Intel's $1.3 Billion Fine In Europe Requires Review, Court Says (nytimes.com)

cdreimer writes: According to a report in The New York Times (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source), the Court of Justice in the European Union has ordered the lower courts to revisit the $1.3 billion anti-trust fine levied against Intel in 2009, giving hope to Google and other American technology firms to avoid being fined for being dominant in the EU markets. From the report: "The highest court in the European Union ordered on Wednesday that a $1.3 billion antitrust fine doled out against Intel nearly a decade ago be revisited, a ruling that could give hope to Google and other American technology giants facing challenges to their dominance in the region. The decision to send the case back to a lower court for re-examination is a blow to regional competition regulators, whose oversight of digital services has been among the world's most aggressive. It could also embolden American technology companies, which have long complained that antitrust officials in Europe target them unfairly, to challenge rulings and investigations against them. The move by the Court of Justice of the European Union raises the prospect that the 1.06 billion euro fine on Intel in 2009, equivalent to $1.26 billion at current exchange rates, could be reduced or scrapped entirely. The penalty -- at the time the largest of its kind -- was upheld by European courts in 2014 and will most likely be the subject of legal battles for years to come. That record fine was overtaken by a 2.4 billion euro penalty against Google in June. The Silicon Valley giant was accused of using its dominant position in online search to give preferential treatment to its internet shopping service over those of its rivals."

Comments

Thanks, European Court

[Anonymous Coward]

Your a pal and a cosmonaut.

Re: Thanks, European Court

[Anonymous Coward]

Your a pal and a cosmonaut.

My a pal and a cosmonaut is what?

Re: Thanks, European Court

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a vowel and a consonant.

Re: Thanks, European Court

[3247]

The same person, obviously.

Fines

[JBMcB]

Will the fine have any impact on the market shares of any of the CPU manufacturers? Nope. Whom gets the money from the fine? AMD? Nope. ARM? Nope. Any other CPU maker - Qualcomm, Broadcomm, Atmel, Toshiba, Texas Instruments, IBM, Freescale? Nope. Any company who has been directly affected by their anti-competitive practices? Nope.

The EU gets all the money. Well that fixes everything, then. Good job, EU.

Re:Fines

[ShanghaiBill]

The EU gets all the money. Well that fixes everything, then. Good job, EU.

The Germans are getting even for WW2.

Re:Fines

[Tough Love]

One word: deterrent.

Re:Fines

[4im]

Indeed, those fines, punishing those misbehaving, go straight
into the EU budget.

Benefitting everybody, instead of only the lawyers.

That's indeed the european way.

Intel - who's misbehavior is not in doubt - will still get
punished, the question is about a rather small detail
and will only weigh on the lump sum to be paid.

Re:Fines

[Richard_at_work]

It was the EUs market which was damaged by the actions of the company, why should anyone else get the money?

Re:Fines

[Xest]

And what do you think the EU does with the money? EU politicians don't even get remotely the income of US politicians so it's not like they're just making themselves rich off of grants like this.

EU funding goes to various projects, many are science and technology projects, and ARM has in fact successfully bid for EU research funding in the past.

So yes, good job EU. You fined a predatory company willing to abuse it's illegally obtained market position sufficiently well enough to have a deterrent effect whilst also obtaining funds from the damage caused that could go on to help stimulate further competition in the market.

This can't even be billed as an anti-US action as the summary suggests because the complaint was by and ruled in favour of another US company - AMD. This was a good example of the EU ruling impartially that market laws apply on EU territory, and that companies cannot get away with the monopoly abuse and illegal trading practices they have been allowed to get away with in the US. This complaint was about two US companies operating on EU soil, one of whom was deemed to be operating illegaly, resulting in a favourable ruling for the other US company operating in the EU.

Hopefully this is not just upheld, but the fine increased to send a message to Intel that it should be grateful it got to keep it's monopoly position for a mere $1bn the first time around - still a relatively small price to pay for illegally obtained dominance in the grand scheme of things.

Re:Fines

[thegarbz]

If by your facetious comment you think that a 30% hit on the bottom line is just waved away and doesn't have an effect on the company or a market then you're a complete moron.

Intel's net profit was $4.3bn the year of the fine.

Yeah actually good job EU. At least some government knows how to issue a fine that is relevant.

Re:Fines

[Anonymous Coward]

The EU gets all the money. Well that fixes everything, then. Good job, EU.

It doesn't, actually. Any fines levied by the EU are subtracted proportionally from the member state contributions. The EU doesn't get anything out of it. The member states do.

Re:Fines

[Anonymous Coward]

The EU gets all the money. Well that fixes everything, then. Good job, EU.

Not of Intel follows the law they don't.

Note that is the large American companies that complain. The small and medium sized ones are just fine. The same with companies from other regions.
There is something with large American companies that makes them think they should be above the law. Perhaps it is because that is how they operate back home.

Re:Fines

[JaredOfEuropa]

Was this supposed to be some weird haiku?

Re:Fines

[drinkypoo]

It was the EUs market which was damaged by the actions of the company, why should anyone else get the money?

What? That sort of thing might sound like it makes sense until you consider who makes up the market. When you say a market was damaged, what does that actually mean? Consumers pay higher prices, yes, but more important is the impact to the employees of competitors. Of course, just handing the money to the competitors won't help those people either; most of it will just end up as executive bonuses.

Re:Fines

[Anonymous Coward]

> EU politicians don't even get remotely the income of US politicians

Blatantly false; most US politicians have a significantly smaller salary than western european politicians at the same level, and in fact are lower than engineers of the same age.

> This can't even be billed as an anti-US action as the summary suggests because the complaint was by and ruled in favour of another US company - AMD.

The complaintant being a US based company has nothing at all to do with the judicial and legislative biases.

Re:Fines

[hord]

The Germans are getting even for everyone else getting even for WW2 (and WW1).

Re:Fines

[Anonymous Coward]

EU funding goes to various projects, many are science and technology projects, and ARM has in fact successfully bid for EU research funding in the past.

So yes, good job EU. You fined a predatory company willing to abuse it's illegally obtained market position sufficiently well enough to have a deterrent effect whilst also obtaining funds from the damage caused that could go on to help stimulate further competition in the market.

I'm confused why the fine goes entirely to the EU government. If Intel's actions caused AMD to lose money (or rather not earn money), some of that fine should go to AMD. If Intel hadn't engaged in those anti-competitive behaviors, AMD would've made more that money anyway. So the EU should take the stolen money and give it to AMD.

Re:Fines

[EMN13]

If you think EU fines have dubious beneficiaries (not unjustifiably so), consider that due to the existence of punitive damages in the US, the US fines far more heavily overall. E.g. banks have been fined 321 billion (!) dollars; mostly by the US due to the financial shenanigans in the crash (see e.g. https://www.bloomberg.com/news...). Similarly, VW is likely to pay a lot more in fines than a US firm would in the EU. (Not that it's weird for VW to be fined so heavily, it's just that the law isn't symmetric).

Frankly, I think the EU fines are absurdly low, especially fines such as this which undermine the whole point of capitalism in the first place. Firms have grown absurdly large, causing competition to cease in significant portions of the economy - particularly in large homogeneous markets such as the US. And as you might expect, such firms engage in rent-seeking behavior: their profits soar, while customers stagnate (again, as economics 101 dictates).

I do agree that it's problematic that there is this perverse incentive for a prosecutor to "capture" as many spoils of war as they can (on a somewhat related note, WTF asset forfeiture). Part of the problem here is the voting public - the very sentiment you're now feeling; where you're probably quietly relieved that VW is fined a lot in the US (hey, it's foreign!) but indignant that intel is elsewhere. You'd want that to be fixed, but how? There is at least some solace in that anticompetitie behavior is much, much more harmful to the US than a relatively piddling fine. Just be happy that the far more questionably fair punitive damages haven't (yet) arrived in the EU; even if the concept is fair, the distribution of "loot" surely is not.

Re:Fines

[DNS-and-BIND]

EU politicians don't even get remotely the income of US politicians so it's not like they're just making themselves rich off of grants like this.

So, how are they enriching themselves? It's got to be another way, then. We know for a fact they are, all we have to do is investigate. How many EU politicians have been put in jail by investigative journalists recently? Are European mainstream media spending resources to uncover EU corruption? If not, how is anyone ever going to find out about it?

Re:Fines

[Anonymous Coward]

Like this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/04/uk-at-centre-of-secret-3bn-azerbaijani-money-laundering-and-lobbying-scheme

Plus the usual "if you pay for this/this/that, you'll get your building permit/whatever"

Oh, and yes, some media/journalists do quite decent research...

Re:Fines

[cheesybagel]

Well AMD had a factory in Dresden, Saxony, Germany, which manufactured CPUs. In fact had Intel not screwed them over perhaps they would still own the plant instead of spinning it off as Globalfoundries.

Re:Fines

[Anonymous Coward]

...most of it will just end up as executive bonuses.

What? Why "executive bonuses"?
The corporations are missing revenue, as that's what a fine means. The bureaucrats who levy the fine don't want it (they can't have it anyway). It goes into the EU budget.

Re:Fines

[Anonymous Coward]

You sweet summer child. Did you think this was anything other than a collection of protection money?

Re: Fines

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a nazi reference in here somewhere. /snark snark

Re:Fines

[Anonymous Coward]

One word: deterrent.

It's only a deterrent if the fine exceeds the profit made by the illegal actions.

Otherwise, the fine is just the cost of doing business.

Re:Fines

[Tough Love]

Thats why nobody should be shocked when the fines keep rising.

Re:Fines

[Richard_at_work]

The market is akin to the free public pool - the swimmers both the consumers and the vendors.

When a vendor takes a shit in the deep end and the pool has to be cleaned, its the vendor who is going to be paying the fine for doing so, and its the public pool owners who are going to be receiving the money.

The other vendors are free to pursue their own actions against the naughty vendor.

Its all very abstract - at the end of the day, its the EU and its member countries which create and manage the environment in which the EU market operates, so its the EU which gets the money, and its the EU which gets to decide how that money is used.

the European model

[lucm]

Since they no longer have colonies to exploit and bleed dry, Europeans are now moving on to a new business model: arbitrary fines for successful American companies. Microsoft, Google, Intel, Apple, etc.

It would be great one day to see Europe contribute something to the world instead of just taking all the time.

Re:the European model

[burtosis]

Don't complain, at least you have fines. Here in America it typically works out to 12 cents per person involved, or 0.012% of profits, whichever is less. That is, if a fine is even happens.

Re:the European model

[Anonymous Coward]

Intel paid companies not to use AMD. That is blatant.

Re:the European model

[Anonymous Coward]

they do not restrict themselves to American companies, they do the same for local companies and any foreign company. They are pretty consistent in screwing everyone, much like the US government really, would be great if one day the US could contribute something to the world instead of just taking all the time.

Re: the European model

[easyTree]

It's just the American way. The free market in operation. It would be anti-American to punish a Intel for this, just read the other comments to see that's true.

Re:the European model

[Anonymous Coward]

What you describe is exactly what the US have been doing for years: taking foreign companies to one of their kangaroo courts and grab a few hundred million dollars, or, if possible, a couple of billions for some arbitrary violation, often not even in US jurisdiction. I don't see any evidence whatsoever for Europe doing the same thing. In fact, the European Commission seemed to be very reluctant against US companies that break the law until recently. The overwhelming majority of companies that have been fined by Brussels are European.

Re:the European model

[lucm]

would be great if one day the US could contribute something to the world

Did you post this from your iPhone? From a Dell computer? or from one of those highly successful European devices like... like... well there's so many of them.

People like you remind me of native americans who "reject" the white man way of life and insist on keeping their culture intact, while driving snowmobiles, pickup trucks and wearing jeans.

Re:the European model

[lucm]

What you describe is exactly what the US have been doing for years: taking foreign companies to one of their kangaroo courts and grab a few hundred million dollars, or, if possible, a couple of billions for some arbitrary violation, often not even in US jurisdiction.

Name three instances of that.

Re:the European model

[Anonymous Coward]

Remind me which nation invented that do-hickey that makes the iPhone go?

Re:the European model

[lucm]

that do-hickey that makes the iPhone go

Sorry, I don't speak European. Please use real English if you want normal people to understand you.

Another reason for Brexit

[Anonymous Coward]

The European Union is a dictatorship.. they have officials which are not elected and cannot be removed by the people. It is of no surprise that a win for the people is therefore being "removed" by review by unelected corrupt officials. Google is evil, and intel isn't much better. Both are colluding with government to provide illegal data on law abiding citizens. I hope they fail to remove this fine, otherwise its just more of the same.

Re: Another reason for Brexit

[cyber-vandal]

The UK is a dictatorship. Its head of state and the members of the House of Lords are unelected and cannot be removed by the people.

Bullshit biased article

[Anonymous Coward]

giving hope to Google and other American technology firms to avoid being fined for being dominant in the EU markets.

Wong, just completely wrong. The fine was for illegal practices and abusing its dominant market position.

It could also embolden American technology companies, which have long complained that antitrust officials in Europe target them unfairly,

Yes its so unfair that bribery and donations to politicians doesn't work as well as in the US.

Monopolists crying all the way to the bank...

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's recall how their treatment in the EU compares to the US: In the EU they have judicial process which merely threatens to impose fines if they continue with business as normal. In the US they were forced by government with no judicial process to licence IP to enable competitor AMD. Intel is free to cast it's IP to the wind to enable real competitive market. They no doubt prefer fines to doing that, though.

I don't see why Google giving out it's tech isn't a viable option. If anything their search is becoming progressively LESS useful to users due to being manipulated to suit Google's agenda. The underlying tech can be freed and administered by whoever willing/able to operate the required server farms, and who knows, actually deliver the best most accurate search without being clouded by corrupt interests.

I'd bang that.

Re:Monopolists crying all the way to the bank...

[thegarbz]

They no doubt prefer fines to doing that, though.

The fine in this case was around 25% of the profit they made that year. Anyone would rather take the IP licensing deal than hand over that kind of money.

Monopolists crying all the way to the bank...

[mutantSushi]

Let's recall how their treatment in the EU compares to the US: In the EU they have judicial process which merely threatens to impose fines if they continue with business as normal. In the US they were forced by government with no judicial process to licence IP to enable competitor AMD. Intel is free to cast it's IP to the wind to enable real competitive market. They no doubt prefer fines to doing that, though.

I don't see why Google giving out it's tech isn't a viable option. If anything their search is becoming progressively LESS useful to users due to being manipulated to suit Google's agenda. The underlying tech can be freed and administered by whoever willing/able to operate the required server farms, and who knows, actually deliver the best most accurate search without being clouded by corrupt interests.

I'd bang that.

dominant? intel?

[Anonymous Coward]

avoid being fined for being dominant in the EU markets

Dominant? Intel is almost a niche player in the CPU market now. x86 is selling roughly 220 million units per year, and some of that is AMD sales. ARM is about 1980 million CPUs per year. On top of that, x86 sales are losing market share and ARM is gaining.

Even if you look JUST at server sales, which is a tiny fraction of CPUs market, ARM is closing in on 20% total market share, and rising fast, expected to hit 25% by 2020.

Meta comment

[easyTree]

I notice a trend of the summary stating ' the source may be pay-walled, here's an alternate source'. Why not simply skip the pay-walled source?

Re:Meta comment

[cdreimer]

The paywalled article was quoted in the summary. The alternative source may not have been available at submission and added later by the editor. Sometimes the alternative source is completely different (i.e., a summary about the paywalled article), or identical with sister publications like The Wall Street Journal (paywalled) and Fox News (non-paywalled) sharing content.

Re: Meta comment

[easyTree]

Ok. Thanks for the heads-up :D

Follow-up question, what is the value to the readers of an information-sharing site in posting links to sites which restrict the viewing of 'their' information to the small subset who'll pay?

Are we soon to have news in Latin to further refine the readership?

Re: Meta comment

[Anonymous Coward]

It is of value to those who do have the necessary subscription to get past the paywall. That is assuming there is extra information in the paywalled version.

If an article was originally posted in Latin, or any other language than English, it would also be appropriate to include that link for those who can read it. Plus a link to a translated version.

It is about including all relevant information, even if not everyone can make use of it. Should an article referencing a highly technical scientific paper, not also have a link to that paper, even if it is freely available, just because only a subset of readers will be able to understand it?

Re: Meta comment

[easyTree]

It is about including all relevant information, even if not everyone can make use of it. Should an article referencing a highly technical scientific paper, not also have a link to that paper, even if it is freely available, just because only a subset of readers will be able to understand it?

I have no figures on the proportion of users having access to particular pay-walled sites. Might one reasonably assume that for each it would be less than 50% ? If so, I would consider the pay-walled article a poor choice for the primary source, absenting a much higher vitamin content compared to the alternatives.

If there are no artificial barriers to access a particular source, the reader has the opportunity to research around the topic enough to understand any information presented, using those parts of the internet which haven't had pay-walls erected around them - so of course, natural variations in readers shouldn't be normalized.

Information wants to be free. When opaque clouds obscure connections in information-space, everyone suffers; it's not reasonable to pay in the hope that the information you require is present behind the wall, unless refunds are granted and compensation for wasted time offered.

Re: the responsible individuals

[easyTree]

I misread your post as 'blah blah, I encourage you to censor me to -1, blah blah.'

Re: the responsible individuals

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for admitting that you lack basic comprehension skills.

A technicality

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt that the fine will actually end up being reduced. If there was a realistic chance that a more extensive analysis would have favoured Intel, it would have been conducted.

Basically, Intel just gets a boost to its share value for a couple of quarters until the original judgement is upheld.

Lying

[Anonymous Coward]

fined for being dominant in the EU markets.

Stop lying, you fat cunt.

Re:dominant? intel?

[Boutzev]

Can't you read ? The judgement was about uncompetitive behaviour in 2009 - at that time Intel was pretty much dominant in the server and desktop markets.

The situation may have changed since but that doesn't make them any less liable for what they did in 2009. Imagine a thief that did a bank robery in 2009 and since then he is an honorable person, working hard and contributing to society. He is still liable for what he did in the past, even if his behaviour changed (and Intel hasn't really changed their behavior - the market has changed towards mobile).

"being fined for being dominant in the EU markets"

[citizenr]

Is author of this garbage news post retarded? or being paid by Intel?

Intel was fined for DIRECTLY BRIBING computer manufacturers/resellers in exchange for not selling AMD parts.

Re: the responsible individuals

[easyTree]

No problem, as philosopher Dirty Harry said, A man's gotta know his limitations.

For those who think the EU is anti US

[houghi]

For those who think the EU is anti US, they are not. It is just that the US companies keep breaking the law.

Perhaps European brewers (Carslberg, Heineken and AB InBev as the largests) should start selling beer to people of the age where it is legal in the home country of that company and then say that the US is after EU companies.

Re:For those who think the EU is anti US

[afidel]

Google literally followed the guidance set by the Microsoft settlement and allowed the user choice in setting things like search provider in Android and yet they got hit with a huge fine, kinda hard to avoid massive fines when you follow the guidance set the last time the issue came up and still get hit.

Re:"being fined for being dominant in the EU marke

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, author is probably a brainwashed American who thinks any sort of interference by anything as pesky as reasonable rule of law, or customer-focussed regulation is "being penalised".

Damn European commies, letting their government keep corporations in line. Don't they know corporations are completely trustworthy so long as they keep paying their shareholders?

When suddenly

[Dunbal]

Someone is enjoying their new house and pension fund. With Intel inside!

Market

[JBMcB]

It was the EUs market which was damaged by the actions of the company, why should anyone else get the money?

You could make an argument that the EU was indirectly affected by Intel's practices, as it did restrict competition but it didn't make it impossible to buy computers with AMD chips. They were available, just less available than Intel systems. At worst, it was inconvenient to buy an AMD based system.

AMD was DIRECTLY affected by this practice. Not being able to sell their chips to a few major computer manufacturers directly impacted their market share.

So if you measured the impact, in my opinion, the customer's damages would be, maybe, a few million dollars. What was the ultimate impact - you couldn't buy an HP laptop with an AMD processor? You had to buy a Dell or Lenovo? Does the average consumer care that much?

Now, if you are talking about a billion dollars in damages, that sounds like the effects of AMD's loss of market share. So why isn't AMD getting any of the money?

Re:Market

[DRJlaw]

Now, if you are talking about a billion dollars in damages, that sounds like the effects of AMD's loss of market share. So why isn't AMD getting any of the money?

Because AMD didn't sue Intel for violations of competition law in the reported action.

You act as if there can only be one suit against Intel for their behavior. But a governmental authority can file suit against Intel on behalf of itself as the soverign authority, a competitor can file suit against Intel on behalf of itself, and, on occasion, a citizen or group of citizens can file suit against Intel for their own injuries (not a European attorney, no idea whether they provide for consumer actions).

Re:Market

[JBMcB]

But a governmental authority can file suit against Intel on behalf of itself as the soverign authority, a competitor can file suit against Intel on behalf of itself, and, on occasion, a citizen or group of citizens can file suit against Intel for their own injuries (not a European attorney, no idea whether they provide for consumer actions).

I understand all of that. My issue is that the damages awarded seems to be in line with the effects on AMD, not the average European consumer. Do you think the EU, as a whole, experienced over a billion dollars worth of economic damage because you couldn't buy specific brands of computers with an AMD processor? The EU didn't even miss out on tax revenue, they collect taxes on systems whether they have AMD or Intel chips.

So even a hundred million dollar fine I could see. A billion? That's insane.

Re: Market

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you think Intel blocking competition did to prices?

Re:Market

[Rockoon]

The effect on AMD was much larger than a $billion. AMD even had to spin off its fabs to stay afloat.

The fine should have been enough to almost destroy Intel, just as Intels actions were almost enough to destroy AMD.

Re:Market

[cheesybagel]

Oh AMD did sue Intel alright. It's just that the lawsuit was settled out of court for a huge payment by Intel (Intel to pay AMD $1.25 billion in antitrust settlement).

Re:Market

[cheesybagel]

If you compare Intel's prices while they had competition and while they didn't, CPU prices easily went double because of it. AMD had their main CPU factories in Dresden, Germany, so yes it did impact the EU directly when Intel managed to reduce AMD's sales with uncompetitive practices.

Re: the responsible individuals

[easyTree]

Uhh.. A man's got to know his limitations.

Re:dominant? intel?

[afidel]

No, ARM is fading fast in the server market, there were predictions of double digit market penetration but they've come to nothing. They're literally a rounding error in the graphs and that's by unit sales, by profits they're not even worth mentioning. As far as total CPU market, Intel's still the leader in revenue if you discount Apple (they don't sell a CPU, they sell a complete device and software ecosystem).