The Directorate General of Competition of the European Commission currently has a case pending against Intel. The Commission issued a Statement of Objections (SO) in July of 2007 and a Supplemental Statement of Objections (SSO) in July of 2008. These preliminary findings follow investigations that began in 2000. After nearly seven years of investigation the EC filed its preliminary findings. The Commission alleges that Intel violated the law by giving discounts and other incentives to computer manufacturers and retailers to induce them to buy from Intel instead of its main competitor.
- EC Ruling: Statement by Intel President and CEO Paul Otellini
- The Growing Debate Over Due Process in Europe
An increasing number of lawyers, politicians and commentators are publicly calling for reform at one of the world's most powerful regulators, the European Commission's Directorate General for Competition.
Among the issues being raised:
- Should the Directorate General be able to act as prosecutor, judge and jury? Is it fair and efficient for one entity to act in all three roles?
- Why isn't someone with substantial decision-making power and independence – perhaps a judge or a more fully empowered hearing officer – presiding at hearings in competition cases?
- Intel Statement on European Court of First Instance Ruling on Interim Measures
- The Official Journal of the European Union has published a summary of the pending Intel appeal before the Court of First Instance (CFI.) The summary outlines, at a high level, the questions Intel is asking the CFI to address and Intel's request that CFI the extend the deadline for its reply to the Commission's Supplementary Statement of Objections in order to enable Intel to address additional documents belonging to AMD. The summary can be found here:
EU Publishes Summary of Intel Appeal to the Court of First Instance
- Intel Appeals Procedural Ruling from the European Commission
- Intel Statement on Latest European Commission Action
- Intel States Its Actions in Europe Benefit Consumers
In March of 2005 the Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) filed a Recommendation accusing Intel of violating Japan's antitrust laws. The Recommendation followed a year long investigation prompted by complaints from Intel's main competitor Advanced Micro Devices (AMD). A Recommendation contains three parts: an assertion of the facts; an interpretation of the law and a recommended remedy. Intel did not agree with the facts underlying the JFTC's allegations and the application of law in the Recommendation. Intel did accept the recommended remedy in the form of a cease and desist order believing that the cease and desist provisions of the Recommendation would not impair it from continuing to meet customer requirements.
- Intel Agrees to Comply with JFTC Recommendation; Disagrees with Findings of Fact
- Intel Statement on Japan FTC Recommendation
In June of 2008 The Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) ruled that Intel had violated Korean antitrust laws. The KFTC has concluded that Intel violated the law on 2 counts of abuse of dominance. The KFTC also announced plans to fine Intel $25 million. Details on the specifics of the ruling are not available because the KFTC will not publish its findings in written form until September of 2008.