News Intel Wants Refund Over EU’s Overturned AMD Fine

[Admin]

Intel is demanding compensation on an original $1.2 billion fine applied to the company by the EU's Central Court. Overturned in early January, the decision originally found Intel guilty of anti-competitive practices.

Intel Wants Refund Over EU’s Overturned AMD Fine : Read more

 

[-Fran-]

Disgusting.

Regards.

 

[KananX]

“According to court documentation, "In its analysis of whether the rebates at issue were capable of restricting competition, the General Court wrongly failed to take into consideration Intel's line of argument seeking to expose alleged errors committed by the Commission in the AEC [As-Efficient Competitor] test."”

This is absolute nonsense from Intel again. It was in fact anti-competitive, anti-consumer and anti-technology behavior and everyone knows this. I hope the appeal will succeed and intel is forced to pay even more than before. Let there be no doubt about it, this wasn’t lawful by Intel in any way, it’s corruption in its purest form.

 

[Brian D Smith]

In general, companies NEED to hold the EU's feet to the first...they are a little too quick to 'mandate' things for global companies.

 

[punkncat]

I, for one, applaud Intel in not only expecting their funds back, but also with accrued interest. Courts all LOVE to hit you with this fee and that fee, and interest, and late payment penalties. Bust 'em right in the chops, Intel!

 

[waltc3]

Intel's $1B payment to AMD in the US antitrust settlement with Intel will not be refunded, of course... The great thing about that was that the money went to AMD--not to any government agency. But in the EU, the lawyers get huge commissions and the government gets the rest. I hope Intel makes them cough it up before the EU dreams up another excuse to keep it--which might easily be done. I am totally against government fines--money paid to injured parties, though, is a different matter altogether as it happened in the US AMD vs. Intel antitrust suit, which AMD and Intel settled with a $1B check written to AMD, as I recall (Must be nice to be able to write a check like that!...)

 

[KananX]

In general, companies NEED to hold the EU's feet to the first...they are a little too quick to 'mandate' things for global companies.

In the contrary, EU and other such institutions have to hold companies like Intel to higher standards to prevent excess e waste, excess power consumption and anti competitive etc behavior. Intel is only interested in making money and therefore can not be trusted, same as other companies like Apple.

 

[ddcservices]

I, for one, applaud Intel in not only expecting their funds back, but also with accrued interest. Courts all LOVE to hit you with this fee and that fee, and interest, and late payment penalties. Bust 'em right in the chops, Intel!

You forget that what Intel was doing was very clearly a case of anti-competitive behavior. You can give rebates/credits for VOLUME, but you can't pay money to push companies not to sell products of competitors, or to limit their sales of competing products, since that is the very definition of anti-competitive behavior.

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

“According to court documentation, "In its analysis of whether the rebates at issue were capable of restricting competition, the General Court wrongly failed to take into consideration Intel's line of argument seeking to expose alleged errors committed by the Commission in the AEC [As-Efficient Competitor] test."”

This is absolute nonsense from Intel again. It was in fact anti-competitive, anti-consumer and anti-technology behavior and everyone knows this. I hope the appeal will succeed and intel is forced to pay even more than before. Let there be no doubt about it, this wasn’t lawful by Intel in any way, it’s corruption in its purest form.

If we were talking about the Bulldozer ("heavy equipment") era of AMD CPUs, I think Intel's argument would be entirely valid. However, AMD's socket 754 and socket 939 Athlon and Opteron CPUs in the 2002~2006 era were generally superior than anything Intel had at the time. I suspect this whole process will continue for at least another decade, with the real winners being the lawyers. :\

 

[punkncat]

You forget that what Intel was doing was very clearly a case of anti-competitive behavior. You can give rebates/credits for VOLUME, but you can't pay money to push companies not to sell products of competitors, or to limit their sales of competing products, since that is the very definition of anti-competitive behavior.

Apparently, someone with more details and facts thought otherwise in order for this particular case/situation to be overturned. I am not saying it 'didn't' happen, or that someone didn't maintain the proper integrity (etc.) for certain facets to be admissible to the court and so on...but, since it did get overturned Intel is fully within their rights to expect proper compensation in regard to the repayment this many years later.

 

[-Fran-]

If we were talking about the Bulldozer ("heavy equipment") era of AMD CPUs, I think Intel's argument would be entirely valid. However, AMD's socket 754 and socket 939 Athlon and Opteron CPUs in the 2002~2006 era were generally superior than anything Intel had at the time. I suspect this whole process will continue for at least another decade, with the real winners being the lawyers. :\

It's about setting a precedent for courts. Which is why I'm mad AMD decided to settle instead of going all the way. It basically told the courts of law Intel didn't need to admit to any wrong-doing when it is a textbook monopoly move: price your competitors out.

Also, something interesting. Otellini died right after he stepped down and he's the only one that could even prove any wrong doing from Intel when these calls were made inside the board. He died of a heart attack, supposedly. I've always wondered if he knew too much and he became a liability for Intel, haha. Tinfoil theories aside, when you're talking about the levels of money Intel moves, killing is completely on the table. I mean, "you're not trying if you're not cheating", right? That toxic saying comes to bite everyone in the back, all the time. I just wish Otellini got his well-deserved karma payback and nothing else.

Other than that, I hope the EU goes ahead with the appeal and slaps Intel and creates a precedent for courts. Pricing out your competitors hurts the free market. How can people not understand that?

Regards.

 

[shady28]

I think a lot of folks should read that reversal and think about what not reversing it would mean in terms of precedent.

"In that regard, the Court of Justice noted that the General Court, like the Commission, had relied on the assumption that the fidelity rebates granted by an undertaking in a dominant position were by their very nature capable of restricting competition, with the result that it was not necessary to analyse all the circumstances of the case or to carry out an as-efficient-competitor (‘AEC’) test. 6 "


If the original ruling stood, then if you are in a dominant market position, you can't give rebates at all in the EU because doing so would automatically mean you are engaging in anti-competitive behavior.

Fortunately that is not the standard, and since the standard was never applied by court or the EC, hence they reversed the ruling.

 

[TerryLaze]

I think a lot of folks should read that reversal and think about what not reversing it would mean in terms of precedent.

"In that regard, the Court of Justice noted that the General Court, like the Commission, had relied on the assumption that the fidelity rebates granted by an undertaking in a dominant position were by their very nature capable of restricting competition, with the result that it was not necessary to analyse all the circumstances of the case or to carry out an as-efficient-competitor (‘AEC’) test. 6 "


If the original ruling stood, then if you are in a dominant market position, you can't give rebates at all in the EU because doing so would automatically mean you are engaging in anti-competitive behavior.

Fortunately that is not the standard, and since the standard was never applied by court or the EC, hence they reversed the ruling.

While what you quote is an appeal from the EC that is happening,
this article is about intel getting 13 years of interest for the money the EC unlawfully took from them.
Reversing that would set the precedence of the EC being able to dish out fines and use them as 0 interest loans.

Intel is filing for “payment of compensation and consequential interest for the damage sustained because of the European Commissions refusal to pay Intel default interest", as submitted on Monday to the EC. According to the company, it is owed the default interest rates applied throughout the length of the legal battle since the original, 2009 ruling.

 

[-Fran-]

I think a lot of folks should read that reversal and think about what not reversing it would mean in terms of precedent.

"In that regard, the Court of Justice noted that the General Court, like the Commission, had relied on the assumption that the fidelity rebates granted by an undertaking in a dominant position were by their very nature capable of restricting competition, with the result that it was not necessary to analyse all the circumstances of the case or to carry out an as-efficient-competitor (‘AEC’) test. 6 "


If the original ruling stood, then if you are in a dominant market position, you can't give rebates at all in the EU because doing so would automatically mean you are engaging in anti-competitive behavior.

Fortunately that is not the standard, and since the standard was never applied by court or the EC, hence they reversed the ruling.

Ah, the AEC. In the economic theory, that's a huge slippery slope when talking competition. If you're in a dominant position (keep in mind Intel was borderline monopoly, if not flat out monopoly then) such that can introduce efficiencies of scale (big volume) and can sell at cost (or under it with "justification"; think consoles) is not incentivized to do so for anti-competition reasons? We're not talking about companies on equal footing and with similar products and sales volume. AMD has never been even 20% of what Intel is, at any point in time? How can any Company compete without a massive risk that no investor will be willing to put up with? VIA had to bail out because they just couldn't and so now we only have 2 Companies designing X86 CPUs which are the dominant force for 90% of the Desktop PC market and server?

But you know what? It doesn't really matter... The biggest shareholders of Intel and AMD are the same anyway. Maybe that's why AMD decided to settle back then? The money went to the same pockets.

https://money.cnn.com/quote/shareholders/shareholders.html?symb=AMD&subView=institutional

INTC - Intel Corp Shareholders - CNNMoney.com

Regards.

 

[gdmaclew]

I, for one, applaud Intel in not only expecting their funds back, but also with accrued interest. Courts all LOVE to hit you with this fee and that fee, and interest, and late payment penalties. Bust 'em right in the chops, Intel!

So basically you don't think Intel did anything wrong, right?
Well if that's the case then you wouldn't mind if they did it again.
And, if what Intel did is so right why haven't they tried the same thing again?

 

[punkncat]

So basically you don't think Interl did anything wrong, right?
Well if that's the case then you wouldn't mind if they did it again.
And, if what Intel did is so right why haven't they tried the same thing again?

See post #10 in regard to this.

 

[KananX]

So basically you don't think Interl did anything wrong, right?
Well if that's the case then you wouldn't mind if they did it again.
And, if what Intel did is so right why haven't they tried the same thing again?

I’m gonna answer on their behalf: they did it one time and got punished for it. Secondly, if they did it now, EVERYONE would know, we live in the social media time now, not like in 2005 where barely anyone had internet or computers, which basically now everyone has in the form of smartphones. Everyone would know, and especially, everyone would also know about their corruption, it would spread like a wildfire. They would get punished again, and then way more harshly, maybe 10x as hard then. Intel is a company that is only interested in maximizing profit, and they will do anything to achieve it, unless they are stopped or countered in the form of better products and then forced to innovate again, as happened with Ryzen.

 

[gdmaclew]

See post #10 in regard to this.

Time will tell.

 

[jkflipflop98]

You forget that what Intel was doing was very clearly a case of anti-competitive behavior. You can give rebates/credits for VOLUME, but you can't pay money to push companies not to sell products of competitors, or to limit their sales of competing products, since that is the very definition of anti-competitive behavior.

Oh really? Then explain why I can't have a Pepsi at McDonald's.

 

[-Fran-]

Oh really? Then explain why I can't have a Pepsi at McDonald's.

Because you can buy Pepsi anywhere else and in other restaurants. AMD could not get any major OEM to build computers with their CPUs in them, at all. So they were mostly supplying to either very small (in volume) channels like DYI or to some OEMs to build a few server machines.

Regards.

 

[Brian D Smith]

"In the contrary, EU and other such institutions have to hold companies like itel to higher stadards to prevent excess e waste, excess power consumption and anti competitive etc behavior. Intel is only interested in making money and therefore cannot be trusted, same as other companies like Apple"
--------------------------------------------------
Well, now your living in Radicaltown...where the tech companies are all up to nefarious things...not like governing bodies whose sole stance on some things is to bend the free market to their narrow 'get elected again' interests (?).

Seriously...such 'standards' are arbitrary: 'higher standards' 'excess e waste', 'excess power consumption', etc. etc. What even constitutes 'excess'?

Heard of the EU's USB-C mandate for Apple? I don't do Apple products so I've no dog in the hunt...and I like seeing them 'lose' in many things...but seriously? What if the Pan-American countries...or SE Asian picked a competing item to 'mandate'? Let the consumer decide.

And we are only talking about the article...not generalities. Me anyway, but you went there...

 

[KananX]

Well, now your living in Radicaltown...where the tech companies are all up to nefarious things...not like governing bodies whose sole stance on some things is to bend the free market to their narrow 'get elected again' interests (?).

Seriously...such 'standards' are arbitrary: 'higher standards' 'excess e waste', 'excess power consumption', etc. etc. What even constitutes 'excess'?

Heard of the EU's USB-C mandate for Apple? I don't do Apple products so I've no dog in the hunt...and I like seeing them 'lose' in many things...but seriously? What if the Pan-American countries...or SE Asian picked a competing item to 'mandate'? Let the consumer decide.

Pretty much nobody likes excessive heat and power consumption and pretty much everyone likes USB C, though Apple will probably dodge this by going entirely cable-less soon. You shouldn’t take these things too lightly, unless you want another quad core for 400$ again and anything higher reserved to HEDT. AMD more or less saved everyone a lot of money by making HEDT unnecessary aside from a few edge cases with people that need more lanes.

 

[rtoaht]

EU defense plan: Don’t spend much money on defense and demand US taxpayers to save their ass.

EU tech plan: Have too many regulations that prevent local businesses to flourish. Then fine successful US companies (Microsoft, Google, Qualcomm, Intel, …) to generate revenue.

Intel should definitely go after the interest. If the fine is overruled then why shouldn’t they pay up the interest?

 

[rtoaht]

Because you can buy Pepsi anywhere else and in other restaurants. AMD could not get any major OEM to build computers with their CPUs in them, at all. So they were mostly supplying to either very small (in volume) channels like DYI or to some OEMs to build a few server machines.

Regards.

But Uro Cola or any other smaller soda companies could not get any major restaurants to sell their products since they have exclusivity contracts with either Pepsi or Coke. Shouldn’t they be eligible for compensation? Also shouldn’t Pepsi and Coke be accountable for their exclusivity practice?

 

[shady28]

While what you quote is an appeal from the EC that is happening,
this article is about intel getting 13 years of interest for the money the EC unlawfully took from them.

Ya but the thread is full of people saying that the EU shouldn't have reversed the decision. It's actually clear that they should have from that statement in the ruling, the EC simply assumed that a rebate was anti-competitive if done by a player in a stronger position within a market.

Reversing that would set the precedence of the EC being able to dish out fines and use them as 0 interest loans.

That's pretty much what they are doing, over and over.

What's more, if you consider that most of these companies like Intel carry a lot of corporate debt, that high grade corporate debt typically yielded 7-8% back during this ruling according to data from the Federal Reserve, then the EC is still getting a freebie here.

A quick 7% interest semi-annually for 20 years calc (what a corporate bond in 2000 would yield) shows the real cost over 20 years time to Intel was likely 2.9B Euros. 1.68B in interest payments on those bonds, plus the direct loss of the 1.2B. So giving them 0.7B in interest is actually pretty cheap.