Logically, after finding the case, Intel was able to present all the allegations that were in place to avoid paying a fine. To this day, he insists optional discounts He did that in 2009 did not have a negative impact on AMD, although they set strict limits on how many types of AMD could be sold.
Intel's argument is that these companies were potential OEM manufacturers and that they covered only a portion of the market, AMD had limited availability, and there was nothing in European law citing that Intel's own discounts were competitive – unreliable
In fact, Intel was accused of reaching agreements with OEMs there giving them the opportunity to use only their testers on the computers they have sold, an agreement that also stated that they would not be able to sell AMD systems. Logic says this is obviously an unfair competition, but it seems the law says otherwise.
What’s happening in 2017?
When assessing whether a company has illegal competition, the EU uses what is known as AEC exam (As an Equal Opportunity Manager). Generally, this test is intended to measure whether the other's "competitive advantage" is determined in the market by the activities of a large company. From this it is evident that Intel's most prominent company, and its successful competitor is AMD.
In 2009, when the European Commission found that Intel's conduct of such agreements with OEMs It has badly hurt the restrictions on the sale of AMD products, this AEC test was done even though it was unnecessary and unnecessary.
However, when Intel filed a lawsuit in the High Court in 2014, it raised some issues in the AEC's analysis, saying it was improperly done and said it was due to AMD's limitations on its Amazon sales process.
However, the High Court did not include the importance of the AEC examination report, because the document was not a legal fact finding. Because the Supreme Court decided not to consider this AEC test as evidence, it also chose not to consider Intel's objections to its performance, which brought the situation new deadline.
This was not a violation of the law or a legal precedent (for now); Prior to Intel's decision in 2017, there was no need for the Supreme Court to consider the information provided by the company in relation to whether it violated anti-monopoly law. The EC had voluntarily provided the document as a supplement.
Prior to 2017, the use of special discounts to maintain customer loyalty was taken as evidence of prima facie of bad behavior and anti-competitiveness. The EC also stressed that Intel's criticism of the AEC report extends to attempts to challenge the conclusions already in the earlier case, and as a result it was rejected.
In 2017 all of this changed. The decision of the European Court of Justice has ruled that the Supreme Court erred in ignoring Intel's arguments regarding the AEC report, remanding the case to a lower court for reconsideration, considering Intel's objection. Also, in the first place.
Now Intel may not want to win this case.
Now in 2020 Intel continues to compete with the same point it made in 2017: the AEC test is gone and they weren't really hurting AMD in any way. As evidence, Intel points to the fact that Dell has adopted AMD processors
If Intel wins this case, it's possible the antitrust and unfair competition law of the European Union will be weakened. The old level of analysis emphasized the composition and nature of illegal settlements, and required no evidence that a competitive risk had occurred to the injured company. The ECJ's decision did not challenge Intel over the refund, though it ordered a new trial.
Here is the problem. Forcing the EC to conduct a comprehensive economic analysis of any data provided by a major technology company will make investigating these companies more difficult. It significantly increases the burden and complexity of the evidence it will make the EC's efforts to control giants like Google or Qualcomm fail.
What Is Intel's Inappropriate Competition?
AMD's original lawsuit against Intel was based in the United States, and is an example that illustrates the abuse of market power. Although the first presentation, in 2005, was in the US instead of Europe, Intel's plans to reduce AMD sales took place in different markets. Here's an example of how much control – so-called – Intel used:
"After two years of negotiations, Supermicro finally agreed to launch with the AMD Opteron technology server. However, he feared Intel's retaliation and this development did not happen in its large factories but almost privately. In addition, it prevented AMD from advertising the product or When launching the Intelon in April 2005, Intermicro banned its newly launched Opteron products to just 60 of its customers, and promoted them with a brochure that didn't even have their name or logo and under the emblem "Confidentiality and confidentiality."
AMD has introduced some potential controversy over Intel in this regard, and that Intel's special refund system not only limits AMD's market share, but also limits markets where AMD can sell parts and prices that it can charge.
AMD and Intel eventually settled the lawsuit, Intel paying AMD $ 1.25 billion and revising the x86 license terms. The allegations of AMD's filing against Intel have yet to be approved, but the ECJ stressed in 2017 that Intel's discounts on the alternative were a misuse of power.
In short: Providing discounts to OEMs for using their own products is against European law, and there is nothing else. Also, the EC will now have to take a closer look at Intel to find out if there was any improper competition, too this could lay the groundwork for future destabilizing events that are taking place in Europe.
Now, has Intel hurt AMD in this unfair competition? No doubt yes. However, in addition to the $ 1.25 billion already accumulated by AMD for compensation, the renaming of the x86 license terms was what allowed AMD to leave its industry, something that was previously denied by the agreement, and when AMD also benefited greatly.
