Intel Claims Flawed Evidence in $1.3 billion EU Antitrust Case
Intel is not content with a 1.06 billion Euro (about $1.34 billion) fine it was handed by EU antitrust regulators.
The fine was the result of an investigation based on allegations that Intel used unfair monopolistic powers against AMD. However, Intel is not rolling over and paying the fine just yet, stating that the EU's analysis is "defective" and relied on a "quality of evidence" that is "profoundly inadequate".
In May 2009, the EU slapped Intel with a record fine that was based on 4.15 percent of Intel's 2008 revenue. Even if the EU said that this was less than the "allowable maximum" of 10 percent, the fine was unprecedented and the EU did not miss an opportunity to provoke a challenging reaction from Intel. For example, EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes preempted previous discussions about a likely appeal by stating: "I'd like to draw your attention to Intel's latest advert calling them sponsors of tomorrow, now they are sponsors of the European taxpayer."
As the appeal process begins, Intel has filed a 84-page document against the 542-page decision provided by the EU. According to Reuters, Intel claims that the commission does not have enough evidence to rule on any wrongdoing on the side of Intel "and relied too much on subjective comments by the company's customers." However, the EU maintained that Intel is guilty Intel gave out unfair rebates to retail chains and PC makers that put its rivals at a disadvantage.
"These kind of rebates can only be intended to tie customers and put competitors in an unfavorable position," the Commission's lawyer argued.
A ruling could be expected within a few months, but Intel has another option available should it fail with the current appeal process: It can take its fight to the the EU Court of Justice.
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
Douglas Perry was a freelance writer for Tom's Hardware covering semiconductors, storage technology, quantum computing, and processor power delivery. He has authored several books and is currently an editor for The Oregonian/OregonLive.
-
fb39ca4 They may or may not deserve this, but it would be terrible if they got AMD out of the CPU business.Reply -
amuffin fb39ca4They may or may not deserve this, but it would be terrible if they got AMD out of the CPU business.At any time they can get AMD out of the CPU business. Just look at how far behind they are compared to Intel.Reply -
Anonymous_26 I see nothing wrong with what they did. Rebates aren't monopolistic if they are then every company from Intel down to the local supermarket should be sued. Why does it put AMD at a disadvantage because they didn't think of it you ask me I call it smart business. I'm so sick of hearing people cry about Intel. “WAAA! WAAA! Intel is abusing their position! WAA! Their not playing fair! WAA! WAA!” You know what AMD and everyone else out there Get over it! If you want to be successful in American business, you have got to play dirty. Companies should play fair, but it doesn’t work that way. No one gets to the top in American business without playing dirty. If you can’t handle it then roll over and die alreadyReply -
erunion Three prisoners were sitting in a jail, found guilty of "economic crimes" and were also comparing stories.Reply
The first one said, "I charged higher prices than my competitors, and I was found guilty of profiteering, monopolizing and exploiting consumers."
The second one said, "I charged lower prices than my competitors, and I was found guilty of predatory pricing, cutthroat competing and under-charging."
The third prisoner said, "I charged the same prices as my competitors, and I was found guilty of collusion, price leadership and cartelization." -
Onus Whatever Intel may or may not have done, the only certainty here is that parasites will get paid, without having produced anything of value for it.Reply -
TeKEffect erunionThree prisoners were sitting in a jail, found guilty of "economic crimes" and were also comparing stories. The first one said, "I charged higher prices than my competitors, and I was found guilty of profiteering, monopolizing and exploiting consumers." The second one said, "I charged lower prices than my competitors, and I was found guilty of predatory pricing, cutthroat competing and under-charging." The third prisoner said, "I charged the same prices as my competitors, and I was found guilty of collusion, price leadership and cartelization."Reply
Ha I like that one. Not enough jokes in Toms comments
-
Unolocogringo Why is it when a company is found guilty of these types of charges the government gets the money? Not the people the companys ripped off ?Reply -
blazorthon Doesn't AMD give small rebates to people whom buy new FX CPUs? I find it hard to call rebates monopolistic. Intel has done ill practices in the past and they may even be committing to such actions today, but I don't think that I'd call rebates one of them. I most certainly doubt that Intel would even risk letting AMD fail given the situation that Intel is in with the anti-trust lawsuits.Reply -
blazorthon Anonymous_26I see nothing wrong with what they did. Rebates aren't monopolistic if they are then every company from Intel down to the local supermarket should be sued. Why does it put AMD at a disadvantage because they didn't think of it you ask me I call it smart business. I'm so sick of hearing people cry about Intel. “WAAA! WAAA! Intel is abusing their position! WAA! Their not playing fair! WAA! WAA!” You know what AMD and everyone else out there Get over it! If you want to be successful in American business, you have got to play dirty. Companies should play fair, but it doesn’t work that way. No one gets to the top in American business without playing dirty. If you can’t handle it then roll over and die alreadyReply
I didn't see anything in the article that so much as implied that AMD was whining. This looks like it was entirely the EU's choice. Furthermore, "playing dirty" is no excuse for illegal activity when it actually happens and this happens often, especially in the American business markets. If you can't at least almost always obey the laws, then you shouldn't be in business where those laws are in effect.