Jump to content

Intel (partially) wins appeal on EU anti-trust case

AnonymousGuy

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/business/intel-eu-antitrust-fine.html?mcubz=0

 

This is the "Intel gave out rebates" case that has been going for 8 years now.  The highest court concluded that the lower court erred in assuming that the rebate practices harmed competition rather than actually proving it.  The case is being bounced back to the lower court to be retried, which can either eliminate or reduce the fine.  This is not a "total victory" in that the ruling from the lower court is not  struck down.

 

The fine doled out is 1.3B euros.

Workstation:  13700k @ 5.5Ghz || Gigabyte Z790 Ultra || MSI Gaming Trio 4090 Shunt || TeamGroup DDR5-7800 @ 7000 || Corsair AX1500i@240V || whole-house loop.

LANRig/GuestGamingBox: 9900nonK || Gigabyte Z390 Master || ASUS TUF 3090 650W shunt || Corsair SF600 || CPU+GPU watercooled 280 rad pull only || whole-house loop.

Server Router (Untangle): 13600k @ Stock || ASRock Z690 ITX || All 10Gbe || 2x8GB 3200 || PicoPSU 150W 24pin + AX1200i on CPU|| whole-house loop

Server Compute/Storage: 10850K @ 5.1Ghz || Gigabyte Z490 Ultra || EVGA FTW3 3090 1000W || LSI 9280i-24 port || 4TB Samsung 860 Evo, 5x10TB Seagate Enterprise Raid 6, 4x8TB Seagate Archive Backup ||  whole-house loop.

Laptop: HP Elitebook 840 G8 (Intel 1185G7) + 3080Ti Thunderbolt Dock, Razer Blade Stealth 13" 2017 (Intel 8550U)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ermm...this is quite up to scratch for a "Tech news" post...

 

Looking at my signature are we now? Well too bad there's nothing here...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What? As I said, there seriously is nothing here :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess they can reduce it from 1.3 billion € to about 1.25 billion €. Suck it Intel.

Watching Intel have competition is like watching a headless chicken trying to get out of a mine field

CPU: Intel I7 4790K@4.6 with NZXT X31 AIO; MOTHERBOARD: ASUS Z97 Maximus VII Ranger; RAM: 8 GB Kingston HyperX 1600 DDR3; GFX: ASUS R9 290 4GB; CASE: Lian Li v700wx; STORAGE: Corsair Force 3 120GB SSD; Samsung 850 500GB SSD; Various old Seagates; PSU: Corsair RM650; MONITOR: 2x 20" Dell IPS; KEYBOARD/MOUSE: Logitech K810/ MX Master; OS: Windows 10 Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

So giving computer manufacturers rebates if they stop selling AMD products is not inherently anti-competitive? Riiight...

well.. in theory its not quite, because AMD can give them the same offer... and are you familiar with apple authorized retailers and HP partners?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, manikyath said:

well.. in theory its not quite, because AMD can give them the same offer... and are you familiar with apple authorized retailers and HP partners?

That would just make both guilty of anti-competitive practices when neither should be doing that.

-------

Current Rig

-------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Misanthrope said:

That would just make both guilty of anti-competitive practices when neither should be doing that.

while the truth is that everyone does it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, manikyath said:

well.. in theory its not quite, because AMD can give them the same offer... and are you familiar with apple authorized retailers and HP partners?

Its been proven that even if AMD gave their processers away for free that it still would be of more benefit to take intels deal. At one point 1/3 of Dells revenue was from intels "rebate" plan. 

CPU: Amd 7800X3D | GPU: AMD 7900XTX

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, manikyath said:

while the truth is that everyone does it.

That's almost by definition whataboutism: "Don't complain about Microsoft collecting metadata unethically cause Google does it too" is still not an argument to why it is a good idea that anyone at all does it.

 

Saying others gotten away with it is not and should never be a defense.

-------

Current Rig

-------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, goodtofufriday said:

Its been proven that even if AMD gave their processers away for free that it still would be of more benefit to take intels deal. At one point 1/3 of Dells revenue was from intels "rebate" plan. 

then explain me why all of dell's low end crap is AMD?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, manikyath said:

then explain me why all of dell's low end crap is AMD?

What?

 

You know this case has been going on for 8 years. Dells low end crap was all intel at that point. Its about something intel was doing 8 years ago, not something they are doing today....

CPU: Intel i5 4690k W/Noctua nh-d15 GPU: Gigabyte G1 980 TI MOBO: MSI Z97 Gaming 5 RAM: 16Gig Corsair Vengance Boot-Drive: 500gb Samsung Evo Storage: 2x 500g WD Blue, 1x 2tb WD Black 1x4tb WD Red

 

 

 

 

"Whatever AMD is losing in suddenly becomes the most important thing ever." - Glenwing, 1/13/2015

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sakkura said:

So giving computer manufacturers rebates if they stop selling AMD products is not inherently anti-competitive? Riiight...

I think the problem is that it was assumed to have an effect on competition, they didn't actually provide an evidence that of this.  When cases like this get heard they usually have to prove some degree of effect not just claim it happened.

 

While it looks like Intel should be punished for what they did, they at least have the right to be tried on evidence and not supposition.  

 

There is more damning evidence surrounding the compiler fraud/antitrust, have we got a result from that case yet or is it still happening?

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

At this stage intel wont be punished until well into the 2020. Just goes to show how breaking the law is more of a benefit than a disadvantage for huge companies like intel. At this point the fine will mean absolutely nothing to intel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Notional said:

I guess they can reduce it from 1.3 billion € to about 1.25 billion €. Suck it Intel.

It would be more amusing if they re-evaluated the evidence and decided they were wrong, the damage was much higher and increased the fine to 2B.

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I think the problem is that it was assumed to have an effect on competition, they didn't actually provide an evidence that of this.  When cases like this get heard they usually have to prove some degree of effect not just claim it happened.

 

While it looks like Intel should be punished for what they did, they at least have the right to be tried on evidence and not supposition.  

 

There is more damning evidence surrounding the compiler fraud/antitrust, have we got a result from that case yet or is it still happening?

It just seems self-evident. But oh well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

It just seems self-evident. But oh well.

 

Not sure how it would be self evident,  there are many ways AMD can lose market share in this case and if the only evidence they have submitted is rebates, then that does not prove OEM's used Intel over AMD for any  reason other than they were cheaper.  Which is not anti-trust.   They would have to prove something like the rebates only being valid if they don't use AMD at all. 

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, manikyath said:

then explain me why all of dell's low end crap is AMD?

This isnt 2006 that's why. 

CPU: Amd 7800X3D | GPU: AMD 7900XTX

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Notional said:

I guess they can reduce it from 1.3 billion € to about 1.25 billion €. Suck it Intel.

They could even not reduce it.

 

The original ruling was that the rebates for exclusivity practice was proven, hence the fine. This new ruling says that a piece is missing, and therefore the lower court has more work to do. According to this ruling, the full process should be

 

Rebates proven -> damage to competition proven -> fine

 

instead of

 

Rebates proven -> fine

 

What will happen now is a renewed legal battle over whether the damage to competition can be proved or not. Depending on that, the fine may still stand, be changed, or eliminated.

So, as the article puts it:

Quote

“The bottom line for Intel,” Mr. Anderson added, “is that Intel lives to fight another day.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

They could even not reduce it.

 

The original ruling was that the rebates for exclusivity practice was proven, hence the fine. This new ruling says that a piece is missing, and therefore the lower court has more work to do. According to this ruling, the full process should be

 

Rebates proven -> damage to competition proven -> fine

 

instead of

 

Rebates proven -> fine

 

What will happen now is a renewed legal battle over whether the damage to competition can be proved or not. Depending on that, the fine may still stand, be changed, or eliminated.

So, as the article puts it:

 

I wanted to elaborate a bit more on the ruling. SpaceGhost got it more or less correct. 

 

Basically what the EU Commission had done was first assess the rebates and then assess the damage to competition through what they call an "as efficient competitor test". This then ended up in a fine. What the general court (lower court) did was assess the rebates and note that the AEC wasn't necessary so the quality of the AEC test wasn't assessed. It was in particular this argumentation that was overturned (since intel had argued that there were mistakes in the AEC test). So the current judgement still in essence says that if "bad" rebates are identified, they are per se illegal and no AEC test is necessary. However if the Commission has already gone through the trouble of doing an AEC test, then the test should also be assessed by the lower court, since it obviously formed a basis for identifying whether the rebates were bad. 

 

The end result is that this does nothing to the fine. Furthermore, since the AEC is an economic test, where the Commission has a very large margin of discretion, the courts generally can do very little there. Thus, this judgement is not actually beneficial for intel, since it simply extends the uncertainty arising from this case. And this case alone doesn't contain any argumentations that would allow for a reduced fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jupsik said:

The end result is that this does nothing to the fine. Furthermore, since the AEC is an economic test, where the Commission has a very large margin of discretion, the courts generally can do very little there. Thus, this judgement is not actually beneficial for intel, since it simply extends the uncertainty arising from this case. And this case alone doesn't contain any argumentations that would allow for a reduced fine.

My feeling is that Intel is just stalling.  1.3b euros is not that much money to them, really, but the longer this takes the more inflation and interest earning helps them out.  It also helps if it indirectly costs AMD money in legal fees, because they're too poor right now to afford even their own headquarters.

Workstation:  13700k @ 5.5Ghz || Gigabyte Z790 Ultra || MSI Gaming Trio 4090 Shunt || TeamGroup DDR5-7800 @ 7000 || Corsair AX1500i@240V || whole-house loop.

LANRig/GuestGamingBox: 9900nonK || Gigabyte Z390 Master || ASUS TUF 3090 650W shunt || Corsair SF600 || CPU+GPU watercooled 280 rad pull only || whole-house loop.

Server Router (Untangle): 13600k @ Stock || ASRock Z690 ITX || All 10Gbe || 2x8GB 3200 || PicoPSU 150W 24pin + AX1200i on CPU|| whole-house loop

Server Compute/Storage: 10850K @ 5.1Ghz || Gigabyte Z490 Ultra || EVGA FTW3 3090 1000W || LSI 9280i-24 port || 4TB Samsung 860 Evo, 5x10TB Seagate Enterprise Raid 6, 4x8TB Seagate Archive Backup ||  whole-house loop.

Laptop: HP Elitebook 840 G8 (Intel 1185G7) + 3080Ti Thunderbolt Dock, Razer Blade Stealth 13" 2017 (Intel 8550U)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AnonymousGuy said:

My feeling is that Intel is just stalling.  1.3b euros is not that much money to them, really, but the longer this takes the more inflation and interest earning helps them out.  It also helps if it indirectly costs AMD money in legal fees, because they're too poor right now to afford even their own headquarters.

A sad but true condition of all legal battles.   Not too sure about them not being able to afford their headquarters though.  They are paying off debt which means they must be moving forward even if they aren't making profit.

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AnonymousGuy said:

My feeling is that Intel is just stalling.  1.3b euros is not that much money to them, really, but the longer this takes the more inflation and interest earning helps them out.  It also helps if it indirectly costs AMD money in legal fees, because they're too poor right now to afford even their own headquarters.

Intel stalling may be accurate, I'm sure that at least the lawyers are happy. 

Regarding AMD, the opposing side here is the EU Commission. AMD can be considered an interested 3rd party, but that does not oblige them to actually submit any arguments.

However, the lack of a final verdict is harmful to AMD indirectly. Mostly, because before claiming damages from Intel for its  "allegedly" abusive conduct, AMD will likely need to wait a final verdict on whether Intel is or is not guilty. 

In the alternative, AMD could open separate proceedings against intel. There it would need to prove that intel was a bad boy on its own, since there is no final verdict from the current proceedings. However, since its is nearly impossible to get access to intel's confidential documents which provide its abuse, the proceedings would likely stall until the the current proceedings end. 

Lastly, due to legal certainty, its difficult to claim damages for conduct which happened more than 10 years ago. Thus, if intel can delay it a bit more, it can indirectly reduce the damages it would need to pay AMD. Note that I dont actually know if they have opened up separate proceedings or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

Not sure how it would be self evident,  there are many ways AMD can lose market share in this case and if the only evidence they have submitted is rebates, then that does not prove OEM's used Intel over AMD for any  reason other than they were cheaper.  Which is not anti-trust.   They would have to prove something like the rebates only being valid if they don't use AMD at all. 

I thought that was the gist of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

I thought that was the gist of it.

yes, but they didn't link/quantify that to damages incurred, I worded it poorly sorry.

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×