Europe
The Directorate General of Competition of the European Commission currently has a case pending against Intel. The Commission issued a Statement of Objections (SO) in July of 2007 and a Supplemental Statement of Objections (SSO) in July of 2008. These preliminary findings follow investigations that began in 2000. After nearly seven years of investigation the EC filed its preliminary findings. The Commission alleges that Intel violated the law by giving discounts and other incentives to computer manufacturers and retailers to induce them to buy from Intel instead of its main competitor.
- Read more
-
Intel is confident that the worldwide microprocessor market is functioning normally and is highly competitive in Europe and elsewhere. Intel's conduct has always been lawful, pro-competitive and beneficial to consumers. As evidence of the existence of a highly competitive and innovative microprocessor market, consumers have benefited from prices that have gone down significantly, output has increased many times over, and the performance of products, including ours, has improved exponentially.
The case is based on primarily on complaints from a direct competitor rather than customers. The Commission has an obligation to investigate those complaints. However, a Statement of Objections contains only preliminary allegations and does not itself amount to a finding that there has been a violation of European Union law.
In January of 2008 Intel filed written responses to the first SO and presented its case at the Commission in March of 2008. Intel is in the process of evaluating this newest SO and will respond fully, but it's clear that the allegations stem from the same set of complaints that our competitor, AMD, has been making to regulators and courts around the world for more than 10 years.
Intel is confident that its response will show that the allegations in the SO are unfounded.
- EC Ruling: Statement by Intel President and CEO Paul Otellini
- The Growing Debate Over Due Process in Europe
An increasing number of lawyers, politicians and commentators are publicly calling for reform at one of the world's most powerful regulators, the European Commission's Directorate General for Competition.
Among the issues being raised:
- Should the Directorate General be able to act as prosecutor, judge and jury? Is it fair and efficient for one entity to act in all three roles?
- Why isn't someone with substantial decision-making power and independence – perhaps a judge or a more fully empowered hearing officer – presiding at hearings in competition cases?
- Intel Statement on European Court of First Instance Ruling on Interim Measures
(PDF 44KB) - The Official Journal of the European Union has published a summary of the pending Intel appeal before the Court of First Instance (CFI.) The summary outlines, at a high level, the questions Intel is asking the CFI to address and Intel's request that CFI the extend the deadline for its reply to the Commission's Supplementary Statement of Objections in order to enable Intel to address additional documents belonging to AMD. The summary can be found here:
EU Publishes Summary of Intel Appeal to the Court of First Instance - Intel Appeals Procedural Ruling from the European Commission
- Intel Statement on Latest European Commission Action
- Intel States Its Actions in Europe Benefit Consumers
Japan
In March of 2005 the Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) filed a Recommendation accusing Intel of violating Japan's antitrust laws. The Recommendation followed a year long investigation prompted by complaints from Intel's main competitor Advanced Micro Devices (AMD). A Recommendation contains three parts: an assertion of the facts; an interpretation of the law and a recommended remedy. Intel did not agree with the facts underlying the JFTC's allegations and the application of law in the Recommendation. Intel did accept the recommended remedy in the form of a cease and desist order believing that the cease and desist provisions of the Recommendation would not impair it from continuing to meet customer requirements.
- Read more
-
In a statement released on March 31, 2005 Intel said, "Intel respectfully disagrees with the allegations contained in the Recommendation, but in order to continue to focus on the needs of customers and consumers, and continue to provide them with the best products and service, we have decided to accept the Recommendation,” said Bruce Sewell, vice president and general counsel for Intel. "We believe the Recommendation's cease and desist provisions define a workable framework that enables us to continue to provide competitive pricing to our customers, and benefits consumers and the Japanese economy. We do not accept the Recommendation's allegations in its fact findings and the application of law. We believe the allegations misinterpret important aspects of our business practices and fail to take into account the competitive environment within which Intel and its customers compete.”
In July of 2005 AMD filed two private suites in Japan, focused on alleged violation of the antitrust laws and the second seeking damages as a result of those alleged violations. Intel has denied any wrong doing in those cases and is in the process of defending itself.
- Intel Agrees to Comply with JFTC Recommendation; Disagrees with Findings of Fact
- Intel Statement on Japan FTC Recommendation
Korea
In June of 2008 The Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) ruled that Intel had violated Korean antitrust laws. The KFTC has concluded that Intel violated the law on 2 counts of abuse of dominance. The KFTC also announced plans to fine Intel $25 million. Details on the specifics of the ruling are not available because the KFTC will not publish its findings in written form until September of 2008.
- Read more
-
Intel expects to appeal the ruling but cannot do so until the company has had and opportunity to review the final written ruling. Intel believes the announced ruling represents an outcome that will dampen, not enhance, the price competition that has resulted in lower prices for customers and consumers. Unfortunately the KFTC appears to have adopted AMD's accusation that Intel is competing too aggressively, by offering customers attractive, discounted prices to win their business -- despite the fact that Intel's prices invariably were above cost and profitable. In reaching its decision, we can only conclude that the Commission has misinterpreted or ignored the huge amount of factual and economic evidence that refute AMD's accusations.
