News EU court annuls $1.2 billion fine against Intel in antitrust case.

Hitman928

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2012
5,244
7,793
136
From what I read, the court upheld the fine in the first appeal, around 7 years ago, but then the EU "Supreme Court" told them to look at it again in 2017. Ultimately the court said that the prosecutor failed to do a proper economic impact of Intel's shady programs so they didn't have enough legal justification for the fine. The EU council has not announced if they plan to push this any further or let this verdict stand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moly Doly

soresu

Platinum Member
Dec 19, 2014
2,657
1,858
136

Looks like the European Commission didn't investigate properly.
Looks more like they are compromising principles to get Intel fabs built in Europe.

The close proximity in time to the flailing EU chipmaking efforts doesn't seem like much of a coincidence to me.
 

Panino Manino

Senior member
Jan 28, 2017
820
1,022
136
Looks like the European Commission didn't investigate properly.

"You did committed crimes, sure without a doubt, but as we can't the precise about how much EXACTLY the victim lost as a consequence of your crimes would be unjust to force you to pay anything to compensate for the damages."

This is what happened.
Evil never rests.
 

Mopetar

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
7,831
5,980
136
After this long I can't imagine the lawyer bill is that much cheaper. I can see something this complex and long running to easily be in the tens of millions of dollars in terms of expense.
 

TheELF

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2012
3,973
730
126
After this long I can't imagine the lawyer bill is that much cheaper. I can see something this complex and long running to easily be in the tens of millions of dollars in terms of expense.
In europe all costs go to the losing party.
Under Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Where there is more than one unsuccessful party, the Court is to decide how the costs are to be shared. Where each party succeeds on some and fails on other heads, the parties are to bear their own costs. However, if it appears justified in the circumstances of the case, the Court may order that one party, in addition to bearing its own costs, pay a proportion of the costs of the other party.
 

Hitman928

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2012
5,244
7,793
136
In europe all costs go to the losing party.

I'm not familiar with EU law, but based upon the quoted article it seems like Intel would have to ask for their costs to be paid for and the court agrees, which I haven't seen any mention of this being the case.

if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.
 

Saylick

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2012
3,127
6,296
136
"You did committed crimes, sure without a doubt, but as we can't the precise about how much EXACTLY the victim lost as a consequence of your crimes would be unjust to force you to pay anything to compensate for the damages."

This is what happened.
Evil never rests.
EU Court be like: "Ehhh, AMD looks to be in good shape today. I mean, just look at the stock price over the last 5 years. It doesn't look like there was long term damage to me! Fine waived!"
 

soresu

Platinum Member
Dec 19, 2014
2,657
1,858
136
Which fabs has Intel shown interest in building in Europe?
I'm speaking in general terms, though I'm pretty sure that the EU have feelers out to all semicon manufacturing companies trying to regain the piece of the pie that they once held and have since lost.

Edit: A quick Google search drummed up this article:

 

soresu

Platinum Member
Dec 19, 2014
2,657
1,858
136
Curious. One wonders how many different governments Intel can pander to at once?
No different than what they do in the US pandering to different state govmts for the best deal I'd expect.

I'd assume some countries would be more suitable than others, especially when you consider the water shortage problem in California which has to be affecting new water dependent business investment there.