Thursday, July 5th 2012
Intel Appeals Against $1.3 Billion Fine by EU, from 2009
Around three years after the European Commission slapped Intel with a record €1.06 billion fine for anti-competitive practices against market rival AMD, the company appealed against the fine, on grounds that the commission relied on "profoundly inadequate" evidence to establish anti-competition charges against the company, which lead to the fine. A 5-member bench of General Court in Luxembourg, Europe's second highest, will hear arguments of both Intel and EU's regulators, during a 4-day hearing. Intel wants its conviction quashed and its fine reduced/removed. According to European regulators, major computer manufacturers such as HP, Dell, and Lenovo, received unfair rebates from Intel for opting for its chips. The case is T-286/09, Intel vs Commission.
Source:
Reuters
32 Comments on Intel Appeals Against $1.3 Billion Fine by EU, from 2009
If AMD dropped their case, then the EU has to present new evidence stating they broke the law.
AMD cannot contribute to the case since they settled; the EU cannot obtain said evidence.
EU can't prove they broke the law, because common sense doesn't work in the legal system.
Intel doesn't have to pay, their appeal worked.
Basically how it's going to break down..
Should they pay? No, because they went through the legal system to avoid paying. Any business owner would have done the same.
www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2010/lr21599.htm
Like I said, the EU justice system works differently than it does in the US. It's enough to get notice that lets say Dell refused to add AMD to their lineup when Athlon64 was released, that's before Christmas 2003 - a big sales period, and we have Michael Dell's "testimony" in which he clearly states AMD isn't worth it so no, AMD won't appear in Dell systems, which then in 2004 still happens because Pentium 4 were seen as a weaker options and pressure was made to include Athlon64's in their systems. It's enough to notice that a business man like Michael D., making some strange comments which didn't hold any water, didn't act in the best interest of his company by acknowledging the better product and offering solution as such.
Wouldn't you lets say as an investor find it strange if your CEO made a business decision that in effect would produce loss of image as a brand, clients and money? Keep in mind, that as an investor you have a much higher power of control over security in your company, compared to execs - i.e. your "labors", and can in effect gather evidence that the dealings your CEO and co. (aka the foot-soldiers) made with intel actually were a big screw-up for you.
Rising an eyebrow and then finding some... skeletons.
That's all it takes to become suspicious, and inquiries then can prove those suspicions right or wrong.