4 European Nations Accused of Unfairly Favoring Intel
498657
The European Commission said on Wednesday that France, the Netherlands, Sweden and Finland had unfairly favored Intel in public contracts for computer equipment.
653540
The European Union's head office Wednesday expanded its probe into whether EU governments are illegally requiring that the computers they buy must contain microprocessors made by Intel Corp.
70851
European Commission antitrust officials investigating computer chip maker Intel presented what they believe is a watertight argument for prosecuting the firm to an internal panel of so-called devil's advocates on Tuesday, a person familiar with the investigation has said.
554488
New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo is investigating possible violations of state and federal antitrust laws by Intel, the world's largest manufacturer of microprocessors.
373894
The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) has launched four investigations involving the import of computers or electronic device components, including one based on a complaint that several companies are violating patents on DRAM chips.
223269
The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) has launched four investigations involving the import of computers or electronic device components, including one based on a complaint that several companies are violating patents on DRAM chips.The USITC also voted to launch an investigation, based on a complaint by IBM, into the import of motherboards, graphics cards, notebook computers, server computers, bare-bones computers, and routers by Asustek Computer of Taiwan and Asus Computer International of Fremont, Calif.In the DRAM case, Tessera of San Jose, Calif., filed a complaint on Dec. 7 alleging that 18 companies violated its patents for semiconductor chips with a minimized chip package size. Acer and Kingston Technology are among the companies named in Tessera&#39;s complaint.The commission on Friday also announced it has initiated so-called 337 investigations into the import of silicon microphone packages used in mobile phones and semiconductor lasers used in disc drives.In the Tessera complaint, the company accused competitors of violating four semiconductor patents. The company has filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, as well as the USITC complaint. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has granted reexamination requests on two of those patents.Representatives of Acer and Kingston didn&#39;t immediately respond to a request for comments on the USITC investigation.IBM filed a complaint on Dec. 5, asking the USITC to bar Asustek and North American subsidiary Asus Computer International from importing equipment using PC power supplies, cooling fans, and clustering technologies into the United States. IBM accused Asustek of infringing three patents related to those technologies.IBM attempted to reach a licensing agreement with Asustek after a licensing deal expired in December 2004, an IBM spokesman said in December. An Asus spokeswoman didn&#39;t immediately respond to a request for comments.The semiconductor laser complaint covers lasers used in high-definition disc drives. The investigation is based on a complaint filed by Seoul Semiconductor of Korea on Dec. 4, alleging that Nichhia of Japan has violated its patent.In the silicon microphone case, the patented technology covers microphones in several devices, including mobile phones. The complaint, filed by Knowles Electronics of Itasca, Ill., on Dec. 6, alleges that Mems Technology Berhad of Malaysia has violated its patents.The cases will be referred to an administrative law judge, who will schedule and hold an evidentiary hearing. The judge will make an initial determination as to whether there is a violation of Section 337 of the U.S. Tariff Act of 1930. That initial determination is subject to review by the USITC.Within 45 days, the commission will set a target date for completing the investigations.
671778
com. In a signal from the European Commission that it is stepping up its investigation into possible illegal business practices by Intel, the commission is asking four European countries why they
674572
(InfoWorld) - Intel should have to share documents that could show it used monopolistic practices to force overseas PC vendors and retailers to shun Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (AMD) chips, the special master to a U.S. federal court recommended Friday. Intel is expected to contest the recommendation by Special Master Vincent Poppiti, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, before the matter comes before a judge on Jan. 12 for a final ruling. This is the latest round in aÂ long-running legal battleÂ that is scheduled to be decided in a case court beginning in April 2009. AMD has charged that Intel used its overwhelming 80 percent share of the worldwide microprocessor market to violate antitrust laws through coercive acts such as threatening to withhold incentive payments to PC vendors if they specified AMD chips in their products. In September, Intel got a boost when District Court Judge Joseph FarnanÂ ruled that Intel would not have to share those records, since U.S. courts had no jurisdiction over such actions alleged to have occurred in other countries. In return, AMD argued that foreign actions could also impact sales to U.S. customers, despite the fact that its chips are manufactured in Dresden, Germany, and sold to overseas customers. Poppiti's recommendation agrees with AMD's motion, reasoning that the market for x86 microprocessors is global, so Intel's behavior worldwide could serve as evidence in a U.S. antitrust case. Poppiti was appointed to make recommendations to the court related to the discovery phase of the case in which the sides share documents that can be used as evidence. "We are encouraged that the special master recognizes the importance of obtaining all evidence of Intel's wrongdoing, regardless of where it occurs, to demonstrate the impact it has had on AMD's domestic and export business," AMD spokesman Michael Silverman said in an e-mail. Intel lawyers are still reviewing Poppiti's recommendation, and have not yet decided whether they will file additional arguments by Dec. 27, Intel spokesman Chuck Molloy said in an e-mail. Â
471108
Tuesday&#39;s&#160;raid on Intel&#39;s Munich office&#160;by European Commission investigators marks the latest development in one of several antitrust cases that have dogged the world&#39;s largest chip maker for years. Here&#39;s a rundown of Intel&#39;s brushes with antitrust investigators and lawsuits around the world since 1990:1990Dec. 19: Microprocessor maker Cyrix filed an antitrust lawsuit against Intel in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Texas. &quot;Intel has engaged in a campaign of unlawful exclusionary practices to protect its coprocessor monopoly from competition by Cyrix,&quot; the company said in a statement.1991June 29: The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) informed Intel that it was investigating the company&#39;s business practices.Aug. 20: Advanced Micro Devices brought a $2 billion antitrust lawsuit against Intel in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California, alleging that Intel &quot;engaged in unlawful acts designed to secure and maintain a monopoly.&quot;Dec. 19: U.S. District Court Judge James Ware dismissed part of AMD&#39;s antitrust lawsuit against Intel because a four-year statute of limitations had passed for some actions listed in AMD&#39;s complaint. AMD declared its intention to press forward with the lawsuit anyway.1992May 28: Processor maker Chips and Technologies sued Intel for antitrust violations in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California. The claims were a response to a Feb. 1992 patent lawsuit filed by Intel.1993Feb. 4: Chips and Technologies agreed to dismiss its 1992 antitrust claims against Intel as part of a settlement to resolve a patent dispute between the two companies.July 15: The FTC completed its investigation into Intel&#39;s business practices, saying no evidence was found to support charges of anticompetitive behavior.1994Feb. 4: Cyrix dismissed its 1990 antitrust claims against Intel as part of a patent-dispute settlement between the two companies.1995Jan. 11: AMD and Intel announced a broad legal settlement that ended several court cases between the two companies, including the 1991 antitrust lawsuit filed by AMD.1997Aug. 27: The FTC requested additional information from Intel concerning its plans to acquire Chips and Technologies, citing antitrust laws. At the time, Chips and Technologies was a major supplier of graphics chips.Sept. 25: The FTC began a second antitrust investigation into Intel&#39;s business practices. This investigation was conducted separately from the review of Intel&#39;s offer to acquire Chips and Technologies.1998Jan. 13: The FTC decided not to seek an injunction against Intel&#39;s acquisition of Chips and Technologies but announced plans to &quot;continue the investigation into the lawfulness of the acquisition.&quot;April 23: The FTC ruled that an October 1997 legal settlement between Intel and Digital Equipment that included the sale of Digital Equipment&#39;s semiconductor division, including its Alpha processor, to Intel would violate U.S. antitrust law if completed. As a result, the FTC required Digital Equipment to offer licenses for its Alpha processor to both AMD and Samsung Electronics as part of the deal.June 8: The FTC issued an antitrust ruling against Intel. The FTC found that Intel stopped providing important technical information about its products to Digital Equipment, Compaq Computer, and Intergraph after the three companies took legal action against Intel to enforce microprocessor patents they held. Intel also threatened to stop selling microprocessors to those companies, the FTC said.1999March 17: The FTC accepted a settlement with Intel over the 1998 antitrust ruling. The agreement required Intel to refrain from withholding technical information from customers involved in intellectual-property litigation with the company, but did not constitute an admission of guilt on the chip maker&#39;s part.2000Sept. 26: The FTC ended its second investigation into Intel&#39;s business practices and decided to take no further action against the company.2004Apr. 8: The Fair Trade Commission of Japan (JFTC) raided the offices of Intel&#39;s Japanese subsidiary and several Japanese computer companies as part of an investigation into Intel&#39;s business practices.2005March 8: JFTC ruled that Intel violated Japanese antitrust laws and hurt competition in the country&#39;s processor market.March 31:&#160;Intel disputed the JFTC&#39;s findings, but did not contest them and agreed to refrain from certain business practices.June 27: AMD filed an antitrust lawsuit against Intel in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The lawsuit detailed allegations of anticompetitive behavior by Intel in the U.S., Asia and Europe.June 30:&#160;AMD sued Intel&#160;in the Tokyo High Court and the Tokyo District Court, seeking more than $50 million in damages arising from the chip maker&#39;s anticompetitive actions in Japan.July 12: European Commission investigators raided the offices of Intel and PC manufacturers in several countries as part of an antitrust investigation.2006Feb. 9: Korean Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) officials&#160;raided Intel offices in South Korea.July 17: AMD filed a complaint against Intel with Germany&#39;s Federal Cartel Office, claiming that a deal betwen Intel and retailer Media Markt blocked the sale of computers based on AMD processors at hundreds of retail outlets.Sept. 11: European Commission antitrust officials announced plans to investigate the complaint filed in Germany by AMD against Intel and Media Markt.2007July 27: The European Commission&#160;charged Intel with antitrust violations. It accused Intel of offering rebates to PC manufacturers that buy the majority of their processors from Intel, paying PC manufacturers to delay or cancel products based on AMD processors, and selling processors below cost when bidding against AMD for contracts with server makers.Sept. 12: The KFTC issued preliminary antitrust charges against Intel while continuing its investigation into the company&#39;s business practices in South Korea.2008Jan. 10: The New York State Attorney General launched an antitrust investigation of Intel. The chip maker was served with a subpoena seeking information on its pricing practices and &quot;possible attempts to exclude competitors through market domination.&quot;Feb. 12: European Commission investigators raided Intel&#39;s office in Munich. The offices of retailers Media Markt and DSG International were also raided by investigators.
455369
European Union antitrust regulators raided Intel Corp. and computer resellers searching for evidence that they may have broken cartel or monopoly rules, the European Commission said Tuesday.
380339
The chipmaker says police raided four companies that were relabeling its processors to make low-end models look pricier.
565928
Intel should have to share documents that could show it used monopolistic practices to force overseas PC vendors and retailers to shun Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) chips, the special master to a U.S. federal court recommended Friday.
768191
European Union antitrust regulators raided Intel Corp. offices and computer retailers on Tuesday seeking evidence they may have broken rules to ensure competition in the market for computer chips, the European Commission and Intel said.
396043
Intel argues that some of chip rival's complaints fall outside U.S. borders.
97274
The European Commission Wednesday announced it has asked four European Union countries to justify why they favor Intel processors in computers for public authorities.
464377
(InfoWorld) - The European Commission has expanded anÂ ongoing antitrust probeÂ of computer chip maker Intel to examine claims that the company has been pressuring the Continent's largest computer retail chain not to sell computers containing chips made by archrival Advanced Micro DevicesÂ (AMD), Commission spokesman Jonathan Todd confirmed Monday. "The Commission is concerned that Intel has been putting pressure on Media Markt not to stock computers that include AMD chips as opposed to Intel chips," Todd said. Media Markt is a German chain of over 360 stores spread across 11 countries in the European Union. In July AMD complained to Germanyâs antitrust office, the Bundeskartellampt, that it didnât have access to this vital sales outlet. The Commission decided to examine the claim because of the cross-border nature of the alleged antitrust abuse involving Media Markt and because, if true, Intel's links with the retailer would strengthen its ongoing antitrust case, which began in 2001.
53053
European Commission investigators have raided the offices of Intel Germany in Munich as part of a wide-ranging probe into alleged antitrust violations by the world's largest chipmaker. A European Union spokesperson said the raid is ongoing but refused to divulge the reasons.