Your premise is false. Intel had several opportunities to present a defense.
I see, so in your mind the opportunity to "reply" is an adequate defense. No power to subpoena witnesses, no right to subpoena evidence, no right to cross examine accusers seems necessary in your mind. Just the right to reply.
The cow told us you had unnatural relations with the sheep. You can "reply" to the cow's testimony. You can't cross examine the cow. You can't get the sheep's testimony that would exonerate you because that was withheld. You can't present any evidence at all but you can reply to the cow's hearsay. Isn't that enough?
Evidently, Intel has no evidence at all. Their entire defense rests upon the speculative contents of unspecified documents, documents that they can't name, describe, or provide any rationale why or how they would change the course of the case... I.e. their own One-Armed-Salesman defense.
Of course in their reply they could provide justification for the behaviors they're being criticized for... In fact, they DID provide their justifications even as the case progressed, as the decision itself addresses them and provides the EC's justifications as to why they are bogus.
What you keep calling hearsay could (in US courts) in fact NOT be hearsay, if used to show the state of mind of the participants at the time rather than the truth of the matter at hand. I.e. the emails show that the participants, at the time, believed certain things about the events/transactions, rather than being used as absolute proof of the crime being committed, i.e. they support a conclusion of wrongdoing, not prove it. (Other information, such as the cost-analysis of the rebates, offer direct proof of the coercive nature of the rebates.)
Given that the emails are actually used to support the decision, my guess would be that the EC has done its homework and deemed that the email evidence is admissible, for if it weren't, it would be grounds for overturning the decision. If that's the case, you should be very happy, because Intel will eventually win. Of course, such a viewpoint requires that the EC is completely incompetent (in addition to the usual paranoid theories of pursuing some agenda beyond antitrust.)
Intel anyways declined to object to this evidence as being hearsay when they had the opportunity, by declining to present a rebuttal to the EC's case. By waiving that right, the that option is probably gone now. (Sorry, PR "objections" don't count.)
Likewise, Intel could have registered their objection to a supposed "incomplete file" during their reply. They declined to do so.
Bottom line, Intel could have registered all of their complaints about the case when they had the opportunity to rebut it. And they didn't (and must now accept the consequences of that decision.) Your theories have lots of holes based on your own mental "incomplete file", which is a result of your biased selection of information sources (i.e. only Intel can be telling the truth and everything the EC says must be a lie.)
fpg |
