$1.45 Billion Fine Against Intel Kicks Chipmaker Battle Into Overdrive

So a Company that Can afford a Billion and half Dollar Fine, but cannot seem to pay for a license to use Stolen Techology.

What is the Secrets and Whose are they in the Cover Up of the Stolen Iviewit Technology, it Cannot be about money alone, I mean Come on SONY, Warner Bros., Intel Corp. and all the players of this Stolen Technology they certainly through the Money around, So why not jsut pay for the rights to the invention years ago and Move on? What is the Real Story to all of this and Who Really needed PROTECTED that bad?

$1.45 Billion in fines in May of 2009 and yet has no money to spend on paying Inventors for inventions?? Why bother I suppose when it seems to Be Legal to Just STEAL them.


"" $1.45 Billion Fine Against Intel Kicks Chipmaker Battle Into Overdrive

Even as Advanced Micro Devices Inc. and its lawyers at O'Melveny & Myers celebrated the $1.45 billion fine handed down by the European Commission on Wednesday against rival Intel Corp., they were rolling up their sleeves for impending fights between the chipmakers in the United States.

"We believe the types of conduct that appear to have been found unlawful by the European Commission would also be unlawful under U.S. antitrust laws," said David Beddow, a partner at O'Melveny & Myers' Washington, D.C., office.

Intel is under investigation by the Federal Trade Commission on similar complaints that its contracts with computer makers unfairly quashed competition. The chip giant, which controls 80 percent of the microprocessor market, is accused of offering discounts to manufacturers who agreed not to do business with AMD, its only competition. The Silicon Valley rivals have been fighting with each other over the issue for years.

The FTC and European Commission are in "close coordination" on the issue, Beddow said.

Intel said Wednesday it will appeal. It contends its business practices have resulted in lower prices and better technology for consumers.

"We believe the decision is wrong and ignores the reality of a highly competitive microprocessor marketplace -- characterized by constant innovation, improved product performance and lower prices. There has been absolutely zero harm to consumers," said a statement by Intel CEO Paul Otellini.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, which represents Intel, declined to comment.

Intel also faces scrutiny by multiple attorneys general, class actions filed in Delaware, as well as private litigation filed by AMD in Delaware, which is slated to go to trial early next year.

Last year, South Korea's Fair Trade Commission slammed Intel with a $25 million fine for similar practices.

In 2005, the Japan Fair Trade Commission ruled Intel had violated its anti-monopoly laws.

Ricardo Celli, who led the O'Melveny team from Brussels, said the New York AG is investigating the same business practices that the European Commission ruled were illegal.

"This is a worldwide market, so the computer manufacturers are global companies. I believe the Intel practices are similar everywhere in the world," Celli said.

The European decision does not bode well for Intel, given signs from Washington that it will step up enforcement, said antitrust expert Gary Reback, author of a new book "Free the Market!" and of counsel at the Silicon Valley office of Carr & Ferrell.

"That doesn't spell good news for Intel in its U.S. cases, not by any stretch of the imagination," Reback said. "The point of all this is: Is the government going to look harder at the way products are sold by dominant companies? You bet."

Just Monday, the new antitrust chief at the Justice Department, Assistant Attorney General Christine Varney, said enforcement over the last decade was too relaxed. She vowed to investigate corporations that unfairly dominate markets.

Reback said other high-tech companies could face tough scrutiny as well, because they often rely on an economic phenomenon called "network effect," where a product -- like the telephone -- becomes more valuable to each consumer the more other people own it, too.

"Its effect is going to be particularly pronounced in Silicon Valley," Reback said. "Because of those network effects, the markets become easier to manipulate by dominant companies. If someone gets the lead in a market like that, it's easier for them to manipulate that market than if they were operating in a market without network effects."

Intel's discounts appear to be what the antitrust world calls bundling discounts or loyalty discounts, Reback said. Many companies have them, but until now, only the biggest have come under scrutiny for them, he said.

"It's going to be a big issue, because they are prevalent," he said.

EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes said Varney's words gave her hope that the EU's current "close cooperation" and information exchanges with the Federal Trade Commission "could go in a very positive way" in the future. The FTC upgraded a probe into Intel last year.

"The more competition authorities are joining us in our philosophy, the better it is, for it is a global world," she said. "The more who are doing the job ... and with the same approach, then the better it is."

Intel general counsel Bruce Sewell said the concept that rebates could damage competition was an area "where the law is now in flux" and regulators were testing the boundaries.

"There is a line of thought developing, primarily out of the European antitrust authorities but also perhaps being picked up by the Japanese and the Koreans, that suggests that rebates can be anti-competitive," he said. ""

Source:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202430693919