Print 84 comment(s) - last by BZDTemp.. on May 13 at 9:21 AM

Intel still maintains its innocence

Intel and Microsoft are two of the largest and most dominant companies in the technology industry. Both of the companies have also been accused of antitrust violations over the years and have at times been found guilty of the accusations.

Intel has been battling EU regulators over antitrust allegations claiming it abused it dominant market position to prevent its main rival, AMD, from gaining traction in the marketplace. The allegations claim that Intel was illegally paying computer makers to postpone or cancel the launch of products using AMD processors according to insiders close to the case.

Reuters reports that EU regulators are set to decide on Wednesday to fine Intel and order it to change its business practices. One EU executive claimed that Intel has practiced "naked restrictions" to competition in the market.

There is no indication at this time on how large the fine assessed against Intel might be; the largest fine ever assessed by the commission for abuse of a dominant position in the marketplace was the $655 million fine levied against Microsoft in March of 2004.

According to sources cited by Reuters, the EU commission is expected to rule that Intel committed two violations. One of the violations alleges that Intel paid computer makers to delay or outright scrap products using AMD processors. Intel is also said to offer other inducements to computer makers to get them to sell Intel only machines.

Intel allegedly set the percentages of its chips that PC makers had to use. NEC was told that 20% of its notebooks could use AMD CPUs according to sources. The source claimed that all Lenovo notebooks had to use Intel chips and many Dell products had to as well. HP is claimed to have been required to offer 95% of its notebooks with Intel processors. Intel had no comment on the claims and still maintains it did nothing wrong.

Comments     Threshold

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

RE: not sure why
By SandmanWN on 5/11/2009 1:26:15 PM , Rating: 0
again you are confusing yourself. you can lower the price as much as you want to. you can put yourself out of business if you so please.

the agreements with other companies were the only sticking point in the EU case. Intel can price their processors any way they see fit.

Coercive monopoly? Not hardly. You can't do that as long as you have viable competition in the market. All OEMs have an AMD lineup now, so your argument is flawed to say the least.

RE: not sure why
By omnicronx on 5/11/2009 2:32:58 PM , Rating: 2
You can argue all you want, antitrust cases in both EU and US seem to agree with me.

You seem to think that unless a company is a natural monopoly they are in the clear, and this is just not the case.(i.e your last statement is unfounded and incorrect)

Furthermore it does not matter what is happening now, but what happened in the past. That is like saying 'well you can't charge me for murdering people because I stopped that 5 years ago.'

RE: not sure why
By SandmanWN on 5/11/2009 2:42:15 PM , Rating: 2
actually the US seems to disagree in that AMD hasn't proven its case and there hasn't been legal standing to bring forth a case. now don't go making things up now or bringing in cases that have no bearing on the cpu market.

Nope not what I said anyway. I already said I think Intel is guilty. Like shoving words in peoples mouths do yah? My personal disagreement is the EU's monetary benefit. Get it moron?

RE: not sure why
By omnicronx on 5/11/2009 3:13:51 PM , Rating: 2
What on earth are you talking about. FTC is still investigating and AMD has not had a chance to prove their case considering it does not go to court until 2010.

I also understand what you are trying to say, I just 100% disagree. Any monies coming into the government goes back to the public, thus it is not to the EU's benefit, but to the consumers that were forced to pay high prices for years. Of course it won't directly go back to the public. Its not like the EU is going to cut a check to anyone that bought a computer but pooled money is pooled money. Whether or not you think this is 'right' is beyond the scope of this argument.

"I'd be pissed too, but you didn't have to go all Minority Report on his ass!" -- Jon Stewart on police raiding Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki