Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 27th Jul 2007 09:45 UTC, submitted by JK
Intel "As suspected, the European Union formally lodged antitrust charges against Intel, accusing the CPU maker of using illegal methods to compete against its main rival AMD. "I can confirm the statement of objections has been sent," European Commission spokesperson Ton Van Lierop said in a statement given to Reuters. This action represents the culmination of years of antitrust investigation by the EU - and is likely beginning of a very unpleasant experience for Intel. While the exact Statement of Objection has not yet been made public, the EU charges that Intel used illegal methods to coerce OEM computer manufacturers to ship systems with Intel rather than AMD processors."
Thread beginning with comment 258672
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: EU sucks
by BryanFeeney on Fri 27th Jul 2007 13:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: EU sucks"
Member since:

Actually, the US did find Microsoft guilty of anti-trust. Then Microsoft appealed, complaining about the derison with which Judge Jackson had met their case (which was a complete shambles, and included Jim Allchin being caught perjuring himself). Before the appeal got underway, George Bush became president, and instituted a business friendly policy. Nevertheless, the appeals court upheld all the original judgments from the original trial; however because of the new business-friendly policy, they scrapped all the penalties, letting Microsoft off scot-free.

The different between the US and the EU, is that in most countries in the EU, and in the EU as a whole, there is a wide gap between the executive branch and the judiciary, which makes it extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, for politicians to affect the outcome of legal trials. For example, most countries in the EU don't give the president / prime-minister the right to pardon criminals.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[5]: EU sucks
by n4cer on Fri 27th Jul 2007 14:29 in reply to "RE[4]: EU sucks"
n4cer Member since:

Anyone actually following the case would know that the political change had nothing to do with MS' successes. Read the transcripts. It was the severe lack of evidence from MS' "competitors". They tried to make a case based on pure supposition ("MS could do this...") rather than facts ("MS did do this..."), could not prove in many cases that any claimed anti-competitive behavior outweighed consumer and market benefit or lacked technical merit (e.g., IE integration), and offered remedies that were harmful to consumers and third-party vendors, and were unimplementable (e.g., ripping out IE and not accounting for the loss of functionality in ISV applications, or suggesting MS distribute 67 CDs worth of Windows builds in various configurations). They also tried to blame MS for their own coding errors (e.g., both Apple and Real tried to blame MS for breaking their software when in both cases the breaks were caused by coding errors in their own products that MS helped them fix).

About the only issues related to that case that stuck were the Java copyright infringement issues which MS chose not to go back and argue, and the OEM contract issues. The difference between the US and EC is that the EC has no problems covering for the ineptness of MS' competitors.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[6]: EU sucks
by rcsteiner on Fri 27th Jul 2007 15:35 in reply to "RE[5]: EU sucks"
rcsteiner Member since:

Your statement is incorrect. Microsoft was found guilty of monopoly abuse, and the appeals court did not overturn that. The Findings of Fact in the original case are still valid -- they were upheld in their entirety through the entire appeals process in the US.

The FoF document is here:

and you can read more than you probably want to about the US versus Microsoft anti-trust case here:

Reply Parent Score: 4