backtop


Print 110 comment(s) - last by uibo.. on Nov 7 at 5:35 AM


New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo  (Source: Groll/AP)
“We intend to stop them" -- New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo

Intel is no stranger to lawsuits. The company was slapped with a $1.45B USD fine by the EU in May of this year for anticompetitive practices. The charges leveled against Intel mainly focused on illegal methods Intel used to keep AMD from gaining in traction in the marketplace.

At the time, EU competition commissioner Neelie Kroes noted that, "[Intel used] used illegal anticompetitive practices to exclude its only competitor and reduce consumers’ choice — and the whole story is about consumers."

The Santa Clara, CA-based company later appealed the ruling with Intel spokesman Chuck Malloy saying, "Our position is that the decision was wrong and we said that from the day it was announced. It was wrong on many levels."

Now it appears that Intel is facing another lawsuit -- this time on its own home soil according to the New York Times. New York attorney general Andrew M. Cuomo is going after Intel this time with a federal antitrust lawsuit. Like the aforementioned EU case, Cuomo asserts that Intel used illegal tactics to stifle AMD.

“Rather than compete fairly, Intel used bribery and coercion to maintain a stranglehold on the market,” said Cuomo. “Intel’s actions not only unfairly restricted potential competitors, but also hurt average consumers who were robbed of better products and lower prices.”

The NYT adds that the state of NY's action against Intel could mean that the FTC could step in as well with charges of its own. "These are separate investigations, but it would be very surprising for New York State to go off on its own without being fairly confident the FTC would pursue Intel as well," a person familiar with the situation told the NYT.



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Who cares about AMD?
By lightfoot on 11/4/2009 5:19:21 PM , Rating: 2
They may not have been convicted yet, but that doesn't mean that they didn't do anything. It simply hasn't been proven in a court of law.

You can presume their innocence, but clearly the state of New York and the Federal Trade Commission believe that they can prove that the law was broken.

However the action in question must have already occured. You can't put someone on trial for something they have not yet done. So yes, they did do something. It is just a matter of proving that that something was illegal.


RE: Who cares about AMD?
By neuromandw on 11/4/2009 6:20:35 PM , Rating: 2
Not to be too niggling, but it's alleged that something was done, it is not certain. That is what the case is about. It is both to affirm that something was done, and that that action was, in fact, illegal. Both are required. For example, it could be demonstrated that the actions did in fact occur, but the defense could in theory prove that the email was a joke or revenge, etc.

Also (to the posting earlier), insider trading has nothing to do with this at all, and does not necessarily bleed a company. In fact, there are situations where it can significantly benefit. The point of making insider trading illegal is that it's unfair, which is harmful to the markets in general. "Because insider trading undermines investor confidence in the fairness and integrity of the securities markets, the SEC has treated the detection and prosecution of insider trading violations as one of its enforcement priorities." - http://www.sec.gov/answers/insider.htm

An example of where a company would benefit is if the market suddenly sees a a bull run on a stock (insiders illegally buying based on non-public knowledge) and everyone jumps in, pushing up the value. As this was (unbeknownst to the public) based on actual good news, the stock stays high. This means the company profits from the delta between where the stock was and where it is now for the period of time of the increase until the 'insider information' becomes public knowledge.


RE: Who cares about AMD?
By HrilL on 11/5/2009 7:49:43 PM , Rating: 2
It was certain enough for the European Union and the South Korean Government. I doubt both these bodies ruled against Intel without being certain to some degree...


"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













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki