Print 116 comment(s) - last by iFX.. on May 27 at 5:02 PM

Fine is the largest ever levied for antitrust violations in the EU

Intel is the largest CPU maker in the world and dominates the market in many categories. Allegations were made against Intel in Europe that the company was using its dominant market position to reduce competition and prevent AMD from gaining market share.

has been following the EU investigation into Intel closely. This week allegations against Intel were outlined that claimed the chipmaker offered computer makers discounts and incentives to not use AMD products and to cancel AMD products in development.

The New York Times reports that The European Commission has now ruled against Intel and fined the massive chipmaker $1.45 billion. The fine is the largest ever levied against a company by the Commission and eclipses the fine that Microsoft paid to the EU for anticompetitive practices by about two times.

The EU competition commissioner Neelie Kroes says that the massive fine was justified because Intel has denied consumers a choice for CPUs in products. Kroes told the NYT, "[Intel used] used illegal anticompetitive practices to exclude its only competitor and reduce consumers’ choice — and the whole story is about consumers."

Intel CEO Paul Otellini said the firm would appeal the decision. Otellini said, "We believe the decision is wrong and ignores the reality of a highly competitive microprocessor marketplace. There has been absolutely zero harm to consumers."

AMD's Giuliano Meroni, president of European operations said, "[The decision would] shift the power from an abusive monopolist to computer makers, retailers and above all PC consumers."

Kroes also says that Intel went to great lengths to cover up its anticompetitive actions. Part of the ruling against Intel also forces the company to immediately stop offering computer makers rebates that are part of the reason Intel maintains an 80% market share in Europe.

Intel must change these practices immediately pending appeal though it can ask for an injunction. The $1.45 billion fine has to be paid immediately, but will be placed into an account and held until all of Intel's appeals are exhausted. The appeals process could reportedly last for years.

The amount of the fine levied against Intel is certainly massive, but the NYT says it could have been even larger. The European Commission can levy fines as high as 10% of the company's total revenue. With sales of $37.6 billion in 2008, the fine could have reached nearly $4 billion.

Fines collected by the commission are added to its budget, which is around €130 billion reports the NYT. Kroes said, "Now they [Intel] are the sponsors of the European taxpayers."

The huge fine will also serve as a warning to other companies facing investigation by the commission. Regulators in the EU are some of the strictest enforcers of antitrust law in the world. The NYT reports that the EU is so much tougher on antitrust that U.S. firms often file allegations in Europe rather than in America. Intel is also facing inquiries in the U.S. from the FCC over similar allegations.

Comments     Threshold

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

By Eckstein on 5/13/2009 9:27:34 AM , Rating: 4
I wish that AMD would profit from these fines and that individuals would be held responsible.

But at least we finally got a court ruling on this.

RE: Finally!
By Ordr on 5/13/09, Rating: -1
RE: Finally!
By crystal clear on 5/13/2009 9:55:47 AM , Rating: 2
"AMD's success is going to be predicated on their own ability to execute their roadmap and continue to bring innovative technology to the market,"

RE: Finally!
By omnicronx on 5/13/2009 10:07:02 AM , Rating: 5
Everyone always says that, but forgets they WERE in that position 4-5 years ago. Don't get me wrong, they royaly screwed up with barcelona, but AMD never really had success even when they were doing everything right. I really doubt this case would have ever gone this far if this were not the case. It is pretty hard to argue that Intel is being anti competitive if you don't have a competitive product in the first place.(which they did throughout the original A64 line)

RE: Finally!
By crystal clear on 5/13/09, Rating: -1
RE: Finally!
By eyebeeemmpawn on 5/13/09, Rating: -1
RE: Finally!
By RyuDeshi on 5/13/2009 3:31:57 PM , Rating: 5
When Intel pays companies to not use them.

RE: Finally!
By foolsgambit11 on 5/13/2009 4:55:35 PM , Rating: 3
When will your success not depend on your ability to execute and innovate in the semiconductor industry?
When you're the victim of anti-competitive practices.

Of course, at heart is that AMD needed to execute perfectly for more than a product cycle. Product purchase choices are based on brand loyalty and trust in a company, as well as superior product. Would you buy a Chinese car, for instance, even if it did crash test as well or better than comparable offerings from Toyota? I'll personally wait until the company has produced several world-class products and I can trust the reliability of the product in the long-term.

In a developed market, you don't come out with a single great product and suddenly sweep up all of the market share. You have to build market share slowly by being consistently great.

That said, I've bought AMD products more often than not since the days of the K6-II (thanks Anandtech for candid reviews for more than a decade!). Partly based on price (I was a poor college student back then) and partly on principle. Nowadays, since I don't game as much, and my computer needs are barely more than web browsing, it's back to price, and AMD is definitely competitive.

RE: Finally!
By croc on 5/13/2009 7:54:14 PM , Rating: 1
You can make the best mouse trap in the world... But if you can't produce them fast enough to fill the orders, then the second best mouse trap will gain market share.

RE: Finally!
By HotFoot on 5/15/2009 4:45:58 PM , Rating: 2
Back when AMD was the performance king, I was buying a new rig. I really wanted that first X2 3800+ when it hit the market, but it was 50% more expensive than the Pentium D 820, and it didn't have 50% better performance. The same goes for much of the rest of their lineup as I started investigating price/performance. Price/performance only started to show up on these tech sites after the Core 2s came out. And that's me not buying a Dell or HP, but buying the components and building the computer myself.

So, unless you weren't on a tight budget, the AMD didn't make a lot of sense back when they were on top.

RE: Finally!
By stimudent on 5/13/09, Rating: 0
RE: Finally!
By inperfectdarkness on 5/13/2009 10:19:44 AM , Rating: 1
you know...that's an awesome idea.

anti-trust legislation should reward the spoils to the competition--NOT the consumers. that's probably the fastest, most productive way to push for a balance in the marketplace. the monopoly is losing; the upstart gaining. it's about the quickest way to help close the "gap" between them.

all we need is to regulate that said spoils go to infrastructure--NOT employee compensation packages.

besides...when was the last time you heard of any consumer actually reaping anything significant as the result of anti-trust litigation--DIRECTLY.

RE: Finally!
By AstroGuardian on 5/13/2009 10:54:59 AM , Rating: 3
Noo!! Wrong. It's catastrophic idea. The reward should not go to the competition and put them in advantage. The consumers are the victims here and not the competition. The competition did not succeed to offer quality products and gain the trust of the consumers so the consumers were forced to buy Intel products. And that's why the consumers should be "un-damaged"

RE: Finally!
By inperfectdarkness on 5/13/2009 3:47:33 PM , Rating: 2
so you would rather the money go to the EU?

RE: Finally!
By AstroGuardian on 5/14/2009 10:41:20 AM , Rating: 2
The main question is where money should NOT go. The money should not go to the competition since they did nothing to earn them. SO my answer is YES! The money should go to EU budget so the customers will receive bigger budget for public spending.

The main thing is the money should be taken away from Intel and not go to AMD. That's just.

RE: Finally!
By yomamafor1 on 5/13/2009 11:35:13 AM , Rating: 3
Except that AMD will not see a single cent from the "fine", as all of the money will get into EU's pocket anyway...

RE: Finally!
By GWD5318 on 5/13/2009 11:54:59 AM , Rating: 3
AMD won't see a single cent from the fines imposed by the European Commission, so they will not profit from the ruling in that aspect.

However, where they do stand a great chance of profiting is the opportunity to play on a more level playing field where Intel isn't allow to give OEMs "incentives" to use their products. Now that they have a very competitive mainstream product in the Phenom II, it just might be enough to push them back into the black. I hope.

If nothing else, this ruling will set precedent for future cases.

RE: Finally!
By tastyratz on 5/13/2009 12:11:00 PM , Rating: 3
I believe that would be called Socialism.

I wish that AMD would profit from making a competitive product again compared to recent intel offerings and drive total prices down through a fierce market.That's what I wish didn't go away after Athlon.

AMD, we miss you!

RE: Finally!
By axias41 on 5/13/09, Rating: 0
RE: Finally!
By axias41 on 5/13/2009 4:40:44 PM , Rating: 2
Giving billions of dollars to banks and car companies is not socialism, when other banks and car companies don't receive anything?

Now, underrate this post, if you feel better.

RE: Finally!
By Khato on 5/13/2009 8:37:03 PM , Rating: 2
But at least we finally got a court ruling on this.

Uhhhh, no.

Last I checked, the European Commission is the executive branch of the European Union. In this case, its responsibility is to investigate the complaints made against Intel and decide upon a course of action, a fine. Now that this is done, Intel finally gets to appeal the decision to the Court of First Instance, where there will at long last be actual legal scrutiny of the evidence and proper interpretation of European Union anti-trust law.

"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs
Related Articles

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM

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