Intel still hasn't paid AMD the 1.2 billion USD anti-trust fine

Subject: General Tech | June 22, 2016 - 01:33 PM |
Tagged: Intel, amd, antitrust

This is a saga for the ages and a snit worthy of any 2 year old child.  11 years ago AMD filed suit against Intel citing questionable business tactics Intel had been using worldwide.  Intel was offering discounted parts to retailers if they would use Intel chips exclusively.  For instance, if a company like Dell offered an AMD alternative then Intel would raise the price of every Intel component sold to Dell across the board.  This is, of course, illegal. 

The court cases were settled in 2009, in the US Intel agreed to pay AMD $1.25 billion USD to settle all outstanding court cases in the US and several overseas.  In the UK there was a seperate court case which also went against Intel, the courts there requiring Intel to pay AMD  €1.06bn, the largest ever fine in the UK.  Since then Intel has been fighting tooth and nail to find a way not to pay the fine and while they have not succeeded in their legal battle they have succeeded in not paying AMD one single cent.  Their initial appeal was dismissed in 2014 but that has not stopped Intel from delaying the payment and as of today that fine still remains unpaid.  The Inquirer posted today about their latest challenge to the ruling, Intel's legal team claims that it somehow unfair to be punished for unfair business practices.

Six years on and over 1 billion dollars that should be AMDs is still under a couch cushion in Intel's offices somewhere.

View Full Size

"CHIPMAKER Intel ain't giving up and continues to fight the €1.06bn (around £815m) antitrust fine levied on the firm six years ago."

Here is some more Tech News from around the web:

Tech Talk

Source: The Inquirer

June 22, 2016 | 02:08 PM - Posted by toddincabo

I thought that the EC (European Commission) were to receive this money for themselves = the people, not AMD.

AMD got a settlement payment from a US judgement against Intel years ago, this being a separate lawsuit against Intel solely by the EC.

I hope I'm wrong and AMD gets infused with over a billion. That would be sweet for paying off debt and R&D to keep competition rolling.

June 22, 2016 | 11:30 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Yes It's and EU fine, and not an Intel to AMD damage award, but maybe the EU will use the money to require that all the brick and mortar stores to carry some AMD APU based laptops. You hear that Staples and others, that is what the US justice department should have required in the US, as Intel in collusion with some OEMs/Retailers was paying to have Intel's products in stock/inside of laptops to the detriment of AMD.

That 1.2 billion or so dollars of US settlement cash to AMD was little more than a slap on the hand for Intel, and the co-conspirators with Intel(OEM/retail outlets) should have been required to maintain and produce AMD based laptop options with comparable LCD screen/other laptop/PC options to the ones with Intel inside. The real punishment was never properly dealt with by that relatively small damage payment by Intel in the US, there should have been a requirement that stores, and OEMs have some AMD CPU/APU options available, especially for laptops where the end users are stuck with what the OEM provides, if the user want's or needs a laptop and not a PC!

Intel got off cheap with that fine, and even if they have to pay the EU fine, because AMD lost billions more in direct sales losses and market share losses, and that market share loss was the most damaging to AMD, and the consumer market end users of all PC/Laptops that should have been less expensive and had better features no matter who's CPU/APU/SOC was inside. That lack of fair competitive marketplace for PC/Laptop APU/SOC/CPU parts cost everybody more in the long run, many more billions than any Intel damage award, or EU fine.

June 22, 2016 | 04:13 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Dude, jeremey, SHUT THE FUCK UP FAGGOT.

June 22, 2016 | 04:25 PM - Posted by Jeremy Hellstrom

At least spell my name right while attempting to engage in douchebaggery

June 23, 2016 | 08:12 AM - Posted by Bri (not verified)

Just implement something like Disqus and then we can perma-ban the guy!

June 23, 2016 | 12:41 PM - Posted by DK76 (not verified)

Jeremy, don't be bothered by this troll. I like reading your post to the website. I also get your dry sense of humor, unlike some i guess. Also you ability to recall old tech is astounding on the show...

PS. Ryan should remove his/her/its comment...

June 23, 2016 | 01:22 PM - Posted by Jeremy Hellstrom

Funny story ... I'm actually the one who chews through the comments for spam and threats.

June 22, 2016 | 05:10 PM - Posted by Butthurt Beluga

I have to wonder how long the charade can go on with this guy.
I'm not going to lie, he's immensely entertaining.

@Jeremy, why not just IP ban this guy? How long has he been doing this, six months or more now?
I mean it's hilarious don't get me wrong but I'm sure it could be off-putting to some readers seeing something like this as the first comment on every AMD-related article

June 22, 2016 | 09:43 PM - Posted by Jeremy Hellstrom

Wouldn't really work, someone who puts this much effort into proving they are a waste of oxygen will take the time to play with proxies to ensure that a permanent record of their immaturity exists in a written form.  Sadly these, appear not to be a single poster either.  The death threats do get removed though.

If you can laugh at them like I do then enjoy the fringe benefits, otherwise stick with one of the basic rules of the internet, never read the comments.

 

June 23, 2016 | 05:41 AM - Posted by burn-the-trolls (not verified)

This dude may be manageable for you but he's certainly abusing other people. It's likely he finds vulnerable looking individuals who can't deal with him and targets them for harassment. I'm thinking the various people who end up on the receiving end of the Internet hate machine.

I'm certain there are a lot of long term PC perspective readers like me who'd love to burn a few trolls. I personally think fixing Internet bullying is going to be a major generational issue for people who're 8-18 today.

Might fire off abuse complaints toward his IP regardless of proxy/VPN?

June 23, 2016 | 01:40 PM - Posted by Jeremy Hellstrom

Deleting comments is a form of playing with these pseudo-trolls and does indeed encourage them, indifference drives them utterly nuts though which is why I tend to disdain them completely.  I understand some will be driven off by the immaturity but at the same time I am not about to start creating a 'safe space' for people ... Butters just needs more intestinal fortitude. ;) 

At the same time it is a major problem which needs to be addressed at a societal level, I can remember long ago when parents, teachers and the community in general actually got off their asses and taught their children how to be a part of society but now it seems that is the job of "someone else".

It would be truly hilarious if these comments were somehow passed on to their parents and were there to bite them in the ass 10-20 years from now when they attempt to prove they are worthy to join society though, wouldn't it?

I miss the good old days when a troll was a troll and Rustys were ... well that is hard to describe.

June 24, 2016 | 03:03 AM - Posted by burn-the-trolls (not verified)

Yeah, back in the day my mom went over my Internet history and if she had ever seen me posting like that at someone she would have made me send a hand written apology card after a phone call.

Then I'd have had all of my computer equipment taken out of my room for 3-6 months.

And then when I got it back I'd have to manage my own spyware on penalty of it all being thrown in the trash.

But I never did anything like that because my parents raised me right.

June 23, 2016 | 02:38 PM - Posted by -- (not verified)

you actually get death threats over tech articles?

June 23, 2016 | 03:57 PM - Posted by Jeremy Hellstrom

Yup ... kids these days are really special.

June 23, 2016 | 07:10 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Wow, that is pathetic...

Fell off the shortbus special...

June 22, 2016 | 06:54 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Shouldn't you be in school?

Wouldn't your mother slap the crap out of you for talking like that? No wonder you post anonymously. "Nuh uh, Mom, that isn't me! I promise!"

I hope you contract a particularly painful form of dick cancer before your 11th birthday.

June 23, 2016 | 12:51 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I bet his dad abuses him. He`s the type with missing teeth from being kok slapped repeatedly lololol

FFFFUUUUU INTEL

June 22, 2016 | 08:55 PM - Posted by Alamo

i have a feeling that if someone tracks down your ip, you will turn out to be a member of pcper :D
i have 2 names in mind but wont say them :p

June 23, 2016 | 12:47 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I bet you wouldn't say that to someone's face you, bcoz if you did; Man (I mean kid) I would kock slap your teeth out. ROFLMAO loooool

Leave Jeronimo alone

June 23, 2016 | 02:48 PM - Posted by robertk (not verified)

why you are acting like that ?
trying to understand, why you need act that way !

June 22, 2016 | 04:40 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Show AMD the Money ... you F Intel!

June 22, 2016 | 04:56 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Usually courts tag interest on for that very reason.

But with Intel's PC business slowing down, they're probably either waiting for AMD to die or for themselves to shrink so they can just declare bankruptcy and not actually pay it at all.

June 22, 2016 | 07:44 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Do you even research? Intel paid AMD the settlement in 2009.

Here is the proof: http://i.imgur.com/yIfKofs.png
http://i.imgur.com/GrnlQUq.png

But yeah... "journalism"

June 22, 2016 | 09:33 PM - Posted by Jeremy Hellstrom

Correct, they paid the US fine.  They have not payed the fine the UK courts handed out, which is what this post is actually about.

 

June 22, 2016 | 09:46 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Aaaand once again, the very thing you're accusing the author of - not doing research - you are in fact guilty of yourself. Apparently you didn't bother to even read the article before you commented, you just read the headline and yelled, "NUH UH!"

What's the URL to your highly-successful, frequently-referenced, well-respected tech news and review site? I mean, you know so much more than the PCPer writers do, right? Go on, give us the link, show us you really know how it's SUPPOSED to be done.

Oh, what's that? You don't have one? You're just another anonymous loser on the internet who thinks insulting the PCPer writers will make you feel better about yourself? Gee, what a surprise.

June 22, 2016 | 10:02 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/technology/companies/13chip.html?_r=0

"By STEVE LOHR and JAMES KANTERNOV. 12, 2009
The giant chip maker Intel, facing antitrust challenges around the world, announced on Thursday that it would pay $1.25 billion to settle its long-running disputes with its smaller rival, Advanced Micro Devices.

The settlement, covering both antitrust and patent claims, ends the computer industry’s most bitter legal war. ..."

June 23, 2016 | 01:23 PM - Posted by Jeremy Hellstrom

LOL, thanks.

June 22, 2016 | 10:03 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

that does not mean that Intel actually made payment to AMD. It only means they set aside the amount, usually in escrow, to be dispersed at a "later time".

June 22, 2016 | 10:19 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/184323-intel-stuck-with-1-45-billio...

"For years, Intel has quietly fought a battle to dodge the EU’s ruling that it abused its dominant market position and damaged AMD. Today, it lost that fight. The EU has affirmed that the case was properly decided in 2009, and that the fine of 1.06 billion euros (around $1.45 billion) was proportionate. This fine is in addition to the $1.25 billion settlement that Intel ponied up in 2009 following an FTC investigation in the US.

The EU’s second-highest court states: “The General Court considers that none of the arguments raised by Intel supports the conclusion that the fine imposed is disproportionate. On the contrary, it must be considered that that fine is appropriate in the light of the facts of the case.”

Intel, obviously, disagrees and has strenuously argued the contrary — but a review of the 542-page EU findings of fact in the case make that argument untenable.
..."

Please read. This was a very hot topic during 2009. In 2009, AMD sold its FABs to GF and signed a 285-page document with GF.

June 22, 2016 | 09:19 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Intel paid AMD $1.24 billion dollars in 2009. Intel also paid EU $1.46 billion dollars or 1.06 billion euros.

Intel's first appeal was denied. This is the second and the last appeal to reduce or eliminate fines by the EU.

I think the author of this article has not done research.

Anyway, Intel's chance of winning is slim to none.

June 23, 2016 | 12:10 AM - Posted by Chaython (not verified)

I sure hope they will sue for legal fees and interest/inflation for delaying

June 23, 2016 | 09:06 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Lol att all the Intel fanbois who cry in this thread. Most are likely Nvidida fanbois however who just hate AMD for a reason and never owned an AMD product, as most or them are to young to remember this court case.

Your world is shattered now isn't it?

June 26, 2016 | 04:07 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

People here are confusing two different court cases; and thge author of the article has given it a misleading Title.

There was an Government Anti-Trust suit against Intel over a decade ago, filed against them by governments such as the EU. They lost this, and they did pay.

Then there was also a CIVIL Anti-Trust lawsuit filed against Intel by AMD. That is what this Article is about, the CIVIL lawsuit; the payment for which goes to AMD.... not to any particular government and not to the EU.

Intel however has worked tooth and nail to sweep this Civil Suit under a rug, hence why so few people actually know about it and keep confusing it with the seperate Government Anti-Trust suit.

July 1, 2016 | 11:50 AM - Posted by Mike Bruzzone (not verified)

Constitution cases against Intel have begun to trickle out in the United States, primarily for substantiative due process violations that are associated with network crime actors including Intel employees who are attorneys, and other jurists, manipulating the court and law system.

The manipulations appear to aid the Entity that is Intel Corp, escape up to 23 United States Federal statute violations, some continuing in part, associated with either executive antitrust or racketeering.

Also to enable civil and consumer harm’s recovery associated with 82 consumer actions filed parallel EUCC Comp 37.990, to roll off the table reaching their statute of limits.

The constitution and related filings are counters to the law system and corporate political manipulation occurring for some time.

The United States Congress aware of anomalies since 2007 has begun some sort of nascent investigation.

Mike Bruzzone, Camp Marketing

July 28, 2017 | 01:35 PM - Posted by Dude (not verified)

Both the Inquirer and this article are wrong. There was an US-based Intel-AMD issue and an adittional Intel-EC issue. Intel and AMD solved the first with a settlement signed by both companies with Intel paying AMD $1.25 billion.

The Intel-EC issue continues open because Intel did appeal the resolution. At then end, Intel will surely lose the issue and will have to pay the $1.06 billion mentioned in the Inquirer article. But this is money that Intel will pay to EC, not to AMD.

July 28, 2017 | 01:52 PM - Posted by Dude (not verified)

A self-correction. The Inquirer article is right, because only mentions the EC. It is this article which confused things and created the false headline.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote><p><br>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.