Intel to finally cough up EC anti-trust furball
310194
Monday blues? Chip giant Intel will today file its response to formal anti-competitive charges levelled by the European Commission.â¦
161392
Intel Corp., the world's biggest   microchip maker, is set to announce sweeping job cuts later on   Tuesday, the Financial Times said, amid speculation that up to   10 percent of its staff could go.
712281
11,000 pink slips could halt Intel's sagging fortunes.
80550
Panel trying to decide whether to bring formal antitrust charges against the chipmaker, according to a source.
47113
Intel dishes up its response to the European Commission's allegations it violated antitrust laws with its rebate practice. The Commission is the latest agency to weigh in with allegations Intel is using its rebates to reduce, or shut out, competition in t
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.
607669
The documents in question were brought to court during Intel&#39;s legal battle with Intergraph. AMD believes they show its arch-rival to be guilty of anti-competitive behaviour, which is why it wanted the EC to take a look.
365153
European officials investigating the chip maker say they have a watertight argument for pursuing antitrust charges.
388326
Chipmaker Intel  said on  Monday it had responded to antitrust charges filed by the  European Commission and would seek a hearing, an Intel  spokesman and a Commission spokeswoman said on Monday.
189744
The European Commission confirmed Monday it has received a written response to the&#160;formal antitrust charges&#160;it filed against computer chip maker Intel, after some delays.&quot;We have received the company&#39;s response and are examining it carefully,&quot; said a person close to the competition department.In July the Commission accused the world&#39;s biggest maker of computer chips of handing out &quot;substantial rebates&quot; to computer manufacturers in return for buying the bulk of their x86 chips from Intel.It also accused the company of paying computer makers for scrapping or delaying the launch of machines fitted with AMD chips, and of selling its chips for server computers at below cost to large customers such as governments and universities.Such practices are illegal under European antitrust law when applied by companies that dominate their market, as Intel does.In addition to the written response filed Monday, Intel has also asked the Commission for the opportunity to respond to the charges face-to-face in an oral hearing, said Chuck Mulloy, a company spokesman in Santa Clara, California. The Commission will decide the date&#39;s oral hearing.&quot;It will be a while before the hearing. The Commission staff will have to read our substantial response,&quot; Mulloy said.Intel asked twice for extra time to prepare the written response. The initial deadline was in October. That was shifted to Jan. 4. Then, as the new deadline loomed, Intel asked for the weekend to complete the document.&quot;There were some loose ends that needed to be addressed. It was nothing unusual,&quot; Mulloy said.
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.
555560
(InfoWorld) - South Korean antitrust regulators have issued preliminary allegations against IntelÂ forÂ allegedly undermining competition in its PC microprocessor market, but formal charges won't be made for at least another month. The Korean Fair Trade Commission (FTC) sent a "statement of objection" to Intel, which contained preliminary allegations, said Nick Jacobs, an Intel spokesman in Singapore. The document is not a final decision, nor has it been upheld by a court. "It does not itself amount to a finding that there has been a violation of law," he said. "As such, any conclusions about our business practices are at best premature." A senior deputy director at South Korea's FTC said the investigation against Intel remains ongoing. The next step for the world's largest chip maker is to respond to the letter of objection, after which the FTC will rule on the case. South Korea could become the third place to rule on an Intel antitrust case. In 2005, Japan's Fair Trade Commission helped kick off the recent spate ofÂ investigations against IntelÂ by ruling that the company's Japan unit stifled competition by offering rebates to Japanese PC makers in return for agreements to limit purchases of or not buy rival x86 microprocessors. Earlier this year, the European Commission ruled similarly,Â alleging that Intel violated EU antitrust lawsÂ by giving rebates to customers that enabled the company to win sales from rival Advanced Micro Devices. AMD filed an antitrust suit against IntelÂ in June, 2005 at the U.S. District Court in Delaware, shortly after Japan's FTC revealed its allegations against the company. "Following formal action in Japan and Europe, global scrutiny is increasingly focused on Intel's harm to competition and consumers alike. Governments around the world must enforce antitrust laws to bring fair and open competition that will benefit computer manufacturers and buyers everywhere," said Tom McCoy, AMD's executive vice president, legal affairs and chief administrative officer, in an e-mail. (Ben Ames in Boston contributed to this report.)
382400
(InfoWorld) - U.S. government antitrust regulators have asked Intel Corp. and STMicroelectronics NV to provide more information about theirÂ plan to spin off their flash memory unit into a new company, the vendors said Thursday. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission made the request as part of its regulatory review in an effort to ensure the deal does not violate antitrust laws, according to Intel. If FTC investigators approve the terms, Intel and ST will be able to close the deal after a 30-day waiting period, the company said. "These kinds of transactions are reviewed by the FTC and it's not unusual for them to come back and ask for more information," said Intel spokesman Tom Beermann. Intel plans to comply with the request, but gave no deadline for providing the new information. "As part of the regulatory review, they do look at antitrust issues. This is a fairly complicated deal because there are three partners and there are different types of technology, and it is a fairly large deal," Beermann said. Intel and STMicroelectronics will share ownership of the new semiconductor business with ST holding a 48.6 percent stake, Intel owning 45.1 percent and private equity firm Francisco Partners LP holding 6.3 percent. The new company will be based in Switzerland and incorporated in the Netherlands. It will compete against flash vendors including Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Toshiba Corp. and Spansion Inc. Intel's main chip rival AMD spun off its flash unit in December 2005 to create Spansion. Intel and ST announced plans for the new business in May and expect it to employ about 8,000 staff. They will make NOR and NAND-type flash chips, which are typically used for storing data in consumer and industrial products such as cell phones, MP3 music players and digital cameras. Intel has struggled for years to make a profit from its flash business, and earlier in May said it would lay off as many as 1,000 workers when it closed an outdated flash plant in New Mexico. A spokeswoman for ST said the company also planned to comply with the FTC request, but would not confirm whether it was related to antitrust concerns. "We will provide all the information they need. The FTC needs it by the second half of 2007," said ST spokeswoman Carol Brown. "This is just part of the approval process." Â
532105
Speaking yesterday, AMD EVP Tom McCoy said that he believes the US Government has been lax in its antitrust enforcement in recent months. As an example, McCoy re-ignited an old quarrel with Intel - part of its federal antitrust complaint that hasn't been addressed recently, especially in the midst of allegations against Intel's conduct in Germany.
188117
One of these days AMD's going to take a bite out of Intel and not let go.
700803
Intel Corp. , which has  been losing market share in computer processors to Advanced  Micro Devices Inc. , now looks better placed to weather  a brutal price war that seems set to worsen.
670932
Intel smiles and proclaims all is well. Or is it a daily affirmation designed to keep angry investors at bay?