Intel responds to European antitrust regulators' allegations
Intel on Monday formally responded to the European Commission's allegations that the chip giant violated antitrust laws by abusing its dominant market position.
In addition to responding to the Commission's "statement of objections" that the antitrust agency filed in July, Intel will also seek an oral hearing on the matter, said Chuck Mulloy, an Intel spokesman.
Once that hearing concludes, the Commission has one of three paths it can take: request more information from the chipmaker, remove the objections, or levy fines and sanctions against the company.
The Commission is under no deadline to choose any path in these types of procedures, said Linda Cain, a spokeswoman for the Commission.
The oral hearing and as Intel's Monday response to the Commission are confidential. However, if the Commission decides to take action against the chip giant, relevant information will be public.
Oral hearings, generally, usually take place about a month after a company files its response to the "statement of objections," Cain said.
The European Commission's concerns over Intel's rebates to its customers have landed the chipmaker in hot water with regulatory agencies in Japan and Korea.
In 2005, Intel reached an agreement with the Japan Fair Trade Commission over a similar case, which centered on its use of rebates to allegedly shut out competitors such as Advanced Micro Devices. And in September, South Korea's Fair Trade Commission also raised concerns over Intel's rebate program.
Dawn Kawamoto covers enterprise security and financial news relating to technology for CNET News. E-mail Dawn. 
The concorde was "mothballed" in 2003.
The Airbus 380 is a bloated farce. But they pay their terminal fees in accordance with FAA and metropolitan regulations.
What does this have to do with Intel selling their product at below market value after so called "rebates"?
Intel held manufacturers hostage, if they sold any product with an AMD processor in it then Intel might conveniently increase lead times for delivery to that manufacturer or raise the price.
Face it, Intel has been running a monopoly for many years and other coutries have found them guilty of this. Do you know something that Intel and the other governments don't know?
- Intel is a monopoly regardless of AMD....
- by fred dunn January 7, 2008 5:27 PM PST
- Since they own 90% of the desktop CPU sales. They can now sell their product on merit but for the duration of the Pentium4 AMD had a far superior cycle per cycle product.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(8 Comments)What Intel did was to "blackmail" manufacturers that used their products into not using AMD, in other word EXCLUSIVITY. If the manufacturer did not agree then they either didn't get their promised allotment of parts or they didn't get their marketing "bonuses" which were simply a kickback to the mfrs.
Just Dell got close to 1 Billion (that's with a 'B') dollars back from Intel making the net cost of the parts below market cost. That is called racketeering.
Intel now has a superior product so they don't have to push their products and if you will notice the countries that sued Intel now have mfrs marketing both Intel and AMD products.
If someone doesn't keep this in check then AMD will exit the CPU business and Intel will have a REAL monopoly. Then that Computer that you can buy for $799 now will be $999 or more because their is no reason to cut prices.
Competition is good as long as they are playing by the same rule book.
Maybe you remember when Intel was the only provider of CPUs, I do and they were ridiculously expensive. Why? Because they were the only game in town.
If AMD goes under Intel will be sweating bullets as they will have to answer to a Congressional panel and may go the way of Bell telephone when they had a monopoly.