Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dan3 who wrote (132317)	4/14/2001 12:12:13 PM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Blow Hard Dan - re: "If the EC determines that Intel engaged in illegal licensing " Look at ScumBag Sanders - and AMD - they INSTITUTED the EC investigation. AMD and Via complaints helped spark EU probe of Intel By Bruce Gain, EBN Apr 13, 2001 (2:11 PM) URL: ebnews.com The eight-month-old European Commission investigation into Intel Corp.'s alleged antitrust violations in Europe was triggered in part by complaints from Intel's chief microprocessor rival and by a 1997 U.S. Federal Trade Commission inquiry into Intel's business practices, sources close to the investigation said. Advanced Micro Devices Inc., Sunnyvale, Calif., together with Taiwan-based Via Technologies Inc., filed a complaint last September with the European Commission that prompted the official EC investigation. If the EC determines that Intel engaged in illegal licensing and business practices that include its famous “Intel Inside” PC vendor rebate program, the company would face fines of up to 10% of its worldwide revenue in order to continue doing business in Europe, according to industry sources. AMD has a history of loudly denouncing what it calls illegal marketing practices and unfair licensing tactics by Santa Clara, Calif.-based Intel. Indeed, AMD chief executive W.J. Sanders himself has often declared publicly that Intel has engaged in unfair practices, a company spokesman said. “We want some authority to say to [Intel] that they have to play by the rules,” the AMD spokesman said. AMD's senior executives, including Sanders, were attending an off-site meeting and were unavailable for comment. The EC had begun probing into Intel's marketing practices long before AMD and Via filed their complaint, according to David Vance Lucas, vice president and general counsel of Intergraph Corp. in Huntsville, Ala., which won the latest round in its three-pronged lawsuit against Intel. Intergraph, as well as other Intel customers, was approached by the EC in 1998, Lucas said. “The European Union was already looking at [Intel] when we had discussions with EC enforcement officers in 1998,” Lucas said. He added that the EC had contacted the FTC before approaching Intergraph. The EC's antitrust rules are similar to the FTC's Sherman Act, and therefore the outcome could mirror the results of the FTC's investigation, industry sources said. After several years of pursuing the case, the FTC reached a settlement with Intel that ended in September, which is when the EC began its investigation. Under the terms of the FTC decree, Intel cannot withhold information about its business practices if sued by another company on the condition that the suing company agrees not to issue an injunction against Intel, according to an Intel spokesman. As with the FTC investigation, observers said it will likely be several years before the EC issues either a fine or consent decree, if any action is taken at all. “Intel knows what is legally acceptable and what is not,” said Ashok Kumar, an analyst at U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray Inc., San Francisco, which has no underwriting relationship with either AMD or Intel. “The fact that the FTC did not come up with anything meaningful against Intel makes it highly doubtful that the EC will come up with anything at all.” The Intel spokesman would not provide details about the investigation, but said Intel “would cooperate fully with the EC investigation.”