http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-301938.html
AMD has not ruled out moving its battle against Intel's antitrust behavior onto Australian soil.
"AMD said it had never filed an antitrust complaint against Intel in Australia, but would not confirm or deny whether the company would consider filing a complaint in the country given the European win."
----------------------
It will also be interesting to see what the new justice department does in terms of setting a different policy toward antitrust enforcement in the US. The FTC is currently probing Intel.
http://www.businessweek.com/te...0511_348063_page_2.htm
How Intel holds onto its dominant market share is at the core of AMD's complaints to regulators. Intel held 77.3% of worldwide PC microprocessor shipments in the first quarter, compared with 22.3% for AMD, according to market researcher International Data Corp. AMD contends it doesn't hold a larger piece of the market because of subsidies Intel pays to computer makers to reimburse them for advertising costs, and because of threats to stop the payments if vendors don't buy enough from Intel. Mike Silverman, a spokesman for AMD, said in an e-mail that the company is "encouraged that the FTC is conducting a serious investigation," and called on it and the Justice Dept. to "investigate thoroughly" its claims.
-----------------------------
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124220736617414635.html
Intel has blamed AMD for stirring up government scrutiny, and argued that any problems at its rival have stemmed from AMD's own missteps rather than actions by Intel. But now three regulatory bodies that have examined evidence from computer makers -- in Europe, Japan and South Korea -- have dismissed Intel's arguments.................Intel said it would challenge Wednesday's decision at the Luxembourg-based Court of First Instance. The court process is likely to take years.
The appeal will be a tough struggle. If the facts back up the EU's charges, a dominant company paying rebates to keep a competitor out of a market is a "pretty classic exclusion case," said John Pheasant, an antitrust lawyer in London at the firm Hogan & Hartson.
Interesting.
John
AMD has not ruled out moving its battle against Intel's antitrust behavior onto Australian soil.
"AMD said it had never filed an antitrust complaint against Intel in Australia, but would not confirm or deny whether the company would consider filing a complaint in the country given the European win."
----------------------
It will also be interesting to see what the new justice department does in terms of setting a different policy toward antitrust enforcement in the US. The FTC is currently probing Intel.
http://www.businessweek.com/te...0511_348063_page_2.htm
How Intel holds onto its dominant market share is at the core of AMD's complaints to regulators. Intel held 77.3% of worldwide PC microprocessor shipments in the first quarter, compared with 22.3% for AMD, according to market researcher International Data Corp. AMD contends it doesn't hold a larger piece of the market because of subsidies Intel pays to computer makers to reimburse them for advertising costs, and because of threats to stop the payments if vendors don't buy enough from Intel. Mike Silverman, a spokesman for AMD, said in an e-mail that the company is "encouraged that the FTC is conducting a serious investigation," and called on it and the Justice Dept. to "investigate thoroughly" its claims.
-----------------------------
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124220736617414635.html
Intel has blamed AMD for stirring up government scrutiny, and argued that any problems at its rival have stemmed from AMD's own missteps rather than actions by Intel. But now three regulatory bodies that have examined evidence from computer makers -- in Europe, Japan and South Korea -- have dismissed Intel's arguments.................Intel said it would challenge Wednesday's decision at the Luxembourg-based Court of First Instance. The court process is likely to take years.
The appeal will be a tough struggle. If the facts back up the EU's charges, a dominant company paying rebates to keep a competitor out of a market is a "pretty classic exclusion case," said John Pheasant, an antitrust lawyer in London at the firm Hogan & Hartson.
Interesting.
John