#1 None of your references indicate Intel required exclusivity. Yes, Intel got exclusivity but that doesn't prove they required it.
#2 [...]Either Intel encourages and awards what it knows to be illegal[...]
Intel's position is that its rebates are legal. They dispute the methods & implementations of the EC economic analyses of them.
In Intel's mind, saying, "If you buy 100% from us we'll give you this big rebate" is not requiring exclusivity*.
So there goes #2.
As for #1: I disagree completely, the evidence presented in the EC's decision strongly indicates that Intel offered rebates in return for 100% market share at Lenovo.
Thats why Intel's strategy, as far as the emails and affidavits are concerned, is to discredit/nuance away those pieces of evidence.
fpg
*Nevertheless, the rebates offered, according to the EC's economic analyses, are of the "can't refuse" variety. Not unless you want to be at a competitive disadvantage without those Intel subsidies. (Please don't play the fool yet again and deny that it's possible to maintain or even increase ASPs while shelling out coercive loyalty rebates.) After all, all it takes is for one of your competitors to bite the apple... (Simple game theory, really. Either everyone refuses to take the bait, or they all have to.)
Remember, its the effect of the rebates, not the wording. If the effect is coercive, they're coercive. |
