EU to find Intel anti-competitive: sources

Inte logol EU antitrust regulators are expected to say this week that Intel Corp illegally paid computer makers to postpone or cancel the launch of products containing chips made by its main rival, sources familiar with the case said on Sunday.

The European Commission is set to decide on Wednesday to fine the world's largest chipmaker and order changes to its business practices for what the EU executive sees as "naked restrictions" to competition, the sources said.

There was no indication of how big a fine might be levied. The largest fine levied by the EC for an abuse of market dominance was the 497 million euros ($655 million) demanded from Microsoft on March 24, 2004.

The sources said the Brussels-based Commission is expected to rule that Intel committed two violations in which the firm abused its dominance of the market for central processing units, the chips at the heart of the world's 1 billion personal computers.

The EU executive will say Intel gave rebates to computer makers to restrict or eliminate the use of chips made by its rival, Advanced Micro Devices, and provided other inducements to retailers to sell only machines with Intel CPUs.

In its ruling the Commission will order Intel to end by a specific date those rebates which it deems to be illegal, the sources said.

In its second finding, the Commission will say Intel paid PC makers to delay or scrap the launch of products containing AMD chips. The Commission will characterize the payments as "naked restrictions" to competition, the sources said.

The Commission will state that the violations occurred during a period stretching back eight years, they said.

In committing the first violation, Intel set percentages of its own chips that it wanted PC makers to use, the sources said.

For example, NEC Corp was told that 20 percent of its desktop and notebook machines could have AMD chips, the sources said.

All Lenovo notebooks had to use Intel chips, as did relevant Dell products. The figure was 95 percent for Hewlett-Packard's business desktops, they said.

European Commission spokesman Jonathan Todd said the commission had no comment. Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy, speaking by telephone from California also declined to comment.

The EU executive charged Intel in 2007 over illegal rebates to computer makers. In July last year, it charged the firm with paying retailers not to sell PCs using AMD chips.

Intel has said repeatedly it has done nothing wrong.

Source: Reuters

Tags: AMD, Intel

Comments
Add comment

Your name:
Sign in with:
or
Your comment:


Enter code:

E-mail (not required)
E-mail will not be disclosed to the third party


Last news

 
Consumer group recommends iPhone 8 over anniversary model
 
LTE connections wherever you go and instant waking should come to regular PCs, too
 
That fiction is slowly becoming a reality
 
The Snapdragon 845 octa-core SoC includes the Snapdragon X20 LTE modem
 
Human moderators can help make YouTube a safer place for everyone
 
Google says Progressive Web Apps are the future of app-like webpages
 
All 2018 models to sport the 'notch'
 
The biggest exchange in South Korea, where the BTC/KRW pair is at $14,700 now
The Samsung Galaxy A5 (2017) Review
The evolution of the successful smartphone, now with a waterproof body and USB Type-C
February 7, 2017 /
Samsung Galaxy TabPro S - a tablet with the Windows-keyboard
The first Windows-tablet with the 12-inch display Super AMOLED
June 7, 2016 /
Keyboards for iOS
Ten iOS keyboards review
July 18, 2015 /
Samsung E1200 Mobile Phone Review
A cheap phone with a good screen
March 8, 2015 / 4
Creative Sound Blaster Z sound card review
Good sound for those who are not satisfied with the onboard solution
September 25, 2014 / 2
Samsung Galaxy Gear: Smartwatch at High Price
The first smartwatch from Samsung - almost a smartphone with a small body
December 19, 2013 /
 
 

News Archive

 
 
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      




Poll

Do you use microSD card with your phone?
or leave your own version in comments (4)