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: Fines fines fines
By Reclaimer77 on 11/5/2009 3:34:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I love capitalism as much as the next guy, but there is a line, Intel was using bribery, illegal kickbacks and other cohesion's to get OEM's to use Intel chips, and threatening them if they used AMD chips.


You know, it's amazing that none, NONE, of those "threatened" OEM companies filed a suit or even complained against Intel. But I guess in Fantasy World, multi-billion dollar corporations just sit back and let other corparations bully, threaten, and tell them how to run things...


RE: Fines fines fines
By Khato on 11/5/2009 3:57:36 AM , Rating: 2
Heh, probably because an actual Intel 'threat' wouldn't be to reduce rebates in proportion to the lesser number of units sold, it would be along the lines of "If you go AMD, then we're going to cap the number of processors that we'll sell to you at X% of your current." Why? Because back during the days that AMD had a competitive advantage, they were capacity constrained and wouldn't be able to fill demand if Intel cut back drastically.

But, oh yeah, Intel didn't do anything of the sort. If you actually take the time to read the complaint (it's only 83 pages, with double line-spacing no less!) you'll see what I mean. And taken in that context, the majority of the so-called 'evidence' from system manufacturers doesn't do anything to implicate Intel in any wrongdoing. Rather, it's a bunch of "Intel could completely screw us if they wanted to, so we're going to do what we can to make them happy."

The other point that I always enjoy bringing up - no judicial body has found Intel guilty as of yet.


RE: Fines fines fines
By HrilL on 11/5/2009 7:00:36 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe because Intel destroyed thousands of emails and documents of evidence. Clearly this was brought up during the investigations. The European Union found this to be the case and as did the South Korean government.

From what I've read before it was intel's control of their chipsets that scared the OEMs. Intel would sell you X amount of CPU's but if you also sold AMD then they wouldn't sell you the chipsets you needed to make those Intel CPU's function.


"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer

Related Articles













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