Intel Wins Appeal on EU Antitrust Fine

VirtualLarry

Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
48,139
5,006
126
Intel's shareholders aught to be happy...

Not so sure that the rest of the industry that wants healthy competition is, though.
 

moinmoin

Golden Member
Jun 1, 2017
1,613
1,510
106
I don't expect Intel to get away with any lower penalty. This is all about court procedure, and everybody including Intel has the right to be ensured a fair and lawful, flawless trial. But I expect Intel to just manage to postpone the eventual penalty payment, which may well actually end up being against their interests depending on the economical circumstances.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mattiasnyc

Phynaz

Lifer
Mar 13, 2006
10,143
816
126
I don't expect Intel to get away with any lower penalty. This is all about court procedure, and everybody including Intel has the right to be ensured a fair and lawful, flawless trial. But I expect Intel to just manage to postpone the eventual penalty payment, which may well actually end up being against their interests depending on the economical circumstances.
Nah, it's done. When a higher (in this case the highest) court sends a case back to a lower court there's only one outcome. Sure there will be another five years of appeals from all sides, but that's all procedural.

BTW, the payment was made in 2009. It's been sitting in escrow since.
 
Mar 10, 2006
11,719
2,002
126
Nah, it's done. When a higher (in this case the highest) court sends a case back to a lower court there's only one outcome. Sure there will be another five years of appeals from all sides, but that's all procedural.

BTW, the payment was made in 2009. It's been sitting in escrow since.
Intel isn't fighting this for the money, it is fighting this to try to clear its name/reputation, IMO.
 

Jan Olšan

Senior member
Jan 12, 2017
264
249
86
Is that why they settled with both FTC and AMD years ago? And not for peanuts. I think the exact words are "deny wrongdoing", not "clear its name", because the evidence was pretty solid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: raghu78

R0H1T

Platinum Member
Jan 12, 2013
2,566
141
106
Please tell us you didn't read the article.
You keep trying to rewrite history, Intel were guilty /end of!

History will not look kindly on people or corporations who've tried to take advantage of the system to further their interests, everyone else be damned! This goes for politicians, blood diamond merchants, profiteers & of course everyone else who's trying to squeeze the poor (or middle class) dry. A few decades from now hopefully private enterprises (& their stooges in power) will have to pay for their unchecked greed & people will not cheer for xyz companies as if they were the shareholders!
 
  • Like
Reactions: raghu78

raghu78

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2012
4,011
1,258
136
Don't try to be too hilarious because like OP you know perfectly that Intel was guilty as hell.
very true. The only job of these guys is to defend Intel no matter what. Intel is an abusive monopoly and there is no doubt about that.
 

FIVR

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2016
3,753
906
106
Title of thread is 100% inaccurate. They didn't "Win" anything, EU top court just referred the case to a lower court. Likely to re-assess the fines based on the 8 years of EU taxes that Intel owes on the 1.3B Euros.


They'll probably have to pay even more in the end, and at a time when they need every Euro they can get.
 

Phynaz

Lifer
Mar 13, 2006
10,143
816
126
You keep trying to rewrite history, Intel were guilty /end of!
Don't try to be too hilarious because like OP you know perfectly that Intel was guilty as hell.
very true. The only job of these guys is to defend Intel no matter what. Intel is an abusive monopoly and there is no doubt about that.
Title of thread is 100% inaccurate. They didn't "Win" anything, EU top court just referred the case to a lower court. Likely to re-assess the fines based on the 8 years of EU taxes that Intel owes on the 1.3B
Why do you guys comment without actually reading what the European Court of Justice ruled? I provided multiple links, so it's really easy. Raging "Intel is guilty" just makes you look uniformed. How about you discuss the merits of the ruling?

FYI the ECJ is the EU equivalent of the US Supreme Court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CHADBOGA

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
100,051
3,079
126
137 In that regard, the Court has already held that an undertaking which is in a dominant position on a market and ties purchasers — even if it does so at their request — by an obligation or promise on their part to obtain all or most of their requirements exclusively from that undertaking abuses its dominant position within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU, whether the obligation is stipulated without further qualification or whether it is undertaken in consideration of the grant of a rebate. The same applies if the undertaking in question, without tying the purchasers by a formal obligation, applies, either under the terms of agreements concluded with these purchasers or unilaterally, a system of loyalty rebates, that is to say, discounts conditional on the customer’s obtaining all or most of its requirements — whether the quantity of its purchases be large or small — from the undertaking in a dominant position (see judgment of 13 February 1979, Hoffmann-La Roche v Commission, 85/76, EU:C:1979:36, paragraph 89).

138 However, that case-law must be further clarified in the case where the undertaking concerned submits, during the administrative procedure, on the basis of supporting evidence, that its conduct was not capable of restricting competition and, in particular, of producing the alleged foreclosure effects.

139 In that case, the Commission is not only required to analyse, first, the extent of the undertaking’s dominant position on the relevant market and, secondly, the share of the market covered by the challenged practice, as well as the conditions and arrangements for granting the rebates in question, their duration and their amount; it is also acquired to assess the possible existence of a strategy aiming to exclude competitors that are at least as efficient as the dominant undertaking from the market (see, by analogy, judgment of 27 March 2012, Post Danmark, C‑209/10, EU:C:2012:172, paragraph 29).

140 The analysis of the capacity to foreclose is also relevant in assessing whether a system of rebates which, in principle, falls within the scope of the prohibition laid down in Article 102 TFEU, may be objectively justified. It has to be determined whether the exclusionary effect arising from such a system, which is disadvantageous for competition, may be counterbalanced, or outweighed, by advantages in terms of efficiency which also benefit the consumer (judgment of 15 March 2007, British Airways v Commission, C‑95/04 P, EU:C:2007:166, paragraph 86). That balancing of the favourable and unfavourable effects of the practice in question on competition can be carried out in the Commission’s decision only after an analysis of the intrinsic capacity of that practice to foreclose competitors which are at least as efficient as the dominant undertaking.

141 If, in a decision finding a rebate scheme abusive, the Commission carries out such an analysis, the General Court must examine all of the applicant’s arguments seeking to call into question the validity of the Commission’s findings concerning the foreclosure capability of the rebate concerned.

142 In this case, while the Commission emphasised, in the decision at issue, that the rebates at issue were by their very nature capable of restricting competition such that an analysis of all the circumstances of the case and, in particular, an AEC test were not necessary in order to find an abuse of a dominant position (see, inter alia, paragraphs 925 and 1760 of that decision), it nevertheless carried out an in-depth examination of those circumstances, setting out, in paragraphs 1002 to 1576 of that decision, a very detailed analysis of the AEC test, which led it to conclude, in paragraphs 1574 and 1575 of that decision, that an as efficient competitor would have had to offer prices which would not have been viable and that, accordingly, the rebate scheme at issue was capable of having foreclosure effects on such a competitor.

143 It follows that, in the decision at issue, the AEC test played an important role in the Commission’s assessment of whether the rebate scheme at issue was capable of having foreclosure effects on as efficient competitors.

144 In those circumstances, the General Court was required to examine all of Intel’s arguments concerning that test.

145 It held, however, in paragraphs 151 and 166 of the judgment under appeal, that it was not necessary to consider whether the Commission had carried out the AEC test in accordance with the applicable rules and without making any errors, and that it was also not necessary to examine the question whether the alternative calculations proposed by Intel had been carried out correctly.

146 In its examination of the circumstances of the case, carried out for the sake of completeness, the General Court therefore attached no importance, in paragraphs 172 to 175 of the judgment under appeal, to the AEC test carried out by the Commission and, accordingly, did not address Intel’s criticisms of that test.

147 Consequently, without it being necessary to rule on the second, third and sixth ground of appeal, the judgment of the General Court must be set aside, since, in its analysis of whether the rebates at issue were capable of restricting competition, the General Court wrongly failed to take into consideration Intel’s line of argument seeking to expose alleged errors committed by the Commission in the AEC test.
here's the actual meat of the case, since everything else as grounds for appeal was either rejected or not considered.

the trial court has to consider intel's arguments wrt the AEC test, and so it's quite possible that the general court could do so and find them not credible, inconsequential, or only serve to reduce the fine by some percentage. so, no, it's not a slam dunk that intel has now won this case and gotten off scot free.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FIVR and Phynaz

Phynaz

Lifer
Mar 13, 2006
10,143
816
126
the trial court has to consider intel's arguments wrt the AEC test, and so it's quite possible that the general court could do so and find them not credible. so, no, it's not a slam dunk that intel has now won this case.
Possible but not likely. Also, if the general court does rule against Intel again, Intel is just going to appeal again on the other three grounds.

It's going to be another decade :(
 

FIVR

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2016
3,753
906
106
So are we due for a thread title change? Seems unfair for OP to inject this issue with so much of his own bias. A "win" for intel this most certainly is not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: raghu78

Phynaz

Lifer
Mar 13, 2006
10,143
816
126
On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 June 2014, Intel v Commission (T286/09, EU:T:2014:547);

2. Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;
That means start over.
 

Phynaz

Lifer
Mar 13, 2006
10,143
816
126
So are we due for a thread title change? Seems unfair for OP to inject this issue with so much of his own bias. A "win" for intel this most certainly is not.
Thread title is from the first article posted.

Also, see the ruling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sweepr

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
100,051
3,079
126
Possible but not likely. Also, if the general court does rule against Intel again, Intel is just going to appeal again on the other three grounds.

It's going to be another decade :(
well at least that part is certainly true.
 

FIVR

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2016
3,753
906
106
Thread title is from the first article posted.

Also, see the ruling.
Article Title is equally inaccurate and biased. At this point, your thread title is essentially trolling. ElFenix said himself, this is not a "win" at all. You even agree with me.


Read the ruling yourself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: raghu78

Rifter

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,515
742
126
Who cares, everyone knows intel is guilty. Damage to name already done, and is not repairable even if they win this in another decade IMO.
 

Phynaz

Lifer
Mar 13, 2006
10,143
816
126
Article Title is equally inaccurate and biased. At this point, your thread title is essentially trolling. ElFenix said himself, this is not a "win" at all. You even agree with me.


Read the ruling yourself.
What the heck man? It's right there in black and white:
Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 June 2014
I.E. - Cancelled, revoked, nullified etc..

Jeez, talk about trolling. Go back to P&N please.
 

FIVR

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2016
3,753
906
106
The ruling says they will re-examine intel's arguments about the AEC. It says nothing about intel "winning" anything


Thread title and OP are trolling at this point. He even admits that it wasn't a win, but yet his thread title gives the impression that intel is no longer facing any court case or fines. That would have been a "win"... but that isn't what happened at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: raghu78

ASK THE COMMUNITY