" Honorable Commissioners, Senators, Congressmen, State Attorney Generals, U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, Vice President Joseph Biden:
Pursuant to Camp Marketing Consultancy ongoing Intel Network case assessment: Consumer recoverable Intel Inside transport charge, monopoly price premium, industry monopolization on Intel economic and financial analysis grows total intent to monopolize recovery, by 12%, to $88 billion.
Monopoly recovery estimate is based on two investigative tracks. First, Intel monopoly system metric applied to Intel sales revenues on manufacturing estimates of Intel microprocessor quantities, per quarter, by Micro Design Resource. Second, sorting out Intel monopoly system expenses misrepresented as legitimate costs within Intel financials.
Data analysis parallels FTC Docket 9341 time frame and covers day one on January 1, 1999 through mid 2004 on production; extending to 2006 on Intel financials.
For the purpose of optimizing in period recovery estimate, data from both investigative tracks are SEC, U.S. Senate, Congressional Committees, State Attorney Generals, U.S. Attorneys
relied.
Findings include proofs and pointers of RICO, enterprise network corruption and Sherman Act Section 1 and 2 per se condemnations of law.
Findings are submitted to FTC, U.S. DOJ Antitrust, DOJ Criminal and Consumer Fraud, New York State DOJ for follow on discovery from Intel Network.
Revision 5.1 of this briefing updates State Attorney Generals on particulars of the case matters.
Is meant by this case steward; the Relator original source, too solicit counsel for False Claims Act recovery of fraudulent and monopoly costs imposed on Federal government’s Intel microprocessor based computer purchases.
This analyst believes FCA is now proven on weight of Intel false statements to conceal. Monopoly and fraudulent costs imposed on Federal government and related GSA computer procurement claims.
Further this analyst encourages dialogue between State Attorney Generals and U.S. Attorneys for establishing a coalition to recover consumer harms, in each State, which can be calculated by the domestic ‘Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area’ subset of what is a worldwide consumer recovery value.
Make sure your State and Federal District get its actual share of the consumer recovery in relation to not calculating this amount subject to worldwide distribution.
Recover the transport charge ‘kick back’ value stolen by Intel Network, from general consumers within your State and Federal buyers within your District, and not a penny less.
To estimate the recovery in your own State House and Federal Building: 1) go to the IT Department; 2) find out how many Intel based PCs have been purchased and deployed their annually since May 1993; 3) multiply that amount by $25.50 each to determine your combined Federal Building and State House recovery values. "
Is your State Attorney FLAT out Ignoring this 18 Years of Proof? Why? Who is paying off these guys and making you pay the price ?
So what is ... "" Honorable Commissioners, Senators, Congressmen, State Attorney Generals, U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, Vice President Joseph Biden"" Doing about the Intel Fraud that they Flat Out Know About? Contact them and Ask...
Source:
Document on Top of
www.CEOpaulOtellini.com
Showing posts with label Antitrust Violations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Antitrust Violations. Show all posts
Friday, August 27, 2010
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Intel Corp. Above the Law - Corrupt? And Why are Shareholders NOT Demanding Accountabiity.
This Shareholder Derivative Action was in the Fall of 2009.
Intel is Corrupt and Is Constantly Pulling the "Wool" over Shareholder. Intel CEO Paul Otellini Knows of Major Liabilities to the Intel Stockholders in the Iviewit Stolen Technologies and has still NOT disclosed this information Intel Stockholders.
It seems like with AMD, and the Other Anti-Trust Lawsuits and Issues that Intel is in Constantly in some sort of Illegal Scandaling.. stomping on the rights of others.. and Wellthe Stockholders pay the price for the Illegal and DirtyDeals by the Big Wigs at Intel.
Attention Intel Stockholders:
YOU Need to Know about the Iviewit Stolen Technology - this is a Massive Shareholder Fraud Upon YOU and YOU will paythe price for Their Lies, Deciet and Dirty Deeds. More on the Iviewit Trillion Dollar Liability NOW affecting Intel Stockholders .. at www.DeniedPatent.com - over a thousand documents of Proof.. and Intel is Hiding this CRIME from Intel Stockholders.
Below is the Shareholder Derivative Action
"" TO: ALL RECORD AND BENEFICIAL HOLDERS OF SHARES OF COMMON STOCK OF INTEL CORPORATION ("INTEL" OR THE "COMPANY") AS OF MAY 25, 2010.
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN THIS LITIGATION. IF THE COURT APPROVES THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, YOU WILL BE FOREVER BARRED FROM CONTESTING THE FAIRNESS, REASONABLENESS AND ADEQUACY OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND FROM PURSUING THE SETTLED CLAIMS (DEFINED HEREIN).
IF YOU HOLD INTEL COMMON STOCK FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANOTHER,
1. PURPOSE OF NOTICE
Pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the "Court") dated June 2, 2010, and further pursuant to Rule 23.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Notice is to inform you of (a) the above-captioned action (the “Delaware Action”) pending in the Court, (b) the proposed settlement of the Delaware Action (the "Settlement") as provided for in a Stipulation of Settlement (the "Stipulation") dated May 25, 2010, and (c) your right to participate in a hearing to be held on July 20, 2010 at 10 a.m., before the Honorable Joseph J. Farnan at the United States Courthouse, 844 N. King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801 (the "Settlement Hearing") to (i) determine whether the Court should approve the Settlement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1 as fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of Intel and its shareholders,
(ii) determine whether an Order and Final Judgment should be entered dismissing the Delaware Action with prejudice, and releasing and barring prosecution of any and all Settled Claims, as defined below, (iii) consider and determine whether to enter an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses to counsel for the plaintiffs in the Delaware Action and in the Related Actions, as defined below, and (iv) consider such other matters as the Court deems appropriate.
This Notice describes the rights you may have with respect to the Delaware Action and pursuant to the Stipulation and what steps you may take, but are not required to take, in relation to the Settlement.
2. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
THE FOLLOWING RECITATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE FINDINGS OF THE COURT. IT IS BASED ON STATEMENTS OF THE PARTIES AND SHOULD NOT BE UNDERSTOOD AS AN EXPRESSION OF ANY OPINION OF THE COURT AS TO THE MERITS OF ANY OF THE CLAIMS OR DEFENSES RAISED BY ANY OF THE PARTIES.
On November 13, 2009, Charles A. Gilman, an Intel Stockholder, commenced a shareholder derivative action in the Court (the “Gilman Action”) on behalf of Intel against defendants Craig R. Barrett, Carol Bartz, Charlene Barshefsky, Susan L. Decker, John J. Donahoe, D. James Guzy, Sr., Paul S. Otellini, David S. Pottruck, James D. Plummer, Jane E. Shaw, David B. Yoffie, and Frank D. Yeary (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”) and nominal defendant Intel (together with the Individual Defendants, the “Defendants”).
On December 23, 2009, the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System (“MPERS”) commenced a shareholder derivative action in the Court on behalf of Intel against the Individual Defendants and nominal defendant Intel (the “MPERS Action”).
On January 15, 2010, the Court entered an order consolidating the Gilman Action and the MPERS Action into this action, appointing Mr. Gilman and MPERS as lead plaintiffs in the Delaware Action (the “Delaware Plaintiffs”), and appointing Paskowitz & Associates and Berman DeValerio to be Co-Lead Counsel (together, the “Delaware Plaintiffs’ Counsel”).
On February 12, 2010, the Delaware Plaintiffs filed a Shareholders’ Demand-Made Consolidated Derivative Complaint (the "Delaware Complaint"), alleging, inter alia, that Intel has, for a number of years, engaged in conduct which violates U.S. and foreign competition laws, resulting in civil suits and regulatory investigations and proceedings against Intel (together the “Antitrust Proceedings”) including, without limitation:
(1) A suit commenced by Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. and AMD International Sales & Services, Ltd. in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, entitled Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp., Civil Action No. 05-441 (JJF) (the “AMD Action”);
(2) A series of puntative class action suits brought under state competition laws, consolidated in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware under the caption In re Intel Corporation Microprocessor Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 05-1717 (JJF);
(3) A proceeding by the Japan Fair Trade Commission against Intel Kabushiki Kaisha, Intel’s Japanese subsidiary, which resulted in a consent decree ordering Intel Kabushiki Kaisha to cease and desist certain actions;
(4) An investigation and proceeding brought by the European Commission, in which the European Commission issued a decision and imposed a fine against Intel in May 2009;
(5) A proceeding brought by the Korea Fair Trade Commission, in which the Korea Fair Trade Commission entered a ruling against Intel in June 2008;
(6) An action commenced by the New York Attorney General in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, entitled State of New York v. Intel Corp., Civil Action No. 09-827 (JJF); and (7) An administrative proceeding commenced by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission against Intel on or about December 16, 2009, Docket No. 9341.
The Delaware Complaint incorporates the allegations made in certain of the Antitrust Proceedings, and further asserts that Intel’s alleged anticompetitive conduct has resulted in damage to Intel, and that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Intel by failing to, among other things, rein in, ameliorate, or countermand such conduct, and failing to institute certain remedial measures.
The Delaware Complaint seeks recovery for and on behalf of Intel of the damages it allegedly suffered as a result of the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the Individual Defendants.
Intel and certain of its current or former officers, directors, and employees are parties to other litigation relating to, arising out of, or making allegations similar to, the allegations contained in the Delaware Complaint, including the following (the “Related Actions”):
(1) A shareholder derivative suit pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, Santa Clara County, entitled Paris v. Otellini, et al., Case No. 110CV166850; and
(2) An action pursuant to Delaware General Corporation Law § 220 pending in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware, entitled Rosenfeld Family Foundation, et ano. v. Intel Corporation, Civil Action No. 5070-VCS. The Rosenfeld Family Foundation action was filed following the dismissal by this Court of a demand futility shareholder derivative suit, entitled In re Intel Corp. Derivative Litigation, Civ. A. No. 08-93-JJF (D. Del.). The two actions are collectively referred to as the “Rosenfeld Action.”
Counsel for the Defendants and Delaware Plaintiffs’ Counsel have engaged in extensive negotiations concerning a possible settlement of the Delaware Action. In connection therewith, Delaware Plaintiffs’ Counsel have conducted a thorough investigation of the claims and allegations asserted in the Delaware Action, including:
(i) review of publicly-available documents concerning Intel and the Antitrust Proceedings, (ii) review of over 17,000 pages of documents produced by Intel, including transcripts of the depositions of twenty Intel officers, directors, or employees that were taken in the AMD Action,
(iii) the deposition of Evangelina Almirantearena, Senior Counsel, Competition Compliance for Intel, and (iv) consultation with experts in the areas of corporate governance, antitrust law, and compliance. As a result of the extensive negotiations, the Delaware Plaintiffs and the Defendants have agreed to the proposed Settlement described below, as provided for in the Stipulation, and have moved the Court for final approval of the Settlement.
Plaintiffs and counsel to the plaintiffs in the Rosenfeld Action ("Rosenfeld’s Counsel") have engaged in extensive negotiations concerning the terms of a possible settlement of the Rosenfeld Action.
In connection therewith, Rosenfeld’s Counsel have conducted a thorough investigation of the allegations asserted in the Rosenfeld Action, including a review of publicly-available documents concerning Intel and the Antitrust Proceedings, review of documents produced by Intel, the transcript, and accompanying exhibits, to the deposition of Evangelina Almirantearena, Senior Counsel, Competition Compliance for Intel, and consultation with experts in the areas of corporate governance, antitrust law, and compliance.
As a result of the extensive negotiations, Plaintiffs and counsel to the plaintiffs in the Related Actions (the "Related Plaintiffs" and "Related Plaintiffs’ Counsel," respectively) also have agreed to the proposed Settlement described below and have executed the Stipulation. ...""
Source and Full Document Click Here
Intel Stockholders, You Pay the Price for their Crimes. They Get Richer from their Crimes Everyday. Time for Intel to Disclose the Liability of the Iviewit Stolen Technology.
Craig R. Barrett, Carol Bartz, Charlene Barshefsky, Susan L. Decker, John J. Donahoe, D. James Guzy, Sr., Paul S. Otellini, David S. Pottruck, James D. Plummer, Jane E. Shaw, David B. Yoffie, and Frank D. Yeary ARE accountable to YOU: The Sooner you Stand up to them the Less Money you will Lose as the Iviewit Technologies Trillion Dollar Liability to Intel Stockholders Will Never Go Away... it will Only Get Bigger and Bigger.
Intel is Corrupt and Is Constantly Pulling the "Wool" over Shareholder. Intel CEO Paul Otellini Knows of Major Liabilities to the Intel Stockholders in the Iviewit Stolen Technologies and has still NOT disclosed this information Intel Stockholders.
It seems like with AMD, and the Other Anti-Trust Lawsuits and Issues that Intel is in Constantly in some sort of Illegal Scandaling.. stomping on the rights of others.. and Wellthe Stockholders pay the price for the Illegal and DirtyDeals by the Big Wigs at Intel.
Attention Intel Stockholders:
YOU Need to Know about the Iviewit Stolen Technology - this is a Massive Shareholder Fraud Upon YOU and YOU will paythe price for Their Lies, Deciet and Dirty Deeds. More on the Iviewit Trillion Dollar Liability NOW affecting Intel Stockholders .. at www.DeniedPatent.com - over a thousand documents of Proof.. and Intel is Hiding this CRIME from Intel Stockholders.
Below is the Shareholder Derivative Action
"" TO: ALL RECORD AND BENEFICIAL HOLDERS OF SHARES OF COMMON STOCK OF INTEL CORPORATION ("INTEL" OR THE "COMPANY") AS OF MAY 25, 2010.
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN THIS LITIGATION. IF THE COURT APPROVES THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, YOU WILL BE FOREVER BARRED FROM CONTESTING THE FAIRNESS, REASONABLENESS AND ADEQUACY OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND FROM PURSUING THE SETTLED CLAIMS (DEFINED HEREIN).
IF YOU HOLD INTEL COMMON STOCK FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANOTHER,
1. PURPOSE OF NOTICE
Pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the "Court") dated June 2, 2010, and further pursuant to Rule 23.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Notice is to inform you of (a) the above-captioned action (the “Delaware Action”) pending in the Court, (b) the proposed settlement of the Delaware Action (the "Settlement") as provided for in a Stipulation of Settlement (the "Stipulation") dated May 25, 2010, and (c) your right to participate in a hearing to be held on July 20, 2010 at 10 a.m., before the Honorable Joseph J. Farnan at the United States Courthouse, 844 N. King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801 (the "Settlement Hearing") to (i) determine whether the Court should approve the Settlement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1 as fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of Intel and its shareholders,
(ii) determine whether an Order and Final Judgment should be entered dismissing the Delaware Action with prejudice, and releasing and barring prosecution of any and all Settled Claims, as defined below, (iii) consider and determine whether to enter an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses to counsel for the plaintiffs in the Delaware Action and in the Related Actions, as defined below, and (iv) consider such other matters as the Court deems appropriate.
This Notice describes the rights you may have with respect to the Delaware Action and pursuant to the Stipulation and what steps you may take, but are not required to take, in relation to the Settlement.
2. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
THE FOLLOWING RECITATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE FINDINGS OF THE COURT. IT IS BASED ON STATEMENTS OF THE PARTIES AND SHOULD NOT BE UNDERSTOOD AS AN EXPRESSION OF ANY OPINION OF THE COURT AS TO THE MERITS OF ANY OF THE CLAIMS OR DEFENSES RAISED BY ANY OF THE PARTIES.
On November 13, 2009, Charles A. Gilman, an Intel Stockholder, commenced a shareholder derivative action in the Court (the “Gilman Action”) on behalf of Intel against defendants Craig R. Barrett, Carol Bartz, Charlene Barshefsky, Susan L. Decker, John J. Donahoe, D. James Guzy, Sr., Paul S. Otellini, David S. Pottruck, James D. Plummer, Jane E. Shaw, David B. Yoffie, and Frank D. Yeary (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”) and nominal defendant Intel (together with the Individual Defendants, the “Defendants”).
On December 23, 2009, the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System (“MPERS”) commenced a shareholder derivative action in the Court on behalf of Intel against the Individual Defendants and nominal defendant Intel (the “MPERS Action”).
On January 15, 2010, the Court entered an order consolidating the Gilman Action and the MPERS Action into this action, appointing Mr. Gilman and MPERS as lead plaintiffs in the Delaware Action (the “Delaware Plaintiffs”), and appointing Paskowitz & Associates and Berman DeValerio to be Co-Lead Counsel (together, the “Delaware Plaintiffs’ Counsel”).
On February 12, 2010, the Delaware Plaintiffs filed a Shareholders’ Demand-Made Consolidated Derivative Complaint (the "Delaware Complaint"), alleging, inter alia, that Intel has, for a number of years, engaged in conduct which violates U.S. and foreign competition laws, resulting in civil suits and regulatory investigations and proceedings against Intel (together the “Antitrust Proceedings”) including, without limitation:
(1) A suit commenced by Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. and AMD International Sales & Services, Ltd. in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, entitled Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp., Civil Action No. 05-441 (JJF) (the “AMD Action”);
(2) A series of puntative class action suits brought under state competition laws, consolidated in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware under the caption In re Intel Corporation Microprocessor Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 05-1717 (JJF);
(3) A proceeding by the Japan Fair Trade Commission against Intel Kabushiki Kaisha, Intel’s Japanese subsidiary, which resulted in a consent decree ordering Intel Kabushiki Kaisha to cease and desist certain actions;
(4) An investigation and proceeding brought by the European Commission, in which the European Commission issued a decision and imposed a fine against Intel in May 2009;
(5) A proceeding brought by the Korea Fair Trade Commission, in which the Korea Fair Trade Commission entered a ruling against Intel in June 2008;
(6) An action commenced by the New York Attorney General in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, entitled State of New York v. Intel Corp., Civil Action No. 09-827 (JJF); and (7) An administrative proceeding commenced by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission against Intel on or about December 16, 2009, Docket No. 9341.
The Delaware Complaint incorporates the allegations made in certain of the Antitrust Proceedings, and further asserts that Intel’s alleged anticompetitive conduct has resulted in damage to Intel, and that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Intel by failing to, among other things, rein in, ameliorate, or countermand such conduct, and failing to institute certain remedial measures.
The Delaware Complaint seeks recovery for and on behalf of Intel of the damages it allegedly suffered as a result of the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the Individual Defendants.
Intel and certain of its current or former officers, directors, and employees are parties to other litigation relating to, arising out of, or making allegations similar to, the allegations contained in the Delaware Complaint, including the following (the “Related Actions”):
(1) A shareholder derivative suit pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, Santa Clara County, entitled Paris v. Otellini, et al., Case No. 110CV166850; and
(2) An action pursuant to Delaware General Corporation Law § 220 pending in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware, entitled Rosenfeld Family Foundation, et ano. v. Intel Corporation, Civil Action No. 5070-VCS. The Rosenfeld Family Foundation action was filed following the dismissal by this Court of a demand futility shareholder derivative suit, entitled In re Intel Corp. Derivative Litigation, Civ. A. No. 08-93-JJF (D. Del.). The two actions are collectively referred to as the “Rosenfeld Action.”
Counsel for the Defendants and Delaware Plaintiffs’ Counsel have engaged in extensive negotiations concerning a possible settlement of the Delaware Action. In connection therewith, Delaware Plaintiffs’ Counsel have conducted a thorough investigation of the claims and allegations asserted in the Delaware Action, including:
(i) review of publicly-available documents concerning Intel and the Antitrust Proceedings, (ii) review of over 17,000 pages of documents produced by Intel, including transcripts of the depositions of twenty Intel officers, directors, or employees that were taken in the AMD Action,
(iii) the deposition of Evangelina Almirantearena, Senior Counsel, Competition Compliance for Intel, and (iv) consultation with experts in the areas of corporate governance, antitrust law, and compliance. As a result of the extensive negotiations, the Delaware Plaintiffs and the Defendants have agreed to the proposed Settlement described below, as provided for in the Stipulation, and have moved the Court for final approval of the Settlement.
Plaintiffs and counsel to the plaintiffs in the Rosenfeld Action ("Rosenfeld’s Counsel") have engaged in extensive negotiations concerning the terms of a possible settlement of the Rosenfeld Action.
In connection therewith, Rosenfeld’s Counsel have conducted a thorough investigation of the allegations asserted in the Rosenfeld Action, including a review of publicly-available documents concerning Intel and the Antitrust Proceedings, review of documents produced by Intel, the transcript, and accompanying exhibits, to the deposition of Evangelina Almirantearena, Senior Counsel, Competition Compliance for Intel, and consultation with experts in the areas of corporate governance, antitrust law, and compliance.
As a result of the extensive negotiations, Plaintiffs and counsel to the plaintiffs in the Related Actions (the "Related Plaintiffs" and "Related Plaintiffs’ Counsel," respectively) also have agreed to the proposed Settlement described below and have executed the Stipulation. ...""
Source and Full Document Click Here
Intel Stockholders, You Pay the Price for their Crimes. They Get Richer from their Crimes Everyday. Time for Intel to Disclose the Liability of the Iviewit Stolen Technology.
Craig R. Barrett, Carol Bartz, Charlene Barshefsky, Susan L. Decker, John J. Donahoe, D. James Guzy, Sr., Paul S. Otellini, David S. Pottruck, James D. Plummer, Jane E. Shaw, David B. Yoffie, and Frank D. Yeary ARE accountable to YOU: The Sooner you Stand up to them the Less Money you will Lose as the Iviewit Technologies Trillion Dollar Liability to Intel Stockholders Will Never Go Away... it will Only Get Bigger and Bigger.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
CEO Paul Otellini - Penetrating New Industries? Opening New Factories - Spending Billions ?
the 7 Billion Dollar Lie... Oregon, Arizona and New Mexico ... are you kidding .. how did Intel Get this kind of Money to Throw around...
Of Course they Believe in technology - they Steal Technolgy, they want your Investment Money - Intel is Above the Law and Squashes the Competition and NOW I think this news is a Flat Out Lie as we are Hearing that Intel is Not Following Through on this...
Intel Will Have Unit Cost Lowered because Intel Corp. is Patent and Technology Thieves and they are Monopolistic so they keep the Competition DOWN... way Down..
Of Course they Believe in technology - they Steal Technolgy, they want your Investment Money - Intel is Above the Law and Squashes the Competition and NOW I think this news is a Flat Out Lie as we are Hearing that Intel is Not Following Through on this...
Intel Will Have Unit Cost Lowered because Intel Corp. is Patent and Technology Thieves and they are Monopolistic so they keep the Competition DOWN... way Down..
Can't See the Video Click on
Link to Video and Write Up on this...
http://www.cnbc.com/id/29125556
Intel CEOP Otellini
Intel accused of antitrust violations by FTC
"Intel settled its long-running feud with Advanced Micro Devices, but now it faces a new antitrust complaint from the Federal Trade Commission.
The FTC sued the world’s biggest chip maker today, accusing it of using its dominant market position to stifle competition and strengthen its monopoly for the past decade.
The complaint covers not only the market for microprocessors, but also graphics chips. It alleges that Intel blocked rivals from selling their chips by cutting off access to the market. The move shows that, under the Obama administration, antitrust enforcement is going to be aggressive.
“Intel has engaged in a deliberate campaign to hamstring competitive threats to its monopoly,” Richard A. Feinstein, director of the agency’s Bureau of Competition, said in a statement. “It’s been running roughshod over the principles of fair play and the laws protecting competition on the merits.”
The commission is seeking to stop Intel from competing unfairly by using threats, bundled prices, or other offers to encourage exclusive deals or manipulate prices.
Intel has long maintained that it has done nothing wrong and that consumers haven’t suffered, but in its settlement with AMD it agreed not to do a number of things that AMD had complained about. Intel also paid AMD a total of $1.25 billion as part of the settlement.
Intel has been fined $1.45 billion by the FTC, it has dealt with regulator complaints in South Korea and Japan, and the New York attorney general also filed an antitrust suit against it last month. The FTC case not only applies to Intel’s dealings in microprocessors, but also in chip set markets that have affected graphics chip maker Nvidia.
The FTC said that Intel used exclusive or restrictive dealings to force HP, IBM, Dell and others to buy chips from Intel and limit their purchases from competitors. The FTC did not specify an amount of monetary damages, although it could seek to force Intel to disgorge any ill-gotten profits in court.
In one new allegation, the FTC said, “Intel secretly redesigned key software, known as a compiler, in a way that deliberately stunted the performance of competitors’ CPU chips.
Intel told its customers and the public that software performed better on Intel CPUs than on competitors’ CPUs, but the company deceived them by failing to disclose that these differences were due largely or entirely to Intel’s compiler design.”
Regarding the graphics chip market, the FTC said, “Having succeeded in slowing adoption of competing CPU [central processing units] chips over the past decade until it could catch up to competitors like Advanced Micro Devices, Intel allegedly once again finds itself falling behind the competition — this time in the critical market for graphics processing units, commonly known as GPUs, as well as some other related markets. These products have lessened the need for CPUs, and therefore pose a threat to Intel’s monopoly power.
Intel has responded to this competitive challenge by embarking on a similar anticompetitive strategy, which aims to preserve its CPU monopoly by smothering potential competition from GPU chips such as those made by Nvidia, the FTC complaint charges.
As part of this latest campaign, Intel misled and deceived potential competitors in order to protect its monopoly. The complaint alleges that there also is a dangerous probability that Intel’s unfair methods of competition could allow it to extend its monopoly into the GPU chip markets.”
“We applaud today’s action by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission,” Nvidia said in a statement. “We are particularly pleased to see scrutiny being placed on Intel’s behavior toward GPUs, which have become an increasingly important part of the PC industry. We are reviewing the FTC’s filing and expect to release a comment later today.”
The FTC filed the complaint under section 5 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, a relatively little used part of antitrust law.
The FTC last sued Intel for antitrust violations in 1998, but the parties settled that case on the eve of trial. Intel called the complaint “misguided” in a statement.
Intel senior vice president and general counsel Doug Melamed added, “This case could have, and should have, been settled. Settlement talks had progressed very far but stalled when the FTC insisted on unprecedented remedies — including the restrictions on lawful price competition and enforcement of intellectual property rights set forth in the complaint — that would make it impossible for Intel to conduct business.
The FTC’s rush to file this case will cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars to litigate issues that the FTC has not fully investigated. It is the normal practice of antitrust enforcement agencies to investigate the facts before filing suit. The Commission did not do that in this case.
Feinstein denied that the FTC didn’t fully investigate the graphics chip part of the case, even though it involves recent events. “In a call with reporters, he said, “I’d like to think that monopolists are aware of our ability to take them on. I think this is a signal to monopolists that the FTC is alive and well and vigorous."
Source of Post
http://venturebeat.com/2009/12/16/intel-accused-of-antitrust-violations-by-ftc/
other links
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/13/AR2009051300590.html
The FTC sued the world’s biggest chip maker today, accusing it of using its dominant market position to stifle competition and strengthen its monopoly for the past decade.
The complaint covers not only the market for microprocessors, but also graphics chips. It alleges that Intel blocked rivals from selling their chips by cutting off access to the market. The move shows that, under the Obama administration, antitrust enforcement is going to be aggressive.
“Intel has engaged in a deliberate campaign to hamstring competitive threats to its monopoly,” Richard A. Feinstein, director of the agency’s Bureau of Competition, said in a statement. “It’s been running roughshod over the principles of fair play and the laws protecting competition on the merits.”
The commission is seeking to stop Intel from competing unfairly by using threats, bundled prices, or other offers to encourage exclusive deals or manipulate prices.
Intel has long maintained that it has done nothing wrong and that consumers haven’t suffered, but in its settlement with AMD it agreed not to do a number of things that AMD had complained about. Intel also paid AMD a total of $1.25 billion as part of the settlement.
Intel has been fined $1.45 billion by the FTC, it has dealt with regulator complaints in South Korea and Japan, and the New York attorney general also filed an antitrust suit against it last month. The FTC case not only applies to Intel’s dealings in microprocessors, but also in chip set markets that have affected graphics chip maker Nvidia.
The FTC said that Intel used exclusive or restrictive dealings to force HP, IBM, Dell and others to buy chips from Intel and limit their purchases from competitors. The FTC did not specify an amount of monetary damages, although it could seek to force Intel to disgorge any ill-gotten profits in court.
In one new allegation, the FTC said, “Intel secretly redesigned key software, known as a compiler, in a way that deliberately stunted the performance of competitors’ CPU chips.
Intel told its customers and the public that software performed better on Intel CPUs than on competitors’ CPUs, but the company deceived them by failing to disclose that these differences were due largely or entirely to Intel’s compiler design.”
Regarding the graphics chip market, the FTC said, “Having succeeded in slowing adoption of competing CPU [central processing units] chips over the past decade until it could catch up to competitors like Advanced Micro Devices, Intel allegedly once again finds itself falling behind the competition — this time in the critical market for graphics processing units, commonly known as GPUs, as well as some other related markets. These products have lessened the need for CPUs, and therefore pose a threat to Intel’s monopoly power.
Intel has responded to this competitive challenge by embarking on a similar anticompetitive strategy, which aims to preserve its CPU monopoly by smothering potential competition from GPU chips such as those made by Nvidia, the FTC complaint charges.
As part of this latest campaign, Intel misled and deceived potential competitors in order to protect its monopoly. The complaint alleges that there also is a dangerous probability that Intel’s unfair methods of competition could allow it to extend its monopoly into the GPU chip markets.”
“We applaud today’s action by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission,” Nvidia said in a statement. “We are particularly pleased to see scrutiny being placed on Intel’s behavior toward GPUs, which have become an increasingly important part of the PC industry. We are reviewing the FTC’s filing and expect to release a comment later today.”
The FTC filed the complaint under section 5 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, a relatively little used part of antitrust law.
The FTC last sued Intel for antitrust violations in 1998, but the parties settled that case on the eve of trial. Intel called the complaint “misguided” in a statement.
Intel senior vice president and general counsel Doug Melamed added, “This case could have, and should have, been settled. Settlement talks had progressed very far but stalled when the FTC insisted on unprecedented remedies — including the restrictions on lawful price competition and enforcement of intellectual property rights set forth in the complaint — that would make it impossible for Intel to conduct business.
The FTC’s rush to file this case will cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars to litigate issues that the FTC has not fully investigated. It is the normal practice of antitrust enforcement agencies to investigate the facts before filing suit. The Commission did not do that in this case.
Feinstein denied that the FTC didn’t fully investigate the graphics chip part of the case, even though it involves recent events. “In a call with reporters, he said, “I’d like to think that monopolists are aware of our ability to take them on. I think this is a signal to monopolists that the FTC is alive and well and vigorous."
Source of Post
http://venturebeat.com/2009/12/16/intel-accused-of-antitrust-violations-by-ftc/
other links
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/13/AR2009051300590.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)