Monday, September 21st 2009
European Commission Publishes Decision Concerning Intel's Abuse of Dominant Position
The European Commission has today published a non-confidential version of its Intel Decision, adopted on 13 May 2009 ( IP/09/745 and MEMO/09/235 ), together with a summary of the key elements of the Decision. That Decision found that Intel broke EC Treaty antitrust rules (Article 82) by engaging in two types of illegal practice to exclude competitors from the market for computer chips called x86 central processing units (CPUs). These practices harmed consumers throughout the EEA. By undermining its competitors' ability to compete on the merits of their products, Intel's actions undermined competition, reduced consumer choice and hindered innovation. On the basis of a significant amount of contemporaneous evidence and company statements, the Decision demonstrates how Intel broke the law.
Intel abused its dominant position in the x86 CPU market by implementing a series of conditional rebates to computer manufacturers and to a European retailer and by taking other measures aimed at preventing or delaying the launch of computers based on competing products (so-called 'naked restrictions'). The Commission's Decision outlines specific cases of these conditional rebates and naked restrictions, as well as how Intel sought to conceal its practices and how computer manufacturers and Intel itself recognised the growing threat represented by the products of Intel's main competitor, AMD.
Conditional Rebates
The conditional rebates were as follows:
The naked restrictions uncovered by the Commission were as follows:
The Commission found that Intel generally sought to conceal the conditions in its arrangements with PC manufacturers and MSH. For example:
AMD's growing threat
The evidence in the Decision indicates the growing threat that AMD's products represented to Intel, and that Intel's customers were actively considering switching part of their x86 CPU supplies to AMD. For example, in an October 2004 e-mail from Dell to Intel, a Dell executive stated that " AMD is a great threat to our business. Intel is increasingly uncompetitive to AMD which results in Dell being uncompetitive to [Dell competitors] . We have slower, hotter products that cost more across the board in the enterprise with no hope of closing the performance gap for 1-2 years." In a submission to the Commission, Dell also stated that as regards Opteron, " in Dell's perception this CPU generally performed approximately […] better than the comparable Intel Xeon CPU at the time." As regards AMD's Athlon PC CPU, an internal HP presentation from 2002 stated that it " had a unique architecture", was " more efficient on many tasks" , and had been " CPU of [the] year [for] 3 consecutive years".
The fact that AMD had improved its products is also recognised by Intel itself. For example, in a 2005 submission to the Commission, Intel stated that " AMD improved its product offerings dramatically with the introduction of its successful Opteron processor". This is also confirmed by contemporaneous documents from Intel. For example, in a 2004 internal Intel e-mail, it is stated that " Opteron is real threat today… Opteron-based single WS [Workstation] benchmarks beat [Intel's] Xeon in all cases."
Procedure
Before the Commission adopted its final Decision, it carried out a comprehensive investigation of the facts. During the proceedings Intel was able to comment fully on all the Commission's evidence outlined in the Decision. Indeed, the Commission went beyond its legal obligations in safeguarding Intel's rights of defence. For example, despite the fact that Intel chose not to reply to the Commission's supplementary Statement of Objections (see MEMO/08/517 ) by the extended deadline of 17 October 2008 but instead sought to suspend the Commission's case, the Commission took full account of Intel's belated written submissions relating to the supplementary Statement of Objections.
The full text of the decision, together with a summary, is now available on the Europa website here.
Source:
Europa
Intel abused its dominant position in the x86 CPU market by implementing a series of conditional rebates to computer manufacturers and to a European retailer and by taking other measures aimed at preventing or delaying the launch of computers based on competing products (so-called 'naked restrictions'). The Commission's Decision outlines specific cases of these conditional rebates and naked restrictions, as well as how Intel sought to conceal its practices and how computer manufacturers and Intel itself recognised the growing threat represented by the products of Intel's main competitor, AMD.
Conditional Rebates
The conditional rebates were as follows:
- Intel rebates to Dell from December 2002 to December 2005 were conditioned on Dell purchasing exclusively Intel CPUs. For example, in an internal Dell presentation of February 2003, Dell noted that should Dell switch any part of its CPU supplies from Intel to its competitor AMD, Intel retaliation " could be severe and prolonged with impact to all LOBs [Lines of Business]." In a February 2004 e-mail on the consequences of the possible purchase by Dell of AMD CPUs, a Dell executive wrote: " Boss, here's an outline of the framework we discussed with Intel. (…) Intel is ready to send [Intel Senior executive] /[Intel executive] /[Intel executive] to meet with [Dell Senior Executive]/[Dell Senior Executive]/[Dell Executive] . (...) Background: [Intel Senior executive] /[Intel Senior executive] are prepared for [all-out war] 1 if Dell joins the AMD exodus. We get ZERO MCP [name of Intel rebate to Dell] for at least one quarter while Intel 'investigates the details' (...) We'll also have to bite and scratch to even hold 50%, including a commitment to NOT ship in Corporate. If we go in Opti [Dell product series for corporate customers] , they cut it to <20% and use the added MCP to compete against us. ".
- Intel rebates to HP from November 2002 to May 2005 were conditioned in particular on HP purchasing no less than 95% of its CPU needs for business desktops from Intel (the remaining 5% that HP could purchase from AMD was then subject to further restrictive conditions set out below). In this regard, in a submission to the Commission, HP stated that " Intel granted the credits subject to the following unwritten requirements: a) that HP should purchase at least 95% of its business desktop system from Intel …". By way of example, in an e-mail written in July 2002 during the negotiation of the rebate agreement between HP and Intel, an HP executive wrote: "" PLEASE DO NOT… communicate to the regions, your team members or AMD that we are constrained to 5% AMD by pursuing the Intel agreement".
- Intel rebates to NEC during the period ranging from October 2002 to November 2005 were conditioned on NEC purchasing no less than 80% of its CPU needs for its desktop and notebook segments from Intel. For example, in a May 2002 e-mail (when the arrangement was concluded), an NEC executive specified that " NEC will (...) increase [worldwide] Intel market share from [...] % to 80%. Intel will give NEC [support] and aggressive [...] price.".
- Intel rebates to Lenovo during year 2007 were conditioned on Lenovo purchasing its CPU needs for its notebook segment exclusively from Intel. For example, in a December 2006 e-mail, a Lenovo executive stated: " Late last week Lenovo cut a lucrative deal with Intel. As a result of this, we will not be introducing AMD based products in 2007 for our Notebook products".
- Intel payments to Media Saturn Holding (MSH), Europe's largest PC retailer, were conditioned on MSH selling exclusively Intel-based PCs from October 2002 to December 2007. For example, in a submission to the Commission, MSH stated: " It was clear to MSH in this regard that the sale of AMD-equipped computers would result at least in a reduction of the amount of Intel's contribution payments per Intel CPU under the contribution agreements (and thus in a reduction of the total payments received from Intel, even if the total volume of Intel-CPUs sold by MSH would have remained the same as in previous periods), although MSH never actually tested the issue with Intel.".
The naked restrictions uncovered by the Commission were as follows:
- Between November 2002 and May 2005, Intel payments to HP were conditioned on HP selling AMD-based business desktops only to small and medium enterprises, only via direct distribution channels (rather than distributors), and on HP postponing the launch of its first AMD-based business desktop in Europe by 6 months. For example, in an internal September 2004 HP e-mail, an HP executive stated: " You can NOT use the commercial AMD line in the channel in any country, it must be done direct. If you do and we get caught (and we will) the Intel moneys (each month) is gone (they would terminate the deal). The risk is too high ".
- Intel payments to Acer were conditioned on Acer postponing the launch of an AMD-based notebook from September 2003 to January 2004. For example, in a September 2003 email, an Intel executive reported: "good news just came from [Acer Senior Executive] that Acer decides to drop AMD K8 [notebook product] throughout 2003 around the world. We've been talking with them all the way up to [Intel senior executive] 's […] level recently including [Intel executive] , [Intel senior executive] … and [Intel executive]… . They keep pushing back until today, after the call with [Intel executive] this morning, [Acer Senior Executive] just confirmed that they decide to drop AMD K8 throughout 2003 around the world. [Acer Senior Executive] has got this direction from [Acer Senior Executive] as well and will follow through in EMEA [Europe Middle East and Africa region]".
- Intel payments to Lenovo were linked to or conditioned on Lenovo postponing the launch of AMD-based notebooks from June 2006 to the end of 2006. For example, in a June 2006 e-mail, a Lenovo executive reported that: "[two Lenovo executives] had a dinner with [an Intel executive] tonight (…). […] When we asked Intel what level of support we will get on NB [notebook] in next quarter, [he] told us (…) the deal is base[d] [sic] on our assumption to not launch AMD NB [notebook] platform. (…) Intel deal will not allow us to launch AMD".
The Commission found that Intel generally sought to conceal the conditions in its arrangements with PC manufacturers and MSH. For example:
- The rebate arrangement with Dell was not subject to a written agreement but was concluded orally at various meetings. In this regard for example, in a submission to the Commission, Dell stated that " there is no written agreement between Intel and Dell concerning the MCP [rebate] discount, rather, the discount is the subject of constant oral negotiations and agreement".
- There was a written agreement with HP but the relevant conditions remained unwritten. In this regard for example, in a submission to the Commission, HP stated that the " unwritten conditions (...) were stated to be part of the HPA1 agreement by [Intel executive] , [Intel executive] and [Intel senior executive] in meetings with HP during the negotiations;
- The written agreement with MSH contained a provision that the deal was non-exclusive. However, the evidence demonstrates that at Intel's request, the arrangement was in fact exclusive. In this regard for example, in a submission to the Commission, MSH stated that " It was clear to MSH that despite the non-exclusivity clause the exclusive nature of the relationship remained, for Intel, an essential element of the relationship between Intel and MSH. In fact, [MSH executive] recalls that Intel representatives made it clear to him that the changes in the wording of the agreement had been requested by Intel's legal department, but that in reality the relationship was to continue as before, including the requirement that MSH sell essentially only Intel-based computers."
AMD's growing threat
The evidence in the Decision indicates the growing threat that AMD's products represented to Intel, and that Intel's customers were actively considering switching part of their x86 CPU supplies to AMD. For example, in an October 2004 e-mail from Dell to Intel, a Dell executive stated that " AMD is a great threat to our business. Intel is increasingly uncompetitive to AMD which results in Dell being uncompetitive to [Dell competitors] . We have slower, hotter products that cost more across the board in the enterprise with no hope of closing the performance gap for 1-2 years." In a submission to the Commission, Dell also stated that as regards Opteron, " in Dell's perception this CPU generally performed approximately […] better than the comparable Intel Xeon CPU at the time." As regards AMD's Athlon PC CPU, an internal HP presentation from 2002 stated that it " had a unique architecture", was " more efficient on many tasks" , and had been " CPU of [the] year [for] 3 consecutive years".
The fact that AMD had improved its products is also recognised by Intel itself. For example, in a 2005 submission to the Commission, Intel stated that " AMD improved its product offerings dramatically with the introduction of its successful Opteron processor". This is also confirmed by contemporaneous documents from Intel. For example, in a 2004 internal Intel e-mail, it is stated that " Opteron is real threat today… Opteron-based single WS [Workstation] benchmarks beat [Intel's] Xeon in all cases."
Procedure
Before the Commission adopted its final Decision, it carried out a comprehensive investigation of the facts. During the proceedings Intel was able to comment fully on all the Commission's evidence outlined in the Decision. Indeed, the Commission went beyond its legal obligations in safeguarding Intel's rights of defence. For example, despite the fact that Intel chose not to reply to the Commission's supplementary Statement of Objections (see MEMO/08/517 ) by the extended deadline of 17 October 2008 but instead sought to suspend the Commission's case, the Commission took full account of Intel's belated written submissions relating to the supplementary Statement of Objections.
The full text of the decision, together with a summary, is now available on the Europa website here.
182 Comments on European Commission Publishes Decision Concerning Intel's Abuse of Dominant Position
This just made my day!
:nutkick:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYP_MgWF8hw
...and let's not forget Intel "lost" a large amount of email evidence.
AMD set themselves upto fall - simple as.
I think AMD genuinely knew they were gonna take a hit but i dont think they expected to take that BIG of a hit. they took a gamble & put themselves in a position they couldnt recover easily from without having an 'exit stratagy' or at least some sort of fallback to cover their ass. Core 2 Duo came along & beat phenom into the next technological era then came Intels 'exploitation/Abuse' of their position which put AMD at a further disadvantage...
- Its true, any company can lower or raise their prices, Intel are business people - & they're business people that took advantage of the market while the stocks were low just like any other good trader would do. you cant blame them for that. but possibly the way they went about doing it is the real issue here.
AMD are still licking their wounds but they are recovering slowly & despite Intels domination they are still stronger then ever before despite how small of a company they are. its unlikely they will be strong enough to rival Intel 1:1 for a long time to come still but they will eventually get there, if not then they will create a world or focus on a part of the market where they are king & continue to run in leaps n bounds.
Its not like here we need 200pcs, so intel can you do it cheaper than AMD? It was far from that it was like here we are and we want to be the only choice.
Intel is an older company and has been manufacturing cpus for a lot longer than AMD ever has, so it got a head start in the market, it can take many more years for them to become equal they may not even gain much more market share. I find it quite a feat that AMD made the acquisition of ATi shows how far they have come from making Intels own cpus.
A little note Microsoft became a world leader in Operating Systems through popular choice, so when people moan about it being top dog it was us who put it there.
You either didn't read the evidence like I asked, or you're ignoring facts that you don't like.
Neither one surprises me. :shadedshu
AthlonXP and 64 where top notch and Intel couldnt shake a stick at them. Then AMD went downhill and now they still barely compete with Yorkfield (Q9***). With i5 and i7 (both sockets) tearing away at both mainstream and enthusiast id say...shitty. Its good, but shitty compared to those performance AND price.
I did, I own one.
The 720BE does great for its price point. Sure, AMD might not wear the performance crown, but their CPUs are fine for just about everyone. Calling them shitty is really selling them short, even if it is a "relative shitty" (Which isn't even true anyway).
AMD cant even compete in the price to performance era anymore because the 965 is 245 and the i5 is 205 on Newegg. Also, you can get p55 boards cheap too.
The i5's stats aren't even that great, and the motherboard is pricy to go along with them.
All cost aside, yeah -- even I'd like an i7 920 system, but if I had to choose between Phenom II and an i5, I'd choose the PII.
Money is not the ultimate authority!!! If you believe it's ok for business's to conduct Collusion, then problem here is not the Verdict it's your Ignorant misguided Moral Views that is the problem, your argument is "the other guy should have resorted to collusion as well" REALLY? WTF dude you have some serious issues, i really don't get your point here, do you really believe it's ok to cheat, just because the other guy did?
BTW... what about the investigations from FCC and in Asia?... any bits of news about them?
To fight that phenomenon, that is nothing more than the only consecuence of a free market, Intel paid the biggest PC vendors so they didn't use AMD's superior product for 3 years. At the time, HP and Dell being almost a duopoly, none of them could afford to not obtain Intel's rebates, in case the other one was getting the rebate, because they simply couldn't meet their demmand with AMD chips. The important thing here is that they were not allowed to use AMD products, even when they clearly wanted. This way the consumer didn't ad the choice to use AMD. Should Intel let them use AMD chips, a lot of people would have bought AMD based PC's up to the max that AMD could offer. Let's say a 25% of the market, at first. Obviously in a year that number would have been much bigger.
Sorry I don't know where you think you live, but that's illegal everywhere. Just because they have not been punished in the US (yet), doesn't mean the Federal Trade Commission doesn't think that's illegal. It just means they are still looking for more proofs to meet the overprotective requirements that are needed to punish a monopoly in the US.
You do realise that if AMD had had a bit more cash from those days they might have been able to come up with chips that could compete with Intel's Core2 architecture? You realise then that you may not have had to pay what you did for those chips you have and you could be hundreds of dollars better off now?
Right or wrong ... it is all of us that are worse off, even now, because of what happened back then.
This really has nothing to do with chip production, chip superiority, or other. It it just basically Intel not adhereing to the Laws of Europe, which are quite different from North America and probably every other nation. I see Rhino mention buisness lots, well that may be buisness in the U.S. but not evreywhere on the planet. I do agree that the vendors (dell, h.p., etc.) should have had some balls and reported Intel's ""threats"" from day one, but when the CEO's make millions per year, one can only assume that they get some kind of payoala on top of everything else, and it would be the company getting the fine not them. Only time will tell after the Governing body in the U.S. does their investigation of Intel.
The bottom line I read from all this is that they did affect the "free" market, and probably hindered competition, and from what I understand from the very few economics classes in university, in Europe that's enough to be fined under their laws.
Maybe if the CEO's, etc. would have to pay the fines out of their own pocket, then trade might be more fair, who knows.
As they say that's life.
if anything i am pissed at intel for either
A) knowing the law and breakng it anyway or
B) not knowing the law and being retarded about defending themselves.
i dont condone breaking the law. i think that it should not have even been law and if intel knew about it they should have gone through the proper channels to challenge the law rather than resort to this tactic. im just pissed it came to this and i hope that AMD can organize itself and grow into a profitable company that makes great chips and creates more competition pushing intel to make even better chips.
I'm sorry you look forward to buying from the company with the biggest bank roll I personally buy the best I can for the price I'm looking at.