backtop


Print 15 comment(s) - last by plowak.. on Feb 24 at 5:16 PM

Intel's request for oral hearing in latest antitrust case denied

Intel is the world's largest chipmaker and its dominant position in the market has led to allegations of anticompetitive practices being frequently levied against the company. Intel has fought anti-trust issues both in America and abroad.

EWeek reports that Intel has been denied an oral hearing on the latest antitrust probe currently underway in the European Union. Intel reports that it responded on February 5 to antitrust charges filed with the European Commissions that allege it tried to exclude rival chipmaker AMD from the European market for x86 CPUs.

According to the European Commission, Intel requested an oral hearing and a hearing officer denied Intel's request. The official said, "The Commission will nevertheless assess whether the information submitted on Feb. 5 is necessary to properly conduct the administrative procedure in this antitrust case."

Intel Spokesman Chuck Mulloy said, "We filed an answer and we are waiting for the commission to make a determination." Mulloy noted that it was up to the Commission to decide the next step of the probe. He continued saying, "The next step is for them to analyze and make a decision going forward. The ball's in their court."

Microsoft is also fighting charges of antitrust in the European Union that allege the software giant is stifling internet browser competition with its practice of bundling Internet Explorer with the Windows Operating system. The charges were started by a complaint form the company behind the Opera browser.

So far, Microsoft has coughed up $2.4 billion in fines paid related to antitrust issues in Europe.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Of course they denied it...
By noirsoft on 2/24/2009 10:53:24 AM , Rating: 5
An oral hearing is logically impossible. Oral is for speaking, Aural is for hearing. :)




RE: Of course they denied it...
By JasonMick (blog) on 2/24/2009 11:09:12 AM , Rating: 5
Ugh can't resist....
Bill Clinton asked the European Commission's Intern Staff if he could have an oral hearing in place of Intel.

*Ducks*


RE: Of course they denied it...
By TheSpaniard on 2/24/2009 11:25:51 AM , Rating: 2
getting bold are we?


RE: Of course they denied it...
By jjmcubed on 2/24/2009 11:35:46 AM , Rating: 5
Hey, at least he put a smile on my face during a tough morning.

Republican, Democrat, any party around can still have a sense of humor. Sometimes a joke in the midst of the ugliness of the world can be helpful. Just my two cents.


RE: Of course they denied it...
By Dreifort on 2/24/2009 11:57:18 AM , Rating: 5
Why do the Europeans have to be so anal about oral. Can't they just be full frontal about their true intentions instead of just leading us on? They could end up pie all over their face.


Ummm...
By Motoman on 2/24/2009 11:16:57 AM , Rating: 2
...K, so clearly I are not an lawyer. I can't see from the article what the implication of wanting an "oral" hearing is, or what the implication of being denied such a hearing is.

...one would presume that doesn't mean that Intel can't actually talk during the hearing now - relegating them to pantomime and charades. Not that they aren't experts at parlor tricks...




RE: Ummm...
By armagedon on 2/24/2009 11:35:00 AM , Rating: 2
I really love this site. People comments are so funny ...
Keep it up guys, lite and amusing.


RE: Ummm...
By choadenstein on 2/24/2009 11:50:55 AM , Rating: 4
I am a attorney in the U.S., so take my comments with a grain of salt as it pertains to EU civil procedure. But, when I read oral hearing, the equivalent in U.S. jurisdprudence would be oral arguments, typically like those seen in various Federal Court of Appeals or the SCOTUS (or any number of state appeals courts or courts of last resort).

After the parties file their written briefs in support of their appeals, the attorneys will have an oral argument time whereby the attorney can attempt to make his/her case in person, and it also allows for the judges to ask questions that may be needed to clarify whatever was stated in the parties briefs.

Appeals courts and the SCOTUS do not have the same law and order esque court room drama of the "Oh SNAP, did you hear what that witness just said" or gotcha moments. In fact, in the U.S., the appeals courts and the SCOTUS are not (in most cases) allowed to hear new facts, only make rulings on the interpretations of law made by the lower courts. Typically an attorney at the appeals level is arguing that the trial court got something wrong (e.g., standard of care, duty, allowed or disallowed some piece of evidence, etc...)

I do not know if this is the case in this matter, but hopefully this helps. Sounds to me like the EU has just already made up its mind and does not want to hear what Intel has to say.

On another note, $2.4b from Microsoft... EU's got a money train a rollin' here. Bring in big companies, sue 'em for Antitrust over and over again. Not bad EU... Not bad.

I wonder at what dollar value Microsoft just says, "Nah, I think we'll just not do business in the EU anymore." Have fun with your Macs and Linux computers. NO MORE HALO FOR YOU!!!! :)


RE: Ummm...
By mars777 on 2/24/09, Rating: -1
RE: Ummm...
By phazers on 2/24/2009 3:33:18 PM , Rating: 1
I think both MS and Intel should say "go to hell" to the EU. Let them subsist on Linux and AMD CPUs :).


RE: Ummm...
By plowak on 2/24/2009 5:16:15 PM , Rating: 2
Thar ye go, thar ye go...you done crossed the line now!


Why the hell...
By Denithor on 2/24/2009 11:39:16 AM , Rating: 1
would you mention that Microsoft is also in hot water with the EU and has paid $2.4B in fines previously? Why? What impact does that have on the situation Intel is in?

/eyeroll




RE: Why the hell...
By Mr Perfect on 2/24/2009 12:58:14 PM , Rating: 3
It is kind of related. Tech companies getting whacked by the EU and whatnot.

Although, if you notice, the oddball additions to articles here always come with a link to another DT article. It's an attempt to get readers to spend more time here.


RE: Why the hell...
By TSS on 2/24/2009 2:53:23 PM , Rating: 2
meh, comes with the territory. in the end even DT has to pay for it's bandwidth, and the more people that view news and thus adds the more likely it is for one of them to click and bring in cash.

i'd imagine it's hard enough already for a tech site to get people to click on online ads :P


Try Flowers + Candy
By spagnitz on 2/24/2009 2:18:54 PM , Rating: 2
Next Time




"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein




Latest Headlines
2/10/2012 Daily Hardware Reviews
February 10, 2012, 5:50 PM
2/9/2012 Daily Hardware Reviews
February 9, 2012, 11:54 AM
2/8/2012 Daily Hardware Reviews
February 8, 2012, 1:11 PM
2/7/2012 Daily Hardware Reviews
February 7, 2012, 12:23 PM










botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki