Dear NITT:
I suggest you read it again including the laws that set it up. They acknowledged the facts. They just dispute that they are illegal. Yes they could fight it, but the facts can not be changed even by the courts. The ruling is final now that they have accepted the findings. Guilt in Japan has a different meaning than over here. Here being guilty includes both the facts and the legal remedies. There the facts are decided seperate from the legal remedies. The facts are agreed to by Intel. Those are not in dispute. Intel just wants the public to think it is legal what they did. The commission and thus, the courts disagree.
It is sufficient that the commission found that Intel did perform acts that are contrary to Japanese law. The next stage is what they skipped and that is the remedies portion. This way they had a hand in what that remedy would be. Their proposed remedy, being acceptable to the commission, is better than what the next stage could have forced. They'd rather take what some refer as a "slap on the wrist" than some of the remedies others proposed. That they weren't willing to risk, just means that they are smart, not stupid. Either way, the ruling is now final. If Intel reneges on its proposed remedy or breaks the law again, it will be brought before the criminal side of the commission and you know what that means.
As to their claim of "standard business practices", that was the claim of Standard Oil, US Steel and others before they were found guilty of running afoul of the Anti-trust laws. Just because they are "standard", doesn't make them legal. It may be standard for people to go 90mph down the Interstate, but 65mph is the legal limit. And do try to use that in explaining you doing 90mph to the cops.
And the net result of this is that Intel is guilty as charged. Whether or not, they publically say otherwise, by Japanese law, they are guilty.
Pete |
