Intel is Denied a Hearing in Antitrust Case
Source: Tom's Guide US | Keywords: Intel, EU, Antitrust | Themes: Business
In July of 2008, Europe's governing body brought a Supplementary Statement of Objections against technology giant Intel. Several months later, the Santa Clara, CA-based company is responding to the antitrust probe.
According to Ars Technica, Intel has requested an oral hearing in front of the European Commission in order to address the statement as well as defend itself. However, the EU has denied the hearing from taking place. "We filed an answer and we are waiting for the commission to make a determination," said Intel spokesman Chuck Malloy. "The next step is for them to analyze and make a decision going forward. DG-COMP will take some time to consider its response." The EU has also addressed the situation, saying, "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 originally had the right to request a hearing from the Commission regarding the antitrust charges. However, because the company took longer than the standard two week period to request such an audience, it isn't much of a surprise that the hearing was denied.
The antitrust case stems from Intel and its place in the processor market. The European Commission claims that Intel infringed on the Commissions' rules regarding a company's dominant position in a given market. In this case, the claim is that Intel abused its power with the intention of "excluding its main rival, AMD, from the x86 Central Processing Units (CPU) market." The accusations include Intel paying OEM's to be Intel exclusive as well as paying companies to delay the launch of products based on AMD hardware.
When Intel requested documents from AMD through the EC's Directorate General for Competition, the body initially agreed. When Intel concluded that it required further documentation from its rival to clear the air, that request was denied.
Because of EU procedure, Intel's request and the Commissions denial are not available. For now, all we can do is wait and see what becomes of the antitrust case, and if Intel is given a chance to clear its name.
-
Previous News Article
Microsoft Launches "Elevate... -
Next News Article
FCC Fines Telcos Over Data Security
At this rate of problems going on at Intel I wouldn't be surprised to see AMD this as an advantage. I wonder if Intel's hardware production will be affected by these problems.
OK, anybody else see a trend here with the EU? If you excell in a particular market, the EU will castrate you. Why would anybody in the "Eh Union" bother to be the best at what they do? This is the main reason why the Soviet Union's economic model was unsustainable... if worker A puts out extra effort, but gets the same pay as worker B who does just enough to remain employed, then worker A stops trying. If I were Microsoft or Intel, I'd tell the EU to pound sand... or better yet, I'd tell them have fun with the operating systems and CPU they've designed because the EU is more trouble than the sales in their countries are worth. SEE ya! Wouldn't want to BE ya!
you know what, i completely agree with the commission, intel is trying to destroy all competition, and while i cant blame them, i mean, that is the point of competition, to win. the thing that disturbs me is the fact that intel is not only trying to screw over amd, but they are SIMULTANEOUSLY attacking nvidia, they already took out via, who is next? IBM?
Actually it's most likely only a matter of time b4 Intel runs into antitrust troubles in the US to. They're not even being subtle in flailing around thier monopoly stick lately (see all the Nvidia stuffs). They need to be kicked around a bit by the courts.
These companies are not European. That is why the EU discriminates. They do not want the biggest American Companies to dominate globally and by banding together and creating a "significant market" and then creating a "Pick-and-choose" mantra on which companies are considered dominant, they hold the cards. These companies will bow down because there is a large demographic out there that they want to sell to and this will lead to even further erosion of America's place in the world economy, and if you think it isn't straegically being carried out by the EU, you need to study more. FYI, it IS wrong IMO but Intel also should not be able to pay partners to delay release of competitors products.
Between this and the law suit between Intel and nVidia, Intel is going to be shelling out a lot of money & time through legal battles & fees.
Could be to the advantage of AMD.
One thing is for sure...if there are any recently laid off lawyers out there who specialize in patents and tech ip, Intel and a bunch of other companies in Silicon Valley are probably looking for some extra legal brainpower.
-Devin
I'm kinda on the fence about the legitimacy of this whole thing, but regardless, if Intel didn't respond in time they are SOL and I imagine someone's going to loose their job over this for letting the deadline slip. Like it or hate it, no matter where you live or do business if you don't respond on time you're leaving yourself wide open.
Intel has plenty of lawyers - no doubt about it. However, EU is on attacking dominant companies. THey are not asking OSx to contain other browers, only Microsoft. Why? Because Microsoft dominates. They are only putting Intel in the antitrust spotlight. Why? Because Intel dominates. The Recent Intel Nvidia issue is also misunderstood. Intel and Nvidia reached a licensing agreement for a specific processor family. Nvidia is trying to use that specific processor family for other Intel processor family. Again, nothing a normal person would agree with, but because it is Intel, Nvidia is hoping that public rant will settle their way, for no legal valid reason.
OK, anybody else see a trend here with the EU? If you excell in a particular market, the EU will castrate you. Why would anybody in the "Eh Union" bother to be the best at what they do? This is the main reason why the Soviet Union's economic model was unsustainable... if worker A puts out extra effort, but gets the same pay as worker B who does just enough to remain employed, then worker A stops trying. If I were Microsoft or Intel, I'd tell the EU to pound sand... or better yet, I'd tell them have fun with the operating systems and CPU they've designed because the EU is more trouble than the sales in their countries are worth. SEE ya! Wouldn't want to BE ya!
No Doubt... the EU is all over MS for including IE in Windows also(and/or not including other browsers).
Intel and MS should just tell them BUB-BY and then we will see who wins.
We all know Intel, MS, and Google don’t play fair; this is why they are #1 at what they do, not #2.
Paying merchants to sell only your product and/or delay the opposition is pretty low, and VERY effective.
EU vs MS = brought to court for bundling too much then brought back to court to force bundling of other browsers. lol @ irony.
EU vs Intel = well I guess we all know Intel has done some damned dirty deeds in its past, but the evidence sounds like its lacking a bit since the EU doesnt want to hand over more details.
See the problem with this, is that, at least in the US, Intel has the patent/copyright to the x86 chips. In the beginning, Intel allowed AMD to reverse engineer what they had, so long as AMD didn't take anything from the design directly. Intel came up with the thing, so how is it possible for them NOT to be the monopoly/controlling force? Intel has the right to be this big. We know they did some messed up stuff, but at the end of the day, the x86 is theirs for the taking.
ME thinks I smell GREED in the EU. Whats next going after god for Air since thats given for free.
Just a little funny to see dell finally using AMD chips right after the filing but not before it.
See the problem with this, is that, at least in the US, Intel has the patent/copyright to the x86 chips. In the beginning, Intel allowed AMD to reverse engineer what they had, so long as AMD didn't take anything from the design directly. Intel came up with the thing, so how is it possible for them NOT to be the monopoly/controlling force? Intel has the right to be this big. We know they did some messed up stuff, but at the end of the day, the x86 is theirs for the taking.
X86 code is too old,I say screw it.
Again, is there is a reason why the EU is not going after the European distributors WHO ACCEPTED THE ALLEGED MONEY FROM INTEL AND WERE THE ONES WHO EXCLUDED AMD? (other than they are European)
If the EU is claiming what Intel did is/was wrong, are not the companies who took the money and excluded AMD also wrong? If you hire someone to rob a bank, is the person that robbed the bank absolved of responsibility? It is only when the EU goes after the distributors for their actions and part in excluding AMD, will it be clear that this is not just another money grab from a profitable US company.