More

FTC Sues Intel For Antitrust Violations

JORDAN ROBERTSON   12/16/09 05:04 PM ET   AP

Intel Corp

SAN FRANCISCO — The Federal Trade Commission piled on new antitrust charges against Intel Corp. on Wednesday, seeking to end what it described as a decade of illegal sales tactics that have crippled rivals and kept prices for computer chips artificially high.

The FTC's lawsuit contains the most wide-ranging allegations yet against the world's largest chip maker, which is also fighting a record $1.45 billion antitrust fine in Europe and separate cases in South Korea and New York state.

It comes despite Intel having recently settled similar complaints brought by rival Advanced Micro Devices Inc., whose lobbying of regulators led to their charges. In its 2005 lawsuit, AMD quotes a manager from Toshiba Corp. comparing Intel's payments for not using AMD's chips to "cocaine" and an executive from Gateway complaining that Intel's threats of retaliation for working with AMD beat them "into guacamole."

If the FTC prevails, the case could have a broad impact because it concerns two key markets that are dominated by Intel, instead of just one in the other cases.

The FTC is raising new charges of manipulation in the market for graphics processing units, or GPUs, which primarily handle video and other images. Until now, Intel has faced allegations only regarding central processing units, or CPUs, which are the "brains" of personal computers.

Intel owns about 80 percent of the worldwide CPU market, with AMD commanding virtually the rest. Intel also has more than half of the graphics chip market, though rivals Nvidia Corp. and AMD's ATI division dominate the market for standalone graphics chips, whereas Intel's graphics capabilities are baked into its "chipsets," which connect the main processor to the rest of the computer.

The new charges against Intel come as another antitrust target, Microsoft Corp., resolved a major issue of its own in Europe. Microsoft agreed to offer users of its Windows operating system a choice of Web browsers from other companies in exchange for the European Commission dropping all remaining charges against Microsoft over the tying of Internet Explorer to Windows.

The FTC alleges that Intel strong-armed computer makers into exclusive deals, manipulated technical data to make its chips look more powerful than those from competitors and blocked rivals from making its chips work with Intel's. Those tactics, the FTC said, were motivated by Intel's desire to preserve its dominant market share as the company stumbled with the transition to new technologies.

As a result, rivals have been hobbled and prices haven't fallen as much as they could have, the FTC said.

"Intel has engaged in a deliberate campaign to hamstring competitive threats to its monopoly," said Richard A. Feinstein, director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition. "It's been running roughshod over the principles of fair play and the laws protecting competition on the merits."

Shares of Intel's rivals rose Wednesday. AMD's stock gained 45 cents, or 5.1 percent, to $9.27, and Nvidia's shares were up $1.16, or 7.4 percent, to $16.81. Meanwhile, Intel's stock fell 41 cents, or 2.1 percent, to $19.39.

Intel, which is headquartered in Santa Clara, Calif., said the FTC's case is "misguided" and based "largely on claims that the FTC added at the last minute and has not investigated." The company said its industry is highly competitive, with robust innovation prompting sharper price drops than in other industries.

Doug Melamed, Intel's general counsel, said the company was "very far" into settlement talks with the FTC but that those collapsed when the FTC insisted on "unprecedented remedies ... that would make it impossible for Intel to conduct business."

Those remedies, he said, included restrictions on what Intel can charge for chips and how it protects its intellectual property when dealing with technology partners.

The FTC said it is seeking a change in Intel's behavior instead of fines, as the EU and Korea had imposed. The agency said it wants to bar Intel from using "threats, bundled prices, or other offers to encourage exclusive deals, hamper competition, or unfairly manipulate the prices of its" chips.

The case is scheduled to be heard by an administrative law judge within the FTC in September and should be completed by the end of 2010, though such decisions often get appealed to the full commission.

The FTC has investigated Intel before, but the latest case involves the agency's most serious allegations of wrongdoing against the company. The FTC dropped an antitrust investigation of Intel in 1993. In 1998, the agency accused the company of wrongdoing for withholding technical information about its processors from companies with whom it was involved in patent disputes. That case was settled the following year.

Intel's antitrust troubles are mounting around the world.

Intel is appealing a $1.45 billion fine in Europe and an $18.6 million fine in Korea and is fighting a federal lawsuit by New York's attorney general, all based on claims that Intel bullied computer makers into buying all, or nearly all, of their CPUs from Intel or risk losing potentially billions of dollars in rebates.

Intel has denied wrongdoing and described the rebates as simple volume discounts. Still, last month it agreed to pay AMD $1.25 billion to settle the lawsuit and agreed to a set of business practices to appease AMD, including a promise to refrain from giving financial incentives to companies that limit their use of AMD chips – which Intel has always said it wasn't doing anyway.

___

AP Business Writer Andrew Vanacore in New York and AP Technology Writer Joelle Tessler in Washington contributed to this story.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS

SAN FRANCISCO — The Federal Trade Commission piled on new antitrust charges against Intel Corp. on Wednesday, seeking to end what it described as a decade of illegal sales tactics that have crip...
SAN FRANCISCO — The Federal Trade Commission piled on new antitrust charges against Intel Corp. on Wednesday, seeking to end what it described as a decade of illegal sales tactics that have crip...
Filed by Eric Sorensen  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 86
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
12:31 PM on 12/17/2009
Bernanke & the employees at Goldman are a bunch of rat basta4rds
good articles; http://financeopinionss.blogspot.com

It's despicable what's going on
09:41 AM on 12/17/2009
Jobless claims up again
so much for that V shaped recovery...
good articles; http://financeopinionss.blogspot.com
10:40 AM on 12/17/2009
spam spam spam spam
spam spam spam spam

If you click it's link, you'll encourage it to spam more.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
OneTop
Uh, is that a beer hall?
03:05 PM on 12/16/2009
There goes Intel's business model ....
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
zxrod
Why don't you?
02:43 PM on 12/16/2009
Intel on-board graphics chips are complete garbage, we should all hope they aren't doing shady dealings to stifle competition there
02:39 PM on 12/16/2009
A list of computer tech companies that are too big. Their #1 agenda is to become as big as possible by buying up or smothering all competitors. Remembering their roots and caring about their customers is way, way down the list:

Microsoft
Oracle
Apple
Intel
Dell
IBM/Lenovo

Sun is not on this list because Oracle is about to absorb them. Any java programmers out there? Good luck with licensing!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wfglaser
03:37 PM on 12/16/2009
Fifteen years ago, people were mourning the death of Apple and MacOS. Jobs completely turned the company around. So now you're saying they're "too big"? If anything, their traditional market share (total domination) of the (pre-RIP) graphics, printing, and publishing business has been severely eroded since Microsoft's Windoze division finally produced a kinda stable 32 bit OS with NT.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wfglaser
03:42 PM on 12/16/2009
Still waiting for moderation.
02:28 PM on 12/16/2009
I'm just surprised that Intel has dodged the bullet so long, by settling quietly. I was on the receiving end of pricing, patent portfolio and strategic negotiations from Intel, so think an investigation is appropriate.
02:09 PM on 12/16/2009
Sue Big Government for anti-trust:

Medicare - over 1/3 of the Health Care Market
FNMA & FHLMC - 50% of the $12 Trillion mortgage market
AMTRAK - 100% of the passenger rail market
02:16 PM on 12/16/2009
Don't forget the Post Office!

Just try to open up a company which delievers mail and what happens..... the government will shut you down.
02:44 PM on 12/16/2009
How much would a stamp cost if some profiteer were selling them? Would I be able to afford to send a letter? Priority Mail competes very nicely against UPS and FedEx.
07:51 PM on 12/16/2009
Good point, thanks!

Congress has the duty to "establish post offices", that doesn't give them carte blanche to run it.
10:44 AM on 12/17/2009
Now how has "Big Government" acted in a anti-competitive manner?

Not all industries are subject to anti-trust laws anyway.
02:03 PM on 12/16/2009
"The complaint names Dell Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co., and IBM Corp. as Intel's targets."

Which I find somewhat amusing, since a quick visit to each of those companies' websites shows that they do, indeed, offer AMD-based products for sale.

All of which makes this entire thing seem rather frivolous.
02:45 PM on 12/16/2009
What Intel did was to marginalize AMD so that the above vendors could only sell "cheap" AMD models vs. the great ones they really had. Here is an interesting story. If I wanted to buy (this is about 6 years ago) a dual processor computer from Intel, there was not one for desktops since the Pentium 4 could not run with two processors. On the other hand AMD did with their Athlon MP processors. When we went out to buy systems we priced a dual AMD system at about the same price as a 2.8Ghz P4 from Intel. WTF?? On top of that, there were at least TWO motherboard manufacturers who made those motherboards. We actually had a local PC shop make the dual AMD systems since IBM, Dell etc. were not allowed to make or sell them.... So the case is REAL and Intel needs to be ADJUSTED!!
10:51 AM on 12/17/2009
You're absolutely right. Intel has caught up with AMD in recent years, but it wasn't too long ago that the decision was a no-brainer: AMD chips were just plain *better* in terms of performance, cost, and almost any metric you'd like to use.

Their superiority was the results of research and investment, and they should have been able to capitalize. They couldn't because of Intel's patently anti-competitive behavior.

There are rules in business, and Intel broke the rules. Hopefully the punishment is significant enough to encourage them to *not* break the rules in the future!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Chubbster
Always Under Moderation
01:21 PM on 12/16/2009
Typical that the govt would create a bs case against a great company while allowing Wall Street full access to our rear ends.
01:33 PM on 12/16/2009
It's certainly not a BS case. I agree that others have been allowed to fall through the cracks for a long time, but Intel's behavior has been blatantly anti-competitive.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ResearchtheFacts
01:07 PM on 12/16/2009
You got to wonder how they pick these suits. No brakes for the telecommunication industry and their questionable practices. And they are big on these chip maker technology companies. I was included in a class action lawsuit against Samsung, Micron, NEC and a host of other players because of similiar circumstances manipulating the price of DRAM.

Now Intel, what's our alternative AMD?
photo
hypnotoad72
Real democracy = living wages.
01:04 PM on 12/16/2009
Forget Intel, the following article on the leeeches who breached licensing agreements is far more interesting:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=28460
01:02 PM on 12/16/2009
Well I guess I am going to buy AMD next time.
photo
ReMarker
Facts and reason FTW!
01:02 PM on 12/16/2009
It's about time. Intel processors have never been as good as AMD's. AMD processors are faster and more bullet proof. Ask the gamers.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ResearchtheFacts
01:14 PM on 12/16/2009
I don't know about that. I bought someone a laptop with the AMD processor chip and gosh it was slow. Had to keep adding RAM to help speed up the process. I guess it is a matter of preference but Intel performs out the box.

My graphics card is AMD and I had to turn up the advance settings to get it to perform close to my former nvidia which was outstanding.
01:44 PM on 12/16/2009
True several years ago, but if you're a performance geek, you'd be silly to buy AMD right now. Intel's product line is far and away the superior choice.
02:47 PM on 12/16/2009
Actually I would have to disagree. While the Core Duo was a great design, we need to look at the price vs. performance edge that AMD has. Look at their Phenom's like the X4 Black Edition. Crazy fast and MUCH more affordable than Intel! Check it out!
12:27 PM on 12/16/2009
I really needed the government to step in and protect me from Intel's superior products.
12:46 PM on 12/16/2009
If Intel is allowed to crush competitors, you and the other deniers will be the first to protest the quadrupling of prices for processors.
Intel is exactly like Microsoft - their products are inferior, but they use market share to stifle any innovation or technically superior product.

If the government doesnt' do something, who will?
We have seen what happens when the government allows corporations and banks to do whatever they want without regard for the consumer.
photo
hypnotoad72
Real democracy = living wages.
01:05 PM on 12/16/2009
Ever since Core2Duo, Intel has outdone AMD at every turn. Benchmark after benchmark proved it. Intel's speed and quality moved me back from AMD.

They're not quite like Microsoft (the latter makes junk they have yet to fix, right down to its fundamental structure and it's gotten far worse in the last 5 years alone, but I digress...)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Chubbster
Always Under Moderation
01:24 PM on 12/16/2009
Ohhh "deniers..." It's sad to be a dull-wit, Whippy. Intel is making the best products and the poor competition whines they are being crushed? The depths of delusion here have no bottom.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Chubbster
Always Under Moderation
01:25 PM on 12/16/2009
This is the govt showing it's true face.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pattithepolitico
12:19 PM on 12/16/2009
The feds can go after intel but not the health insurance industry?
photo
FoonTheElder
Always choosing between the lesser of two evils
12:22 PM on 12/16/2009
Your government exempted them from anti-trust. Congress needs to change the laws first.
12:24 PM on 12/16/2009
Health Insureance Industry is Exempt from anti-trust laws.