anything was said about a "fine" per se in the suit - seems to me to be aimed more at preventing abusive practices by Intel, as in the form of a restraining order or some such. I guess this would formalize what Intel & AMD already agreed to in their own settlement, in which case I don't see anything wrong with it...
lol i love how, whether they have a monopoly on the market or not, they still have the better part of a year before the matter even goes before a judge to keep doing as their doing.
Intel's settlement with AMD doesn't protect them from other investigations and other legal issues already in progress, and it doesn't protect them from government scrutiny and accountability concerning their past monopoly abuses since Intel actually appears to have committed criminal offenses. It just means AMD won't be launching any more anti-competitive suits against them in the near future.
Consider the OJ Simpson case: he went to court twice over the murder of Jessica Simpson, once in a court of law and the other in civil court. In this case, Intel has settled with AMD on the civil side, but US and other governments can still hold them account for criminal activities.
The fact that they've settled privately with AMD doesn't exonerate them from the FTC's measures. It might, however, play into the final ruling, since Intel has tried to bury the hatchet.
A crime is a crime, and it is the FTC's job to deal with this type of crime something they wouldn't do under the megacorp loving Bush admin.
Now if only congress would repeal the anti-trust exemption on insurance companies, we could see the FTC go after some real bad people.
-G, Local tech poly sci guy
that 1.25 bill has NOTHING to do witrh intel's US activites , that was a EU issue , the FTC is bringing the mattter of intels illegal US activites to light, that is what this is about . it's like a international murder , if they kill folks in two differnt countries , and say he get's arrested in ioen countrya nd tried and convicted it doesn't change the fact that he HASn't been punished for his murder in the opther country and he STILL CAN BE. same case here , teh 1.25 billion was the EU's punishment .. but intel hasn't even gone to court in US yet much less been punished for thier activites here
+1
I think a lot of people (those confused about why this is raised again) didn't realize that its a different jurisdiction (FTC for USA, EU Trade Commission for EU countries)
I'm going to guess people are voting you down for calling them socialists. Double plus ungood for not know what particular political philosophy espouses. Nice try though... Now could you go back to Limbaugh and leave the rest of us in peace?
...What THAT...
hahaha. Glad I'm not a grammar Nazi so I can laugh at my own mistakes.
Why does it seem like everything "consumer advocacy" groups do has less to do with helping the consumer and more to do with milking money out of companies?
What penalty would you suggest, writing "I will compete" on the blackboard 100 times?
The AMD vs Intel case is what awarded AMD the money and has nothing to do with EU, FTC, or any other case. Looking at how they settled, it was in Intel's best interest to not allow AMD to volunteer the information to harm Intel's cases now and in the future (regarding this antitrust delima).
What the 1.25B to AMD did in cases like this, AMD is not allowed to "volunteer" evidence to the FTC. But this does not stop the FTC from forcing AMD to bring evidence they need to proceed.