Editors' note: This is a guest column. See Larry Downes' bio below.
Wednesday's announcement that the Federal Trade Commission had filed a complaint against chipmaker Intel came as quite a surprise.
Not because of the allegations themselves, which focus on illegal tactics the company allegedly uses to maintain its dominance in the market for PC and server CPUs. Nearly all of them have already been cited in regulatory actions in the United States and abroad.
Earlier this year, the European Union fined Intel nearly $1.5 billion for conduct similar to that alleged in the FTC complaint (an appeal is pending). New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, likewise, filed an antitrust case against the company in November. Private antitrust suits, notably by competitor Advanced Micro Devices, have been ongoing since 2005. Japan and South Korea have already concluded their own actions against the company.
Rather, what is surprising about the FTC complaint is its timing. Given the range of both public and private litigation against Intel, it's hard to see what the FTC hopes to achieve by jumping in so late in the game. Indeed, the commission had been investigating the chipmaker since June 2008, before the EU reached its decision and before a landmark settlement between Intel and AMD was reached in the private lawsuit just last month, in which Intel agreed to pay AMD $1.25 billion and cross-license various patents.
According to Intel's statement Wednesday morning, the company and the commission had been close to a settlement "of all outstanding issues with the FTC" when the commission instead decided to issue its complaint.
The real deal
So what's going on here? Let's start by looking at a few key differences between the FTC action and those brought by other litigants. First, the FTC complaint broadens the charges against Intel. In early December, sources reported that the FTC had widened its investigation beyond CPUs to include anticompetitive behavior in graphics processing units, in which Intel is alleged to control about half the market.
Nvidia, one of Intel's main competitors for GPUs and itself a party in still another lawsuit, confirmed that the FTC had contacted the company about its investigation. (In a Wednesday statement, Intel argued that the GPU claims have not been fully investigated by the commission and are therefore premature. It appears that the addition of these new issues derailed the settlement talks, leading to Wednesday's action.)
Second, the FTC's complaint alleges multiple violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which only the commission has the authority to enforce. Under section 5 of the act, the commission may use its power to remedy practices that have not yet reached the threshold of harm necessary under either the Sherman Act or the Clayton Act, the more general antitrust statutes. As the U.S. Supreme Court put it in a 1953 case, the commission quotes from in the first sentence of its complaint, section 5 gives the FTC power to "stop in their incipiency acts and practices which, when full blown, would violate" the Sherman or Clayton acts.
Third, and perhaps most disturbing, the FTC's proposed remedies are much broader than those sought in any of the other litigation. Rather than seeking fines, penalties, or money damages, the commission intends to enforce wide-ranging changes to how Intel operates.
For starters, the FTC wants to limit Intel's use of bundled prices, quantity discounts, minimum purchase guarantees from original equipment manufacturers, pricing products below cost and other long-standing industry practices. Moreover, the commission intends to require Intel to license its technology to "others" on terms and conditions "as the commission may order" and to require Intel to preclear any future acquisitions, including purchases of intellectual property such as patents and copyrights.
These and many other restrictions on Intel's conduct would be overseen by an independent monitor appointed by the FTC. Intel would also be required to submit "periodic compliance reports" with the commission.
In short, if the FTC goes forward with its complaint, and Intel is ultimately found to have violated the FTCA, the company would find itself closely regulated for an undetermined period of time by the commission and its outside monitors. Even advertising and promotional materials would need to be reviewable on demand by the government.
Notable timing
None of these differences, however, add up to a justification for the FTC's decision to insert itself into a complicated matrix of ongoing litigation, just as the other actions are or are close to reaching resolution.
For starters, if the GPU claims are as strong as the commission says they are, then they could easily have formed the basis of a separate complaint, filed once the FTC had had a full opportunity to investigate them.
As for the FTCA, the FTC undermines its own argument that the special powers of section 5 are necessary to repair the semiconductor market. The commission notes throughout the complaint that Intel's monopolies and the behaviors it is seeking to remedy, with the exception of the GPU-related violations, have been ongoing since 1999--the year in which Intel and the commission settled an earlier section 5 complaint. Given that so many other lawsuits are already years in progress, it's unlikely that any "incipient" behavior is involved here; whatever Intel has done, it has done for years.
The FTCA is a red herring, in any case. As leading antitrust scholar Richard A. Posner noted in 2005, expansion of the Sherman and Clayton Acts over the years has left no real difference between the more general antitrust laws and the FTC's special powers under section 5. Private enforcement or lawsuits brought by the Department of Justice or state attorneys general now cover all the behavior that may have been subject only to what was once the broader powers of the agency.
The FTC's belated decision to pursue Intel brings Posner's longstanding critique of the commission into sharp focus. Posner, who has questioned the effectiveness of the commission since 1969, concluded in 2005 that the agency's continued existence might be justified, not for its enforcement of antitrust laws, but rather on the basis of its unique role in protecting consumers against fraud. The Department of Justice is a "powerful and highly regarded" federal agency tasked with enforcing antitrust law, Posner wrote, "but there is no counterpart federal agency that tries to protect consumers against fraud and oppression--unless it is the Federal Trade Commission."
And while the FTC complaint duly invokes "harm to consumers" 31 times in its complaint, evidence of any real damage will be hard to come by. Thanks to Moore's Law--Intel founder Gordon Moore's promise that semiconductors will continue to get faster, smaller, and cheaper every 12 to 18 months--the price of raw computing power has fallen dramatically and consistently since Intel was founded. Consumers are not being tricked or misled into buying computers with Intel processors.
Protecting consumers?
The commission can blow all the smoke it wants to about ensuring "freedom of choice" for consumers, but for better or worse, this litigation and all the rest of it is being brought for the benefit of Intel's competitors. Which is not to say that Intel hasn't violated anticompetition laws and that those violations, if left unremedied, "will have an adverse effect on competition and hence consumers," as the FTC delicately puts it.
Perhaps they will. But there is another, greater danger here, and that is the harm to the entire semiconductor industry that will result from regulators stepping in to resolve what are, in essence, private fights between Intel, its competitors, and some of its biggest customers.
The commission, along with its counterparts abroad and judges fashioning remedies in the public and private antitrust cases, might somehow get it right and fix the semiconductor market--or at least make it more efficient than it is under Intel's dominance. On the other hand, they might make things much worse.
The worst-case scenario seems increasingly likely. The FTC, in any event, is weighing in far too late on Intel's battles with AMD, and too soon in its fight with Nvidia and other GPU manufacturers. The remedies it intends to visit are breathtaking in their expansiveness and would leave Intel unable to compete, let alone compete fairly. The only beneficiaries of this latest chapter in the antitrust saga would be Intel's competitors, not consumers.
As Posner noted with characteristic understatement, an FTC untethered from its role of protecting consumers is little more than a tool for unhappy competitors. "If the competitor files a lawsuit, he must bear the expense of the suit," Posner wrote, "but if he can get the FTC to proceed against the seller, he incurs no cost. This opens up the possibility of using the FTC as a weapon against competition."
Even worse, it's a weapon that has the unfortunate habit of regularly backfiring on those who employ it.
The Federal Trade Commission's complaint against Intel for alleged anticompetitive practices has a new twist: graphics chips.
To date, the antitrust actions of regulators worldwide toward Intel have focused on sale practices for central processing units, or CPUs, a market over which the company has fought heavily with Advanced Micro Devices. On Wednesday, however, the FTC spelled out a litany of allegations about Intel's alleged anticompetitive behavior in the market for graphics-processing units, or GPUs, in which Nvidia is a major player.
Nvidia is the world's leading supplier of "discrete," or standalone, graphics chips but takes a distant second place in overall market share to Intel, which supplies "integrated" graphics built into the chipsets that accompany all of its processors. Mercury Research estimates the total market for graphics chips, including integrated graphics, at almost $10 billion in 2009.
Why graphics, and why now? "It would be really hard to sell the public on expending resources to take Intel through administrative proceedings when it had already paid over a billion dollars to AMD," said Joshua D. Wright, a professor at George Mason University School of Law and a scholar in residence at the Federal Trade Commission until 2008.
"[The FTC] needed to be seen as doing something new," Wright said.
"[Nvidia] becomes the remaining star witness, now that AMD has left the field," said Roger Kay, principal at Endpoint Technologies. "And the FTC's focus, which begins to look toward the future, has to take into account how graphics will fit in as computer technology develops," Kay said.
Intel General Counsel Doug Melamed asserted in a statement that the FTC complaint "is based largely on claims that the FTC added at the last minute and has not investigated," referring to the GPU allegations. And Melamed added in a conference call that some of these GPU allegations were made as recently as December 8.
One of the areas the FTC case zeroes in on is the burgeoning competition for chipsets in Netbooks--small, inexpensive laptops that are typically priced around $350. Netbooks are powered by Intel's Atom processor--and integrated graphics silicon built into the chipset. In this market, Nvidia also sells its Ion chipset, which competes with Intel's integrated graphics product.
... Read more
Perhaps the next time Brad Smith heads to Brussels, it will be for a vacation.
After years of wrangling with Microsoft, the European Commission announced an accord with the software giant Wednesday on several fronts that seems poised to put an end to its antitrust concerns with Redmond.
Brad Smith
(Credit: Microsoft)In the wake of the announcement, I spoke to Smith, Microsoft's general counsel, about the decision, what it means for the future of Windows, and whether the company sees its spot on the antitrust hot seat now being taken up by other companies, including Google.
Here's an edited transcript of our conversation:
Q: Is this really it as far as Europe is concerned?
Smith: This is definitely a major milestone for Microsoft. Today's announcement reflects a broad set of agreements that really address a wide array of issues. At the same time, we obviously need to keep our eye on the ball. Antitrust issues will continue to be important for us, just as they are going to continue to be important for a number of other leaders in our industry. We're going to have to do an excellent job implementing these agreement. We are going to have to do an excellent job addressing any new issues that arise in the future. Having said all that, I also think it is fair to say, as Commissioner [Neelie] Kroes did when she spoke in Brussels, this does represent the closing of one chapter and gives us the opportunity to open a new chapter. We're definitely enthused about that opportunity and we're committed to ensuring the next chapter is a positive and constructive one.
One of the things that Steve Ballmer talks a lot about in terms of antitrust issues is getting legal clarity on what one can and can't do. Do you feel like you now have that understanding with the EU?
Smith: I think this gives us a great deal more clarity. I think it gives the industry as a whole more clarity. It's perhaps most helpful in the area of interoperability because it really implements a new framework. It applies to a broad array of Microsoft products--Windows, Windows Server, Exchange, SharePoint--and for all of these products it has certain principles that we have to adhere to. It addresses the way we implement file formats.
At the same time, no advance on any single day can ever answer all questions for all companies for all time.
Essentially the EU has said through its very objections that you can't put a media player in Windows and you can't put a browser in Windows. What do you feel Microsoft can include in future versions?
Smith: There are two things to think about. First is what gets included in Windows, and second, what's the right way to address something that is included.
Our basic approach is to include in Windows, software that has APIs (application programming interfaces) that will be beneficial for other applications to call on and use. The browser is definitely an example of that. It's quite probably even more important in that role today than it was, say, when the browser issues first arose in the 1990s. The media player plays a similar role in terms of some broad APIs that are used by a wide variety of other applications.
There are other things that we have put in Windows in the past that don't necessarily involve the same role. A good example of that is Windows Live Messenger. We had Windows Messenger in Windows XP. It's not in Windows Vista or Windows 7 We're trying to make thoughtful decisions about what is included.
Then the second question that arises is how do things get included. How do we document APIs that our browser is using so that other browsers can use them as well? That's part of the U.S. consent decree.
How do we ensure that [computer makers] have flexibility to offer competing choices? How do we ensure that consumers are aware of competing choices and can use them if they wish. That latter part is an area where different governments have chosen different approaches at different times. The U.S. Department of Justice chose one approach in its consent decree. The Korean Fair Trade Commission chose a second approach. The European Commission in the media player case in 2004 chose a third approach. Today's announcement on the browser reflects the European Commission choosing a fourth approach.
Some people have the opinion that as a result of these different antitrust issues, Microsoft really finds itself with one hand tied behind its back as it competes in the battles of today. Do you believe Microsoft in the current antitrust environment competes on an even footing with some of the other Internet giants?
Smith: I do believe it is very important for all technology leaders in our industry to follow the same laws and obey the same rules. The rules don't necessarily apply in the same way when a company has a small market share as it does when a company has a large market share. But there are a number of companies that have large market shares for very important products. We've taken a number of steps to get into line with new legal rules in this field. The law has evolved and we've needed to evolve to address these new obligations.
We do believe our competitors need to play by the same rules. They've often been at the forefront of asking regulators to evolve the law in new directions. Now that the regulators have done so, we believe they need to pay attention as well.
Do you anticipate a period of time over the next few years where Microsoft is more likely to be the subject of antitrust inquiries or the company on the other side of the table for a change?
Smith: I think that we have addressed a very wide array of issues. Perhaps, in part because we were the first company to have to go through these inquiries, at least since the dawn of the PC era. We've probably had to go farther and sooner than other companies have had to do. We're now in an era where a different company seems to be in the headlines for competition law issues, if not every day, at least every month.
I think that what we are going to see in the next decade is this field of law being applied to a wide number of technology leaders that have high market share. We're going to see that, not only in Washington and Brussels, but we're likely to see that in more countries around the world simply because the global economy has evolved.
Have you expressed concerns specifically to Europe or Washington, D.C., about some of Google's behaviors?
Smith: We were very transparent last year when Google entered into its agreement with Yahoo. We felt that that was an illegal agreement that Google had entered into for the sole purpose of preventing Microsoft from becoming a more successful competitor, together with Yahoo, in the search space.
It was only when the Department of Justice informed the parties that it was on the verge of filing suit that Google decided to drop that agreement. We have not been shy about raising concerns when we have them.
It was only a couple hours after you guys settled with Brussels that we heard from D.C. with regards to Intel. When you initially heard that the FTC was filing suit against Intel, did you have feelings of empathy toward what their lawyers are going through, or what were your initial reactions?
Smith: I obviously know from a lot of firsthand experience the challenges that arise when a company needs to address these kinds of issues. Our road was a long one and it had its share of difficult moments. Antitrust issues are never easy for company to address.
This isn't a case where Microsoft has taken a public stance or even voiced to the regulators a position, is it?
Smith: We have not taken any public or nonpublic positions on the issues.
Are you guys looking to reach an agreement with Plurk? You guys said that you used code you shouldn't have? I'm curious if you are trying to negotiate some sort of settlement with them?
Smith: I wouldn't want to say anything that goes beyond the public statement we put out.
It does seem when I look at any particular issue with regards to the Internet, Microsoft tends to have a much more cautious approach. It seems like it is tough to compete when others are bundling more than you.
Smith: I think our goal is to be thoughtful but also fast-moving. As we look at the Internet today, it is increasingly a regulated space. That wasn't the case a decade ago. I think a thoughtful company needs to really think through how its products and services are going to comply with the regulations that are going to be enforced or likely to be applied in many different countries around the world. At the same time, one cannot let that get in the way of moving forward quickly. I think it's striking that balance that is really quite important. One needs to move fast. One shouldn't move faster than speed of thought and yet one shouldn't be so thoughtful that one simply analyzes problems and fails to solve them.
Do you think Microsoft has erred a little too much on side of caution in recent years?
Smith: I don't know that we've erred too much on the side of caution, but I do think it's extremely important we move quickly. This is a very dynamic space it is certain to remain a very dynamic space. Customers are interested in deploying new products and services, whether it is on the client, on the server, or on the cloud. The real key is to develop the capability to be both thoughtful and fast moving.
Even for a company as powerful as Intel, with $13 billion in cash on the books, $1.25 billion is a lot of money. So why drop that huge quantity of money in the lap of its biggest rival, Advanced Micro Devices?
The payment is, of course, to settle the antitrust suit AMD brought against Intel five years ago. AMD's stock surged 22 percent Thursday after the chipmakers announced the agreement, but Intel's share price dropped 1 percent, indicating which company the investors thought got the better deal.
Paul Otellini, speaking in September and holding a wafer of silicon chips
(Credit: Stephen Shankland/CNET)AMD does indeed come away with some serious perks--not just the cash, but also a new patent cross-license agreement that removes Intel's objections to AMD spinning off its chip-manufacturing business, enables multiple manufacturers to build AMD's chips, and eliminates the earlier patent agreement's payments to Intel. And it has Intel's agreement not to violate a list of restraints on its business practices.
But Intel gets something out of this, too.
Spend now, save later
Let's start with the money. Sure, shareholders likely frowned when they heard Intel's fourth-quarter expenses are expected to climb from $2.9 billion to about $4.2 billion. But Intel could have been out a lot more money if things had gone south.
In the European Union, Intel is wrestling with an antitrust case that produced a fine of 1.06 billion euros, or $1.6 billion at today's exchange rate. Intel appealed the European Commission fine, but it's a very concrete example of just how severe the Intel punishment could be.
There are other financial factors, too. Intel and AMD were set to begin their jury trial in March, and jury trials are famously unpredictable. Add on top of that risk the fact that antitrust suits can come with triple damages.
"It was a small multiple of the damage that could be awarded in a jury trial," Intel Chief Executive Paul Otellini said of the price tag in a conference call earlier Thursday.
Treble damages of the scale of just the European Commission fine would have been more than $4 billion, Technology Business Research analyst John Spooner observed. Facing that prospect, "Intel chose to control its own destiny and settle up front."
Taking commercial cases to a jury trial is indeed risky, said Richard Brosnick, who's involved in antitrust law at the firm of Butzel Long.
"Any complex commercial case going to the jury phase is challenging, and antitrust, given the economics, is probably more challenging," Brosnick said. "Trial is expensive overall, not in billions, but in terms of the risk you'll be able to explain these issues in a way that will be understood by and persuasive to a jury."
Goodwill in other antitrust cases
AMD's antitrust case isn't the only one Intel faces. It's also got the European Commission fine discussions, a new antitrust lawsuit from New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, and an antitrust investigation from the Federal Trade Commission.
The AMD settlement doesn't make those cases evaporate, but Intel hopes it'll help.
"We hope that having this major litigation settled with AMD would be viewed favorably by these regulatory bodies and eventually the cases would be dropped," Intel spokesman Tom Beerman said.
Certainly those regulators won't face as much of AMD's active prodding. Among the terms of the settlement is this, regarding all the regulatory actions AMD is involved in:
AMD agrees to promptly...notify in writing each authority...that except as provided in Section 3.5 AMD has resolved its disagreements with and complaints concerning Intel contained in that Administrative Complaint and believes that this Agreement provides AMD with fair compensation for any and all actual or alleged harm and damages that AMD did or may have suffered in connection with matters discussed in the Administrative Complaint. In addition, AMD agrees that it will not ghost-write or edit any other briefs, pleadings, or "friend of the court" or "friend of the tribunal" materials or briefs in any Administrative Action.
But whether Intel will actually get what it wants isn't certain.
"It's certainly possible that the public agencies will view this as a compromise they can live with, but it's equally possible not," Brosnick said.
One issue is Intel practices described in the section 3.5 mentioned above, where AMD and Intel still disagree. Brosnick said the governmental agencies still might be concerned about any of those practices--called "retroactive discounts," "accused bid bucket," and "accused end-user discounts" in the settlement.
Intel digging in its heels?
Though the agreement didn't preclude those practices as it did some others, it did agree not to defend them as hard as it might in settlement talks with the government organizations.
"Intel agrees that in the event it enters into voluntary settlement discussions with a government authority in the EC litigation, New York litigation, or the FTC investigation, and if such government authority proposes to include in a consent judgment or other governmental order a prohibition against Retroactive Discounts, Accused Bid Buckets or Accused End-User Discounts, Intel will not challenge such a prohibition as a general matter, although it may challenge the scope or specific language of the prohibition," the settlement agreement said.
Just how deeply Intel will dig in its heels in the other cases remains to be seen. Although it settled a big case, Otellini hardly sounded contrite. He reiterated on several occasions his belief that Intel didn't do anything illegal. He said airing the full context of seemingly incriminating e-mail would show Intel in a better light. And he vehemently attacked the New York case.
"We strongly disagree with the New York attorney general case and believe the complaint is entirely without merit," Otellini said. "Discounts and rebates are entirely fair business practices, and it's unfortunate the New York attorney general chose to distort the facts. We would have preferred to engage in a dialog with the New York attorney general."
Then again, Intel spoke in strong terms about the AMD trial. Perhaps Intel's pragmatic side will show in the other cases next.
The European Commission on Monday formally dug in its heels over Oracle's planned acquisition of Sun Microsystems, but Oracle accused the regulatory body of "profound misunderstanding" in a rebuttal that declared its intention to fight the opinion.
The regulatory body issued a statement of objections about the merger, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing from Sun Microsystems. The open-source MySQL database software is the sole issue of concern in the matter, Sun said in the filing.
"The Statement of Objections sets out the Commission's preliminary assessment regarding, and is limited to, the combination of Sun's open source MySQL database product with Oracle's enterprise database products and its potential negative effects on competition in the market for database products," Sun said in the filing.
Oracle, though, fired back immediately, saying the objection "reveals a profound misunderstanding of both database competition and open-source dynamics." And indicating that other technologies are in limbo during the European deliberations, Oracle said, "Oracle's acquisition of Sun is essential for competition in the high-end server market, for revitalizing Sparc, and Solaris and for strengthening the Java development platform."
Meanwhile, the U.S. Justice Department reiterated its stance that the acquisition isn't anticompetitive. But given the gulf between Oracle and EC perspectives and Oracle's unwillingness to spin the MySQL software group off, it appears the matter won't be resolved soon.
MySQL is open-source software, meaning anyone may see, modify, and distribute the human-readable source code that underlies the software package computers actually run. Oracle's core database product is proprietary, meaning they don't grant those freedoms. MySQL is used widely at Facebook and Google among other companies, and competes to some extent with Oracle's existing products, arguably indirectly by expanding into newer markets to which Oracle's software isn't as well-suited.
Oracle castigated the commission in its statement:
It is well understood by those knowledgeable about open source software that because MySQL is open source, it cannot be controlled by anyone. That is the whole point of open source.
The database market is intensely competitive with at least eight strong players, including IBM, Microsoft, Sybase and three distinct open-source vendors. Oracle and MySQL are very different database products. There is no basis in European law for objecting to a merger of two among eight firms selling differentiated products. Mergers like this occur regularly and have not been prohibited by United States or European regulators in decades...
Sun's customers universally support this merger and do not benefit from the continued uncertainty and delay. Oracle plans to vigorously oppose the Commission's Statement of Objections as the evidence against the Commission's position is overwhelming. Given the lack of any credible theory or evidence of competitive harm, we are confident we will ultimately obtain unconditional clearance of the transaction.
The Justice Department, which is in Oracle's camp, detailed its reasoning in a statement from Deputy Assistant Attorney General Molly Boast of the Justice Department's Antitrust Division.
And though Boast pointed to the department's "strong and positive relationship on competition policy matters" with the EC, she also said, "At this point in its process, it appears that the EC holds a different view. We remain hopeful that the parties and the EC will reach a speedy resolution that benefits consumers in the commission's jurisdiction."
The Justice Department reasoned that there are other database packages available and that open-source projects can be forked by those who disagree with corporate sponsors' handling of the software.
"Several factors led the (Justice Department's antitrust) division to conclude that the proposed transaction is unlikely to be anticompetitive. There are many open-source and proprietary database competitors. The division concluded, based on the specific facts at issue in the transaction, that consumer harm is unlikely because customers would continue to have choices from a variety of well established and widely accepted database products," Boast said. "The department also concluded that there is a large community of developers and users of Sun's open source database with significant expertise in maintaining and improving the software, and who could support a derivative version of it."
New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo filed a federal antitrust lawsuit Wednesday against Intel that accuses it of paying computer makers rebates to illegally maintain its monopoly power, the newest among several such attacks that have dogged the chipmaker in recent years.
"Intel has engaged in a systematic worldwide campaign of illegal, exclusionary conduct to maintain its monopoly power and prices in the market for x86 microprocessors," the suit asserts. "By exacting exclusive or near-exclusive agreements from large computer makers in exchange for payments totaling billions of dollars, and threatening retaliation against any company that did not heed its wishes, Intel robbed its competitors of the opportunity to challenge Intel's dominance in key segments of the market. This illegal behavior was highly detrimental to consumers, competition, and innovation."
The suit "seeks to bar further anticompetitive acts by Intel, restore lost competition, recover monetary damages suffered by New York governmental entities and consumers, and collect penalties," Cuomo said in a statement.
The suit (click for PDF) makes the state the newest party to go after the dominant chipmaker. Intel also is in the midst of an antitrust suit brought by top rival AMD in 2005 and appealing a massive $1.5 billion fine from the European Commission from a later case in the European Union.
New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo
(Credit: New York Office of the Attorney General)Intel will defend itself, Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy said in response to the New York suit.
"We disagree with the New York attorney general. Neither consumers--who have consistently benefited from lower prices and increased innovation--nor justice are being served by the decision to file this case now," Mulloy said.
Of e-mails the attorney general quoted as evidence Intel abused its position, all already emerged in earlier cases, he added. "It is the AMD case filed 4.5 years ago. It's the same case the EU brought. There's nothing significant or new here that hasn't been discovered," Mulloy said.
According to the suit, computer makers "frequently decided, when faced with the array of incentives and threats which Intel brought to bear, to collaborate with Intel in restricting their purchases from AMD."
"In a February 27, 2003 internal Dell document, for example, it was assumed that 'aggressive' purchases by Dell from AMD could result in '(r)etaliatory (rebate) reductions (by Intel that) could be severe and prolonged with impact to all LOBs (lines of business),'" the suit said. "Another Dell document from March 2003 concluded that '(a)nticipated Intel response wipes out all potential opinc (operating income) upside from going with AMD.'"
And an unnamed IBM executive said in a 2005 e-mail that balancing business interests against Intel's response was hard. From the suit:
I understand the point about the accounts wanting a full AMD portfolio. The question is can we afford to accept the wrath of Intel if we do the AMD full portfolio? It is a very hard question to deal with. On the one hand, having Intel help us has been one element of why we are doing better in the market. If they start to sell against us again I am afraid that we would be in a very difficult spot. On the other hand, if we leave Sun and HP an opening with AMD we will (be) very exposed on that side of things.
Cuomo's office said it began investigating the case in January 2008, "reviewed millions of pages of documents and e-mails and took testimony from several dozen witnesses."
Updated 9:43 a.m. PST with further details from the lawsuit.
Oracle is taking a hard line in dealing with European Union objections to its planned acquisition of Sun Microsystems, according to a Financial Times report Tuesday.
EU antitrust regulators are concerned that Oracle, which has a large business in proprietary software, won't be a good home for Sun's open-source MySQL database business. According to the report, Oracle is unyielding, offering no concessions to deal with the EU's concerns.
That stance could lead the regulators to issue a formal complaint objecting to the deal, and that move could occur within days, according unnamed sources in the story. Neither the EU or Oracle commented for the story.
MySQL's former chief executive, Marten Mickos, has urged the EU to approve the acquisition, but cofounder Monty Widenius has objected. Sun shareholders and the U.S. Justice Department have approved the deal.
Former MySQL leader Mårten Mickos on Thursday urged European Union regulators to approve Oracle's acquisition of Sun Microsystems and its MySQL database group, arguing that further waiting undermines the very competitiveness the EU is trying to protect.
In a letter to Neelie Kroes, the European Commission's commissioner for competition, Mickos said the regulators were correct to question whether Oracle buying Sun and its open-source database software would harm the market. But Mickos, who ran MySQL from 2001 until 2009, believes that the Oracle acquisition won't hurt competition--and that holding the acquisition up will:
"Every new day of uncertainty is potentially very harmful to the various businesses of Sun, reducing competition in the market. A delay in the closing of this transaction is therefore only going to work against the respectable goal that you set out to achieve when launching the probe into this acquisition," Mickos wrote in the letter. (See this separate post with the full text of Mickos' letter to the EU.)
Mårten Mickos, surrounded by inflatable MySQL dolphin mascots.
(Credit: Benchmark Capital)It's not clear what effect Mickos' letter will have on the regulators, but Mickos knows MySQL's business well, and Oracle can use any help it can get in dealing with the acquisition. The U.S. Department of Justice approved the Sun acquisition in August.
Mickos, now entrepreneur in residence at Benchmark Capital, said in an interview that he no longer has anything financially to gain from the transaction. Instead, he's motivated now by trying to help the employees still at Sun--and moreover, its MySQL unit--urging rational discussion about the matter.
"I couldn't live with the fact that I'm not taking action," Mickos said.
Mickos declined Oracle's advances when MySQL was independent, but he agreed to Sun's acquisition in 2008.
In September, the European Commission said MySQL was at the heart of its investigation of the Sun acquisition:
The Commission's preliminary market investigation has shown that the Oracle databases and Sun's MySQL compete directly in many sectors of the database market and that MySQL is widely expected to represent a greater competitive constraint, as it becomes increasingly functional.
The Commission's investigation has also shown that the open-source nature of Sun's MySQL might not eliminate fully the potential for anticompetitive effects. In its in-depth investigation, the Commission will therefore address a number of issues, including Oracle's incentive to further develop MySQL as an open-source database.
Oracle Chief Executive Larry Ellison said MySQL competes in a different part of the database market than Oracle's existing products and that Oracle has no plans to spin MySQL off into a separate company.
Mickos summarized his argument this way:
1. Oracle has as many compelling business reasons to continue the ramp-up of the MySQL business as Sun Microsystems and MySQL previously did, or even more.
2. Even if Oracle, for whatever reason, would have malicious or ignorant intent regarding MySQL (not that I think so), the positive and massive influence MySQL has on the DBMS market cannot be controlled by a single entity--not even by the owner of the MySQL assets. The users of MySQL exert a more powerful influence in the market than the owner does.
MySQL is used to power large-scale Web sites with many servers, a role for which Oracle's back-end database software isn't suited, he argued. It's therefore in Oracle's interest to boost the MySQL business, Mickos said.
As evidence for his case, Mickos pointed to Oracle's 2005 acquisition of InnoDB, whose database engine software is used within MySQL. "Oracle increased their investment in InnoDB since that time, making MySQL a stronger player in the market," he said.
And perhaps reflecting his new role at a venture capital firm, Mickos concluded with a note about the broader effect of the EU's actions:
"If...it becomes difficult or impossible for large companies to acquire open-source assets, then venture investments in open-source companies will slow down, harming the evolution of and innovation in open source, which would result in decreased competition," he said.
Microsoft's top lawyer said that a tentative agreement with Brussels announced earlier Wednesday could potentially allow the software maker to move out of the regulatory crosshairs, perhaps paving the way for regulators to shift their attention elsewhere.
"It's important for us to get closure in Europe on issues that have obviously been controversial for over a decade," General Counsel Brad Smith said in an interview. "Today's decision takes us an important step closer to doing that."
Smith
(Credit: Microsoft)Microsoft initially took a much different approach to the European Commission's assertion that the inclusion of a browser in Windows violated antitrust law. The company had initially proposed just stripping out the browser from Windows 7 entirely, leaving users the prospect of trying to get a browser on their own. The software maker eventually backed down after indications that that approach was unlikely to fly.
While not final, Microsoft's moves would appear to resolve all of its outstanding regulatory issues with the Commission and were greeted warmly by regulators on Wednesday.
Although most of the early attention focused on the agreement around a browser "ballot screen," Microsoft also announced on Wednesday an agreement around product interoperability. Under that deal, a 10-year commitment by Microsoft, the software maker agrees to publish communication protocols and adopt certain standards as part of Windows, Windows Server, Office and other high market share products. Companies could also purchase for 5,000 euros a warranty that would subject Microsoft to court oversight and monetary penalties if it doesn't live up to its commitments.
Smith said that the approach Microsoft took with regard to interoperability was designed to adopt methods that Nellie Kroes, commissioner for competition, had outlined in a speech last year for how companies with high market share products should behave.
"I actually think this in effect implements the model that the Commission has been advocating," Smith said. Moreover, he said it is a model that other software companies should pay attention to, he said, noting that there are lots of companies that have high market share. He noted that Google has 78 percent of the paid search market and IBM has 100 percent of the mainframe market, while Adobe also has dominant positions in certain areas, such as Photoshop.
"It is important we believe to create a level legal and regulatory playing field," Smith said. "Everyone that has a high market share needs to respect the same set of rules. I think a number of these rules are likely to be applicable to other companies and other products."
Settling now with Brussels also could help Microsoft in its effort to win approval for its search deal with Yahoo, Smith said.
"This certainly isn't going to hurt when it comes to the Yahoo-Microsoft agreement," he said. "It's not necessarily going to make a huge difference. We didn't feel a particular step was needed to help it along."
Microsoft is in the process of trying to ascertain whether the deal needs approval from Brussels or from individual European antitrust authorities. It also needs approval from U.S. regulators, who have asked for more information on the deal.
In a reversal on Friday, Microsoft said it is now open to allowing users in Europe to select competing browsers in Windows 7.
Essentially, Microsoft is offering to put into Windows a way for consumers to easily install a rival to Internet Explorer. PC makers, as they can today, could still install a rival browser and could also disable Internet Explorer, if they choose.
"Under our new proposal, among other things, European consumers who buy a new Windows PC with Internet Explorer set as their default browser would be shown a 'ballot screen' from which they could, if they wished, easily install competing browsers from the Web," Microsoft general counsel Brad Smith said in a statement.
As first reported by CNET News earlier this month, Microsoft had hoped to comply with Europe's objections to the inclusion of a browser in Windows simply by removing the browser entirely from Windows 7. However, the European Union indicated that such a move might not satisfy its concerns.
"Under the proposal, Windows 7 would include Internet Explorer, but the proposal recognizes the principle that consumers should be given a free and effective choice of Web browser, and sets out a means--the ballot screen--by which Microsoft believes that can be achieved," the commission said in a statement. "In addition, (computer makers) would be able to install competing Web browsers, set those as default and disable Internet Explorer should they so wish. The Commission welcomes this proposal, and will now investigate its practical effectiveness in terms of ensuring genuine consumer choice."
For now--and until the EU accepts Microsoft's proposal--the software maker said it will continue to ship only the browserless "E" version in Europe.
Opera votes for the ballot
Hakon Wium Lie, who as CEO of Opera Software has been outspoken about the IE antitrust issue, was delighted with the proposal.
"It's a happy day for us," Lie said. "We certainly think the ballot is good news and think it will give users a genuine choice."
What's not yet clear is what browsers will appear on the ballot list. Naturally, Lie is concerned about that matter.
"The rules for getting onto the ballot will be something the EU will watch closely," Lie said. It wouldn't be a good idea "to limit it to only one or two, but exactly how many is a good question."
Mozilla, which oversees development of the open-source Firefox browser, was more cautious.
"We're interested in seeing the specifics of the proposal that Microsoft is making and until that point it's hard to have a definitive reaction," said Chief Executive John Lilly in a statement. "It is, of course, a good development that Microsoft will make changes to allow users to choose their own default Web browser, as today's browser mediates so much of our online experience."
Mozilla also had questions about criteria to be selected for the ballot, what terms Microsoft might impose to be part of it, and whether Microsoft will update versions of Windows already running with the ballot.
User headaches
The planned browserless version would create a number of headaches for users, including forcing them to try to download a competing browser without having Internet Explorer to do so, as well as making it more difficult to upgrade to Windows 7 than it would otherwise be. For example, moving from Vista to Windows 7 "E" would require a new installation of the operating system, while users elsewhere can just upgrade their existing Windows installation.
"While the Commission solicits public comment and considers this proposal, we are committed to ensuring that we are in full compliance with European law and our obligations under the 2007 Court of First Instance ruling," Smith said. "PCs manufacturers building machines for the European market will continue to be required to ship 'E' versions of Windows 7 until such time that the Commission fully reviews our proposals and determines whether they satisfy our obligations under European law.
Microsoft is also committing to "a public undertaking designed to promote interoperability between third party products and a number of Microsoft products, including Windows, Windows Server, Office, Exchange, and SharePoint."
The software maker faces a separate complaint over Office.
"Like the Internet Explorer proposal, the interoperability measures we are offering involve significant change by Microsoft," Smith said. "They build on the Interoperability Principles announced by Microsoft in February 2008, which were also based on extensive discussions with the Commission, and they include new steps including enforceable warranty commitments."
