Who Sent Lanark Warner Industries, Inc in Arcade, New York this Link
http://www.industrywhistleblower.com/2010/07/intel-ceo-paul-otellini-still-not.html
and why was Lanark Warner Industries, Inc in Arcade, New York not all that interested? So did they go there because Lanark Warner, a Class Action Recovery Service... Did Lanark Warner go there because a Client Sent them the Link?
Is intel in More Hot Water.. when will the Shareholders of Intel Stand up to CEO Paul Otellini as Intel Executives Keep getting you into Massive Liability situations and Not Disclosing them such as the iViewit Stolen technologies of which now Intel Shareholders Ill Take the Hit.. More on the Iviewit Technologies case AGAINST intel at www.CEOpaulOtellini.com and www.DeniedPatent.com ...
Ok so Who was Looking at that Post on Intel Before it was Emailed to Lanark Warner Industries Inc., and what was it regarding.. ??
Well .. It seems to be about AMD Stocks.. as Search Terms Such as..
"finance?q=NYSE:AMD"
Others interested in the Intel Corp.
Link Before it was Emailed to Lanark Warner
Wakefield, Massachusetts
Comcast Cable
Spencer, Indiana
Fidelity National Information
Ankeny, Iowa
Aviva Usa
Phoenix, Arizona
Cox Communications
Iselin, New Jersey
Aumtech
Flower Mound, Texas,
Fidelity Investments
Köln, Nordrhein-westfalen, Germany
Netcologne Gmbh
Woodbridge, Ontario, Canada
Rogers Cable
Champaign, Illinois
Comcast Cable
Alameda, California
Cisco Systems
Washington, District Of Columbia, United States
Department Of Housing And Urban Development
New York
Paras, Apy & Reiss
Jenkintown, Pennsylvania
Comcast Cable
So are you All in a Class Action Lawsuit Against Intel? If so you need to Email me about the Iviewit Stolen Technologies. Intel Corp. has been frauding Stockholders for quite some time. Intel Corp thinks they are above Anti-Trust laws.. Intel thinks they control DELL, the SEC, the Department of Justice... and well Intel's Dominance and Arrogance is Well "Gettin' Old" Time to Stand up to the Fraud and Corruption at Intel Corp.
Posted here by
Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox
Crystal@CrystalCox.com
Also Check out
www.DeniedPatent.com
www.Iviewit.TV
www.CeoPaulOtellini.com
Showing posts with label AMD. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AMD. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Intel Will SOON pay Billions More as the iViewit Technologies Theft is Coming To Shareholders Pocketbooks..
"The Man Who Cost Intel Billions to Retire
McCoy is retiring and going back to his old firm O’Melveny & Myers to work out of Washington
AMD is losing its general counsel Tom McCoy, the guy who, blessed with the patience of Job, finally scratched Intel.
McCoy is retiring and, after spending 15 years trying to land a punch on Intel, is going back to his old firm O'Melveny & Myers to work out of Washington and share his expertise with other needy companies.
It took McCoy roughly a decade to apply enough pressure in the right places - lobbying evidently pays - to get regulators to move against Intel - first in Japan and Korea, both relatively toothless exercises, then in Europe, which cost Intel a historic all-time-high fine of $1.46 billion that it's appealing, and now has Intel negotiating a consent decree with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission that could see its pricing tricks changed - we should know sometime between now and July 22.
Meanwhile, AMD settled its great private antitrust suit against Intel for $1.25 billion cash though Lord knows whether it broke even on that deal.
Intel still has to deal with a McCoy-inspired antitrust suit lodged by New York State Attorney General and wannabe governor Andrew Cuomo.
McCoy's getting a $4 million departure bonus for his trouble
Source of Post
http://www.sys-con.com/node/1459687
Why Does the US Government Protect Intel.. Corruption, Anti-Trust, Illegal Activity, Broken Contracts, Fraud and they stall year after year.. meanwhile Shareholders inevitably pay the price...
McCoy is retiring and going back to his old firm O’Melveny & Myers to work out of Washington
AMD is losing its general counsel Tom McCoy, the guy who, blessed with the patience of Job, finally scratched Intel.
McCoy is retiring and, after spending 15 years trying to land a punch on Intel, is going back to his old firm O'Melveny & Myers to work out of Washington and share his expertise with other needy companies.
It took McCoy roughly a decade to apply enough pressure in the right places - lobbying evidently pays - to get regulators to move against Intel - first in Japan and Korea, both relatively toothless exercises, then in Europe, which cost Intel a historic all-time-high fine of $1.46 billion that it's appealing, and now has Intel negotiating a consent decree with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission that could see its pricing tricks changed - we should know sometime between now and July 22.
Meanwhile, AMD settled its great private antitrust suit against Intel for $1.25 billion cash though Lord knows whether it broke even on that deal.
Intel still has to deal with a McCoy-inspired antitrust suit lodged by New York State Attorney General and wannabe governor Andrew Cuomo.
McCoy's getting a $4 million departure bonus for his trouble
Source of Post
http://www.sys-con.com/node/1459687
Why Does the US Government Protect Intel.. Corruption, Anti-Trust, Illegal Activity, Broken Contracts, Fraud and they stall year after year.. meanwhile Shareholders inevitably pay the price...
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Intel Pays Dell Not To Launch AMD-Based Servers - Intel Corp. Is the King of Anti-Trust Violators, in My Opinion
"" 85. A 2003 internal Dell document explains the program rationale, funding methodology, and negotiated documentation, including the following highlights:
“The intent of the MCP program is to provide funding to Dell to combat the AMD threat in the marketplace since Dell is an Intel-only OEM for CPU’s”
“The MCP is negotiated on a quarterly basis.”
“There is not a formal ‘contract’ per se that documents all the terms and conditions of the MCP program for a quarter. Rather, the MCP terms and conditions are agreed upon via email and telephone communications, which are finalized in a spreadsheet that is agreed to by Dell and Intel for a particular quarter.” (Emphasis added).
86. As mentioned in the memo, throughout this period, top executives at both companies took care that the dealings between them were kept secret. Although billions of dollars in rebate payments flowed from Intel to Dell during the period 2002-2006, there was no formal documentation of the secret agreements which led to them.
3. Intel Conveyed Threats To Dell
87. Intel repeatedly made it clear to Dell that, if Dell wanted Intel’s support, Dell would have to direct its efforts against AMD. For example, in preparation for upcoming funding negotiations with Intel in 2002, a Dell executive, who regularly acted as an informal liaison between Dell and Intel, explained that Intel would not tolerate a Dell shift to AMD CPUs.
Specifically, this Dell executive wrote to Michael Dell and others: “If [Dell starts to use] AMD [CPUs], [Intel] would just give a [competitor] MOAP type dollars to match whatever we’re getting – they won’t sit around and let us transfer share to AMD…”
88. In emails and in testimony, the same Dell executive referred to this scenario – in which Intel cuts off some or all funding to Dell and shifts it to a Dell competitor – as a “double whammy.” In one instance, this executive wrote that Intel intended to use an upcoming Dell- Intel meeting to force Dell to discuss how Dell “plan[s] to drive” total market shift to Intel from AMD, and had a “perception that we’re [competing] against competitors seeking Intel CPUs, instead of marketing against AMD.”
Intel Repeatedly Renegotiates Its Payments
To Dell To Ensure “Monogamy”
89. Over the coming years, Intel and Dell fell into a pattern of negotiating the amount of Intel’s subsidies to Dell on a nearly continuous basis. These negotiations were tied to Intel’s aggressive efforts to prevent AMD from getting a toe-hold at Dell.
In each successive round of negotiations, the groundwork was usually laid by mid-level executives at both companies tasked with conveying messages and “positioning” to and from the other so that top executives at both firms would know what to expect when they met.
90. In advance of such a meeting, on June 24, 2002, Dell’s informal liaison reported back from conversations with Intel’s lead negotiator on what Dell’s then-COO Kevin Rollins, who was scheduled to meet with a top Intel executive, should expect at the meeting. Rollins was told by his subordinate that, “[w]ithout being blatant, [the Intel representative] will make it clear that Dell won’t get more MOAP if we do AMD. We’ll get less, and someone else will get ours.”
91. After the meeting, on July 9, 2002, Kevin Rollins reported to Michael Dell that the result of the meeting was that Intel was willing to increase payments to Dell and seemed
willing to do “whatever it takes” to keep Dell from purchasing from AMD.” Rollins wrote: “They got the message that we were very serious this time with our AMD assessment, and seem to want to do whatever it takes to persuade us not to go with [an AMD CPU] …. Initial word is that our MOAP should increase from the $70M this qtr to $100mm.”
. The “Boomerang” Episode
92. Dell periodically considered launching AMD-based products, notwithstanding
Intel’s fierce opposition. But its fear of Intel’s reaction, based on Intel’s explicit and implicit
threats, counseled strongly against any action. For example, in 2002, a Dell team explored a
potential switch to AMD for some of Dell’s CPU needs, in a project code-named “Boomerang”.
The study concluded, first, that “AMD offers a significant margin opportunity for [Dell’s]
Dimension and Inspiron” platforms, on account of price, cost and customer demand factors.
93. But the Boomerang study also identified Intel’s reaction as a “key question” in
the analysis and discussed the potential “opportunity cost” given Dell’s “[e]xclusive relationship
with Intel.” The study asked whether “MOAP [payments to Dell would] increase or decrease?
And over what time period – short term vs. long term?”
The Boomerang study attempted to quantify the projected margin benefit from adopting AMD, concluding that “[up] to 32% of MOAP program could be risked” before Intel’s retaliation, in the form of reduced MOAP, would outweigh the benefits of switching certain platforms to AMD CPUs.
94. The key Dell executive acting as informal liaison between the two companies
commented on the results of the “Boomerang” study.
He warned that the “worst-case downside” scenario is that Intel would “eliminate ~$250M of Dell meet-comp MOAP for some period,” and moreover, that “Intel [would] give this MOAP to competitors to ensure that Intel does not lose [market share] to a Dell AMD [system].”
The “net effect” would be that Dell would “not only lose ~$250 [million], we probably have to do incremental [discounting] on our Intel platforms against competitors who [would] now [be] subsidized with an extra $250M from Intel.”
95. A confirming contemporaneous internal Intel email from Intel’s Dell account representative to top Intel executives states that Dell must be made to understand two things: First, that Intel’s payments to Dell would decrease “if they have AMD in their arsenal.” Second, that Dell should be warned of the “possibility that [MCP] dollars that we’re (sic) applied to DELL could go somewhere else” if Dell starts to offer AMD-based products.
96. The message was apparently conveyed in fact. A Dell executive testified that, at the time of the Boomerang analysis, Intel had conveyed “the concept of their statement back that … as long as [Dell is] Intel only, our discount structure is what it is.” He added that he understood from Intel that, “[i]f there was a change in our Intel only [status], then our discount program would have to be revisited.”
97. Under these circumstances, Dell decided not to launch AMD-based products at
that time. A Dell executive who was responsible for the “analytics” and “cost assumptions” of
the Boomerang study testified to the Attorney General that concern about Intel’s reaction was a substantial part of that decision. ""
Starting on Page 33 of Source Below - Read this Whole Document and you SEE How Evil Intel Is and that they WILL do ANYTHING to STOMP out Competition. Paul Otellini Leading the Charge as CEO at Intel Corp.
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/media_center/2009/
nov/NYAG_v_Intel_COMPLAINT_FINAL.pdf
CEO Paul Otellini
More at www.DeniedPatent.com
and www.Iviewit.TV on the Evils of Intel...
ntel Pays Dell, AMD, Anti-Trust Violations,
CEO Paul Otellini, Kevin Rollins, Michael Dell
“The intent of the MCP program is to provide funding to Dell to combat the AMD threat in the marketplace since Dell is an Intel-only OEM for CPU’s”
“The MCP is negotiated on a quarterly basis.”
“There is not a formal ‘contract’ per se that documents all the terms and conditions of the MCP program for a quarter. Rather, the MCP terms and conditions are agreed upon via email and telephone communications, which are finalized in a spreadsheet that is agreed to by Dell and Intel for a particular quarter.” (Emphasis added).
86. As mentioned in the memo, throughout this period, top executives at both companies took care that the dealings between them were kept secret. Although billions of dollars in rebate payments flowed from Intel to Dell during the period 2002-2006, there was no formal documentation of the secret agreements which led to them.
3. Intel Conveyed Threats To Dell
87. Intel repeatedly made it clear to Dell that, if Dell wanted Intel’s support, Dell would have to direct its efforts against AMD. For example, in preparation for upcoming funding negotiations with Intel in 2002, a Dell executive, who regularly acted as an informal liaison between Dell and Intel, explained that Intel would not tolerate a Dell shift to AMD CPUs.
Specifically, this Dell executive wrote to Michael Dell and others: “If [Dell starts to use] AMD [CPUs], [Intel] would just give a [competitor] MOAP type dollars to match whatever we’re getting – they won’t sit around and let us transfer share to AMD…”
88. In emails and in testimony, the same Dell executive referred to this scenario – in which Intel cuts off some or all funding to Dell and shifts it to a Dell competitor – as a “double whammy.” In one instance, this executive wrote that Intel intended to use an upcoming Dell- Intel meeting to force Dell to discuss how Dell “plan[s] to drive” total market shift to Intel from AMD, and had a “perception that we’re [competing] against competitors seeking Intel CPUs, instead of marketing against AMD.”
Intel Repeatedly Renegotiates Its Payments
To Dell To Ensure “Monogamy”
89. Over the coming years, Intel and Dell fell into a pattern of negotiating the amount of Intel’s subsidies to Dell on a nearly continuous basis. These negotiations were tied to Intel’s aggressive efforts to prevent AMD from getting a toe-hold at Dell.
In each successive round of negotiations, the groundwork was usually laid by mid-level executives at both companies tasked with conveying messages and “positioning” to and from the other so that top executives at both firms would know what to expect when they met.
90. In advance of such a meeting, on June 24, 2002, Dell’s informal liaison reported back from conversations with Intel’s lead negotiator on what Dell’s then-COO Kevin Rollins, who was scheduled to meet with a top Intel executive, should expect at the meeting. Rollins was told by his subordinate that, “[w]ithout being blatant, [the Intel representative] will make it clear that Dell won’t get more MOAP if we do AMD. We’ll get less, and someone else will get ours.”
91. After the meeting, on July 9, 2002, Kevin Rollins reported to Michael Dell that the result of the meeting was that Intel was willing to increase payments to Dell and seemed
willing to do “whatever it takes” to keep Dell from purchasing from AMD.” Rollins wrote: “They got the message that we were very serious this time with our AMD assessment, and seem to want to do whatever it takes to persuade us not to go with [an AMD CPU] …. Initial word is that our MOAP should increase from the $70M this qtr to $100mm.”
. The “Boomerang” Episode
92. Dell periodically considered launching AMD-based products, notwithstanding
Intel’s fierce opposition. But its fear of Intel’s reaction, based on Intel’s explicit and implicit
threats, counseled strongly against any action. For example, in 2002, a Dell team explored a
potential switch to AMD for some of Dell’s CPU needs, in a project code-named “Boomerang”.
The study concluded, first, that “AMD offers a significant margin opportunity for [Dell’s]
Dimension and Inspiron” platforms, on account of price, cost and customer demand factors.
93. But the Boomerang study also identified Intel’s reaction as a “key question” in
the analysis and discussed the potential “opportunity cost” given Dell’s “[e]xclusive relationship
with Intel.” The study asked whether “MOAP [payments to Dell would] increase or decrease?
And over what time period – short term vs. long term?”
The Boomerang study attempted to quantify the projected margin benefit from adopting AMD, concluding that “[up] to 32% of MOAP program could be risked” before Intel’s retaliation, in the form of reduced MOAP, would outweigh the benefits of switching certain platforms to AMD CPUs.
94. The key Dell executive acting as informal liaison between the two companies
commented on the results of the “Boomerang” study.
He warned that the “worst-case downside” scenario is that Intel would “eliminate ~$250M of Dell meet-comp MOAP for some period,” and moreover, that “Intel [would] give this MOAP to competitors to ensure that Intel does not lose [market share] to a Dell AMD [system].”
The “net effect” would be that Dell would “not only lose ~$250 [million], we probably have to do incremental [discounting] on our Intel platforms against competitors who [would] now [be] subsidized with an extra $250M from Intel.”
95. A confirming contemporaneous internal Intel email from Intel’s Dell account representative to top Intel executives states that Dell must be made to understand two things: First, that Intel’s payments to Dell would decrease “if they have AMD in their arsenal.” Second, that Dell should be warned of the “possibility that [MCP] dollars that we’re (sic) applied to DELL could go somewhere else” if Dell starts to offer AMD-based products.
96. The message was apparently conveyed in fact. A Dell executive testified that, at the time of the Boomerang analysis, Intel had conveyed “the concept of their statement back that … as long as [Dell is] Intel only, our discount structure is what it is.” He added that he understood from Intel that, “[i]f there was a change in our Intel only [status], then our discount program would have to be revisited.”
97. Under these circumstances, Dell decided not to launch AMD-based products at
that time. A Dell executive who was responsible for the “analytics” and “cost assumptions” of
the Boomerang study testified to the Attorney General that concern about Intel’s reaction was a substantial part of that decision. ""
Starting on Page 33 of Source Below - Read this Whole Document and you SEE How Evil Intel Is and that they WILL do ANYTHING to STOMP out Competition. Paul Otellini Leading the Charge as CEO at Intel Corp.
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/media_center/2009/
nov/NYAG_v_Intel_COMPLAINT_FINAL.pdf
CEO Paul Otellini
More at www.DeniedPatent.com
and www.Iviewit.TV on the Evils of Intel...
ntel Pays Dell, AMD, Anti-Trust Violations,
CEO Paul Otellini, Kevin Rollins, Michael Dell
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
$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
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
Saturday, January 2, 2010
NY AG Cuomo Files Antitrust Lawsuit Against Intel - Is there ANY Justice in site for Iviewit - Does Cuomo Care about the Connection...
As you Read This Keep in Mind the Connection Between New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo - Ex-Supreme Court Judge Judith Kay and the Mega Law Firm Proskaur Rose.
More on these Connections at My Other Blogs Exploring the Whole Picture of the Trillion Dollar Technology Heist of the Iviewit Holdings and Technology Inc. Also ask Where Does Bruce Sewell fit into all this.. Innocent I don't THINK So...
HERE is the ARTICLE...
"Posted by: Arik Hesseldahl on November 04, 2009
New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, has filed an antitrust lawsuit against the computer chip manufacturing giant Intel, accusing the company of engaging in a “systematic worldwide campaign of illegal, exclusionary conduct to maintain its monopoly power,” in the market for computer chips starting in 2001.
The complaint alleges that Intel paid hundreds of millions and in some cases billions of dollars in rebates to PC manufacturers in an attempt to limit their use of chips from rival Advanced Micro Devices.
When PC companies appeared to be getting too close to AMD, Intel would, the complaint says, threaten them with retribution by withholding payments they were receiving from Intel.
These payments, which Intel called “rebates,” amounted to what Cuomo called “payoffs with no legitimate business purpose that Intel invented to disguise their anticompetitive nature.”
“Rather than compete fairly, Intel used bribery and coercion to maintain a stranglehold on the market,” Cuomo said in a statement. “Intel’s actions not only unfairly restricted potential competitors, but also hurt average consumers who were robbed of better products and lower prices. These illegal tactics must stop and competition must be restored to this vital marketplace.”
The complaint paints a picture of PC makers struggling to maintain their slim profit margins, fearing that Intel’s payments might dry up if they used AMD chips in their computers.
The complaint accuses Intel of threatening PC makers with retaliation if they did business with AMD. During the period from 2001 to 2006, the complaint alleges, Dell sold no computers with AMD chips in exchange for billions in payments from Intel.
In cases where PC makers did business with AMD against its wishes, the complaint says that Intel made efforts to limit how much business AMD could get. In 2002, the complaint says, Intel reached an agreement with Hewlett-Packard under which HP would cap the amount of AMD-based computers it would offer at 5%, effectively giving Intel a guaranteed 95% share of HP’s computer business.
The complaint also covers the server business, a space where AMD made some serious competitive gains against Intel during 2005 through 2007.
In instance, the complaint alleges that IBM agreed to cancel a server that was to use AMD chips after being offered a $130 million payment from Intel and various threats.
Another server that used AMD chips was marketed only on an “unbranded” basis, the complaint says.
Intel didn’t immediately return a call seeking comment, but I’ll update this post as soon as I hear from someone there.
The entire 87-page complaint is embedded below. There’s a lot more information after the jump.
The complaint is full of anecdotes where Intel and its senior executives are portrayed as throwing their weight around with PC company executives.
It cites an instance in March of 2006 where Intel CEO Paul Otellini received a courtesy call from an executive at HP concerning HP's plan to sponsor an advertisement touting its long relationship with AMD, built around the theme of customer choice.
Otellini's reaction, according to the complaint: "It is certainly insulting to us and I do not see how it helps you....If we are your key partner, this is nothing but a slap at us."
Intel used what the complaint describes as a "favorite code word" in its dealings with PC companies: That word was "alignment." If a PC company was not "aligned" then they could not expect favorable treatment from Intel, the complaint says, including the payment of rebates, pricing concessions, priority in obtaining needed parts during shortages, and marketing funds."
Full Article, Link to Complaint and Source Click Below
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/
archives/2009/11/ny_ag_cuomo_fil.html
More on these Connections at My Other Blogs Exploring the Whole Picture of the Trillion Dollar Technology Heist of the Iviewit Holdings and Technology Inc. Also ask Where Does Bruce Sewell fit into all this.. Innocent I don't THINK So...
HERE is the ARTICLE...
"Posted by: Arik Hesseldahl on November 04, 2009
New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, has filed an antitrust lawsuit against the computer chip manufacturing giant Intel, accusing the company of engaging in a “systematic worldwide campaign of illegal, exclusionary conduct to maintain its monopoly power,” in the market for computer chips starting in 2001.
The complaint alleges that Intel paid hundreds of millions and in some cases billions of dollars in rebates to PC manufacturers in an attempt to limit their use of chips from rival Advanced Micro Devices.
When PC companies appeared to be getting too close to AMD, Intel would, the complaint says, threaten them with retribution by withholding payments they were receiving from Intel.
These payments, which Intel called “rebates,” amounted to what Cuomo called “payoffs with no legitimate business purpose that Intel invented to disguise their anticompetitive nature.”
“Rather than compete fairly, Intel used bribery and coercion to maintain a stranglehold on the market,” Cuomo said in a statement. “Intel’s actions not only unfairly restricted potential competitors, but also hurt average consumers who were robbed of better products and lower prices. These illegal tactics must stop and competition must be restored to this vital marketplace.”
The complaint paints a picture of PC makers struggling to maintain their slim profit margins, fearing that Intel’s payments might dry up if they used AMD chips in their computers.
The complaint accuses Intel of threatening PC makers with retaliation if they did business with AMD. During the period from 2001 to 2006, the complaint alleges, Dell sold no computers with AMD chips in exchange for billions in payments from Intel.
In cases where PC makers did business with AMD against its wishes, the complaint says that Intel made efforts to limit how much business AMD could get. In 2002, the complaint says, Intel reached an agreement with Hewlett-Packard under which HP would cap the amount of AMD-based computers it would offer at 5%, effectively giving Intel a guaranteed 95% share of HP’s computer business.
The complaint also covers the server business, a space where AMD made some serious competitive gains against Intel during 2005 through 2007.
In instance, the complaint alleges that IBM agreed to cancel a server that was to use AMD chips after being offered a $130 million payment from Intel and various threats.
Another server that used AMD chips was marketed only on an “unbranded” basis, the complaint says.
Intel didn’t immediately return a call seeking comment, but I’ll update this post as soon as I hear from someone there.
The entire 87-page complaint is embedded below. There’s a lot more information after the jump.
The complaint is full of anecdotes where Intel and its senior executives are portrayed as throwing their weight around with PC company executives.
It cites an instance in March of 2006 where Intel CEO Paul Otellini received a courtesy call from an executive at HP concerning HP's plan to sponsor an advertisement touting its long relationship with AMD, built around the theme of customer choice.
Otellini's reaction, according to the complaint: "It is certainly insulting to us and I do not see how it helps you....If we are your key partner, this is nothing but a slap at us."
Intel used what the complaint describes as a "favorite code word" in its dealings with PC companies: That word was "alignment." If a PC company was not "aligned" then they could not expect favorable treatment from Intel, the complaint says, including the payment of rebates, pricing concessions, priority in obtaining needed parts during shortages, and marketing funds."
Full Article, Link to Complaint and Source Click Below
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/
archives/2009/11/ny_ag_cuomo_fil.html
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)