MnetTV          Digital Library

Search Manufacturing.net Search Manufacturing.net


Resources
Association Links
Bookstore
Career Center
Digital Library
Events Calendar
What’s New
White Papers


News
Featured Articles
Financial News
Global Manufacturing
Government News
Mergers & Acquisitions
News Archive
People in the News

MNet Career Center

Market Sectors
Aerospace
Automotive/Transportation
Chemical/Petroleum
Food/Beverage
Medical
Metals
Pharmaceuticals/Biotech
Plastics/Rubber
Other Manufacturing

Industry Focus
Design & Development
Electrical & Electronics
Energy
Environmental
Facilities & Operations
Labor Relations
Manufacturing Technology
Materials
Quality
Safety
Supply Chain

Amazon

About Us
Editorial Contacts
Advertise with Us

Our Partner Sites
Chem.Info
ECN
Food Manufacturing
IMPO (Industrial Maintenance & Plant Operation)
Medical Design Technology
Pharmaceutical Processing
Product Design & Development
R & D Magazine
Wireless Design & Development
Wireless Week



Intel Slapped With $1.45 Billion EU Fine
By Aoife White, AP Business Writer
Manufacturing.Net - May 13, 2009

Printer Friendly     E-mail to a Colleague


BRUSSELS (AP) -- The European Union fined Intel Corp. a record euro1.06 billion ($1.45 billion) on Wednesday and ordered the world's biggest maker of computer chips to stop illegal sales tactics that shut out Silicon Valley rival AMD.

The fine, which exceeded a euro899 million monopoly abuse penalty imposed on Microsoft Corp. last year, was denounced by Intel, which plans to appeal to an EU court within 60 days.

AMD's stock jumped in midday trading Wednesday, while Intel shares were up slightly.

"Given that Intel has harmed millions of European consumers by deliberately acting to keep competitors out of the market for over five years, the size of the fine should come as no surprise," said EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes.

"Intel did not compete fairly, frustrating innovation and reducing consumer welfare in the process," she said.

The European Commission also told Intel to immediately cease some sales practices in Europe, though it refused to say what those were. Intel said it was "mystified" about what it was supposed to change but would comply with the "extremely ambiguous" EU order.

"This is really just a matter of competition at work, which is something I think we all want to see, versus something nefarious," said Intel's CEO, Paul Otellini.

Intel, based in Santa Clara, Calif., has about 80 percent of the world's personal computer microprocessor market and faces just one real rival, Advanced Micro Devices Inc., which has its headquarters just three miles from Intel in Sunnyvale, Calif.

The two companies have been fighting for years over what AMD claims is Intel's intimidation of computer makers into striking exclusive deals for the chips they use in their new machines.

AMD claims the rebates and financial incentives that Intel offers to those companies for buying more Intel chips are designed to prevent AMD from gaining market share. AMD argues that Intel's volume discounts are sometimes so steep that AMD can't cut its own prices enough to compete without losing money on the sales.

In siding with AMD to wrap up an eight-year probe, the European Commission said Intel broke EU competition law by exploiting its dominant position, thereby limiting customer choice.

The EU said Intel gave rebates to computer manufacturers Acer Inc., Dell Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co., Lenovo Group Ltd. and NEC Corp. for buying all or most of their chips from Intel and paid them to stop or delay the launch of computers based on AMD chips.

The commission said price discounts were linked to promises from computer manufacturers to restrict AMD purchases. It said such discounts were left off Intel's official contracts because the company "went to great lengths to cover up many of its anticompetitive actions."

Officials said they learned of them through e-mails and statements from businesses, some seized during surprise raids.

Bruce Sewell, Intel's general counsel, said the case was based on weak evidence and unfair inferences from a small number of documents.

Intel president and CEO Paul Otellini said "there has been absolutely zero harm to consumers."

But AMD Chief Executive Dirk Meyer said the decision was "an important step toward establishing a truly competitive market."

"AMD has consistently been a technology innovation leader and we are looking forward to the move from a world in which Intel ruled, to one which is ruled by customers," Meyer said in a statement.

Tom McCoy, AMD's executive vice president for legal affairs, said the ruling would bring consumers "greater choice, value and innovation."

Regulators said Intel also paid Germany's biggest electronics retailer, Media Saturn Holding, from 2002 to 2007 to stock only Intel-based computers at its MediaMarkt superstores, even in Dresden, Germany, where many AMD chips are made.

The decision does not affect Intel's pricing strategy outside Europe but could have an important effect in the United States and Asia.

This week, one of the top U.S. antitrust officials, Christine Varney, signaled a return to trustbusting as the Obama administration dropped a strict interpretation of antitrust rules that saw regulators shun major action against alleged monopolies during the Bush years.

Kroes said Varney's words gave her hope that the EU's current "close cooperation" and information exchanges with the Federal Trade Commission "could go in a very positive way" in the future. The FTC upgraded a probe into Intel last year.

"The more competition authorities are joining us in our philosophy, the better it is for it is a global world," she said. "The more who are doing the job ... and with the same approach then the better it is."

Intel's Sewell said the concept that rebates could damage competition was an area "where the law is now in flux" and regulators were testing the boundaries.

"There is a line of thought developing primarily out of the European antitrust authorities but also perhaps being picked up by the Japanese and the Koreans that suggest that rebates can be anticompetitive," he said.

EU regulators said they calculated Intel's fine -- 4 percent of last year's $37.6 billion in worldwide sales -- on the value of its European chip sales over the five years and three months that it broke the law. Europeans buy some 30 percent of all computer chips sold every year.

The EU could have gone even higher. EU antitrust rules allow for a fine of up to 10 percent of a company's annual global revenue for each year of bad behavior.

The EU said the fine must be paid within three months. The money eventually goes into the EU budget, reducing the funding it seeks from European taxpayers.

European consumers group BEUC welcomed the fine and urged customers to seek damages in civil courts.

The EU said rebates like the ones Intel offered PC makers, with discounts for large orders, are illegal when a monopoly company makes them conditional on buying less of a rival's products or not buying them at all. EU officials said the discounts were so steep that only a competitor that sold chips for less than they cost to make would have any chance of grabbing customers.

According to regulators, AMD offered 1 million free chips to one manufacturer, but it ultimately could only accept 160,000 to avoid losing a rebate on many millions of other chips from Intel.

AMD shares rose 20 cents, or 4.6 percent, to $4.55 in midday trading, while Intel gained 7 cents to $15.28.


Printer Friendly     E-mail to a Colleague



Talkback!
Manufacturing.net is pleased to provide you an opportunity to share your opinions on any of the news stories or articles on our site. We reserve the right to edit/remove comments.
Viewing 6 User Comments
Add a Comment
too bad AMD  5/13/2009 2:08:00 PM
I remember when AMD came out with chips, they did bad business practices. I purchased a chip with the same speed as an Intel chip but because of the way AMD measured their speed it was actually slower. I will never do business with AMD again. That was in the 90's. I even ran across a software package for small restaurants that would not work with a AMD chip.
Intel vs. Amd  5/13/2009 2:57:00 PM
I used to use only Intel processors until I tried AMD some years ago. I have been using AMD ever since because of bigger bang for the buck not to mention being better for consumer end users.
intel vrs AMD  5/13/2009 3:32:00 PM
Cut the legs off giangs to make us all equal. Intel seems to be making a profit factoring in all of the rebates and incentives. The bottom line is that AMD cannot compete at that resulting price. The real message here is to watch out for the long reach of the EU.
It's a free market place  5/13/2009 6:27:00 PM
Too bad AMD. If your product and price were competitive, you would gain market share. Period. As for the EU union, that must be nice, complain about something and get a cool $1.5Billion. Must be nice. May the "US Union" can fine China, or Japan, or Mexico, for unfair pricing on products they make for us that prevents US product prices from competing, and pocket some money along the way. What about the car dealer selling for loses, should they be sued too for unfair practices. Boo Hoo AMD.
It is not a free market place  5/14/2009 12:30:00 PM
When AMD cannot even give away one million chips because of Intel contracts it is not a free market place. A history lesson: The main reason AMD is in the market is because of the original contract between Intel and the original PC manufacturer IBM that required Intel to license it's technology to other chip manufacturers so that IBM would be guaranteed a source of chips. At first Intel embraced the idea and soon there were a dozen or so manufacturers of Intel compatible chips. This helped spur competition to the point that several manufacturers like AMD and NEC were making faster and cheaper chips. Sometime after the IBM contract expired Intel started raising its licensing fees and using other anti competitive tactics to shut out every other manufacturer except AMD. AMD meanwhile successfully redesigned the chip without any Intel technology to avoid the license fee. This competition is necessary to continue the price effectiveness and continued technological advancement of the PC. PC speeds, capacity, and overall performance has improved more than 10 fold over the last ten years because of it while the operating system monopolized by Microsoft has languished.
AMD price Vs performance  5/15/2009 9:02:00 AM
AMD chips are truly a bargain when looking at price Vs performance. Look at http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/ and it is very eye opening. I just bought one for a new build because I don't want to pay more and get less. Plus, the Intel 775 cooler clips are a very poor design; the joke of the industry.


Add a Comment...

E-Mail:
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Subject:
Comment:

 

     



   





Flatbed trucking, flatbed shipping, flatbed carriers



Other Manufacturing

Solar Panel Plant To Be Built New Mexico

Maine Mill Workers Agree To Pay Cut

Georgia Apparel Maker Shuts Down


Food/Beverage

Kraft Closing UK Cadbury Plant

Overseas Sales Help Coca-Cola 4Q Profit

Green Mountain Extends Diedrich Coffee Offer

Automotive/Transportation

Toyota To Recall 50,000 Prius Hybrids In Europe

State Farm Warned Of Toyota Problem In 2007

Investigators Say Not All Toyota Problems Resolved
News Video