Intel Just Asked the EU For $624 Million To Pay It Back For Overturned Anti-AMD Fine (pcgamer.com) 46
Intel is seeking to be paid interest of $624 million on the overturned $1.1 billion fine it received from the European Commission back in 2009. From a report: The antitrust ruling was overturned at the beginning of the year, and so Intel has gone to EU General Court seeking compensation and interest on the fine. In fact, Intel is claiming back almost half of that original fine, based on the European Central Bank's refinancing rates. In case you need a reminder on all of this: Intel allegedly took part in anti-competitive practices that saw it offer conditional rebates to key OEMs such as Dell, HP, and Lenovo, making it difficult for competitors (read AMD, or ARM if you prefer, but really AMD) to compete with their own CPUs. The European Commission concluded in 2009 that Intel had indeed behaved in such a way between October 2002 and December 2007 and hit it with one of the largest ever fines at the time at a cool $1.1 billion. Intel appealed the decision unsuccessfully in 2012, but in 2014 it brought the case to the European Court of Justice, which sent it back to the General Court in 2017. The case has been going back and fourth ever since.
Regulatory capture isn't enough (Score:3)
What I don't understand is why so many people enjoy being ruled over?
Re:Regulatory capture isn't enough (Score:5, Interesting)
If you really want to be a King or an Emperor in the modern age, you have to take the courts too. Which they have. What I don't understand is why so many people enjoy being ruled over?
They think the rulers are their friends. They've been convinced that living under a king you like is better than living in a democracy you share with people you don't.
It's a little more than that I think (Score:3)
This is similar to how Congress ha
Re: (Score:3)
"I like Ted Cruz more than most of my other colleagues like Ted Cruz. And I hate Ted Cruz." -- Al Franken
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The best government is a benevolent dictator, but the worst is a tyrannic dictator. All other government types exist to try to prevent the latter.
Credible citation needed.
Re: (Score:3)
This is normal in Europe. If you win an appeal like this you are able to claim interest on the fine you paid. Whenever a court administers restorative justice, interest that would have been accrued since the loss is normally awarded.
This is not unreasonable. (Score:4, Insightful)
They've been deprived of the opportunity cost of investment of that money. Ultimately they'll probably let it go if the judgement completely reverses the penalty and ends the whole thing outright. However, it's a negotiation tool they should certainly make use of. Were I a shareholder, I would approve. The European Commission has a decision to make. The longer they sit on that money, the larger the claim could be if they fail to stick the landing in court. Or, negotiate an exit. Right and wrong are no longer relevant to this. It's a transactional decision.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree.
We want to same thing if a small business or even an individual is wronged by the state.
Two wrongs don't make a right. If the EU bodies have made a mistake, they have to own it. This would at least set a precedent for future victims.
Re: (Score:2)
It makes me think of people who were wrongfully imprisoned for 30 years, say, and come out the other end with a fairly small sum and a "sorry". Also of people who were wrongfully sentenced to death.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is not unreasonable. (Score:4, Interesting)
It's a shame what we (U.S. federal and states) pay people who were wrongfully imprisoned. It's a disgrace. And the number one reason I'm against the death penalty is because I believe one person wrongfully executed is one too many, and there have been many of those. Our prison system is a racket.
Actually, I think some states are rather fairer than others in the US - Texas being a case in point.
If you think that is bad, in the UK, you can be refused compensation because the law on compensation requires that the wrongfully imprisoned prove their innocence. So it's not enough to be exonerated and have the conviction set aside. You now have to actually prove a negative i.e. that you didn't do what you were imprisoned for.
That much? (Score:2)
Cut it in half and maybe they'll talk.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Properly invested, that money could get 5% or higher return. And that's using standard investments. Intel could've put the money towards R&D and recouped far greater returns on that money.
Half that is basically no interest after inflation. 4% is probably the minimum return as you get that if it's sitting as cash equivalent in the bank.
The EU wanted the money paid immediately, before the lawsuits have worked
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine if they invested that $1.1B into Bitcoin back in 2009. There's a serious opportunity cost to frivolous lawsuits.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most likely it would have gone into capital investment. And the return would have been similar to the return of on the S&P 500 during that period. Something quite a bit higher than equivalent of 4%/yr interest that Intel is seeking. This is about double the inflation over that period. Cumulative inflation between 2009 and 2022 is 36.2% for USD and 27.32% for EUR (according to usinflationcalculator.com and inflationtool.com/euro respectively). This is comparable to the 62% interest that Intel is seeking,
Raising the stakes (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
hey, it is simple to close it... just pay the damn fine and stop being a jerk, trying to play with courts... everyone knows the stories and yes, intel sabotage amd by abusing it's market power
Why the wait? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Why the wait? (Score:2)
If you are convicted of murder, they don't let you go while you file an appeal. You suffer the penalties, and are released if your appeal is successful.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
False equivalency. A falsely convicted murderer can sue for lost time no? Intel's claim is that if a conviction is overturned....they are due back their fines + interest.
A murderer without an overturned conviction is still a murderer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. The EU won. The fact that Intel is dragging it through the courts without a win on their behalf so far does not entitle them to any payback. It's not the EU appealing.
Re: (Score:3)
But the EU has lost. Intel has won. The EU owes Intel €1.05b because that original judgement was overturned. You don't think that means they've lost? The EU has no grounds to keep Intel's money because the ruling was invalidated. So what right does the EU have to hold on to it?
The reversal means that the money is no longer legitimately surrendered. The EU fined Intel without establishing that Intel's rebates were designed to hurt their competition, and not simply used as an incentive to choose Intel. T
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone else find it interesting that Intel was expected to pay the fine right away, before things were settled in the courts. But when it comes to the refund, Intel doesn't get anything back until the EU has exhausted all appeals... A bit of a double-standard, to say the least.
Intel paying the fine also meant any interest on it during litigation is stopped so it's in their best interest, so to speak, to pay upfront anyway. The EU should be on the hook for the same interest rate they charge, assuming they do, if Intel prevails; unless they drop the appeal and pay Intel what it asks or settles for less.
Re:Why the wait? (Score:5, Informative)
Anyone else find it interesting that Intel was expected to pay the fine right away, before things were settled in the courts. But when it comes to the refund, Intel doesn't get anything back until the EU has exhausted all appeals... A bit of a double-standard, to say the least.
The case was settled, Intel lost.
Then Intel appealed, lost again, appealed again, and then seems to have finally won.
If you want to want to withhold the fine payment until the appeals are all done... well then you just keep appealing forever and never pay a dime.
As for when the EU should pay, this latest ruling was apparently based on the the following analysis: "In January of this year, the court sided with Intel, stating that the European Commission's analysis was incomplete and that it hadn't established a legal standard that the rebates at the heart of the matter were anticompetitive. "
That strikes me less as a "the Commission was wrong" as a "the Commission didn't do a thorough enough job", which strikes me as a less a declaration that Intel is in the clear as a statement that the Commission has more work to do, though legal minds potentially disagree.
Either way, there's enough of a chance that this ruling gets overturned that it seems a bit silly for the cash to go back to Intel, then potentially back to the EU again, and I think the EU gets fewer appeals.
Re: (Score:2)
"...there's enough of a chance that this ruling gets overturned that it seems a bit silly for the cash to go back to Intel...
Are they asking for the cash back? I think they might just be asking for interest on the cash.
It's a smart ploy. "You can hold on to the cash while the appeals grind on. But while it's in dispute, it'll cost you." It's not even an exorbitant rate they're using.
Re: (Score:2)
"...there's enough of a chance that this ruling gets overturned that it seems a bit silly for the cash to go back to Intel...
Are they asking for the cash back? I think they might just be asking for interest on the cash.
It's a smart ploy. "You can hold on to the cash while the appeals grind on. But while it's in dispute, it'll cost you." It's not even an exorbitant rate they're using.
The default ruling is the fine is overturned and they get the cash back.
They're saying they should get interest, I don't think that happens normally but presumably they're claiming it's a special case due to the amount of time that has passed.
It's probably a bargaining chip to get the EU to either settle or not appeal the ruling, but I don't think the extra interest between now and the next appeal is significant.
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that in the original ruling, the EC's lawyers didn't want to go to the trouble of proving that loyalty rebates had an anti-competitive effect. I mean, common sense would suggest that saying "hey, we'll give you a big price break if you ONLY buy from us" kinda encourages exclusion of competitors from the market, but other forms of price discrimination are not considered anti-competitive and yet have exactly the same effect; i.e. customers buy from the company offering better value.
Let's be clear
Back and fourth? (Score:1)
"The case has been going back and fourth ever since."
The word is forth, not fourth. It's wrong in the original article too...
Re: (Score:1)
Hopefully it makes regulators think twice (Score:2)
IMHO, the best possible outcome of this is to make the regulators and governments feel the pain of being asshats. Government is supposed to fear the people not the other way around. The government should be held accountable in such a way that they think long and hard about whether or not to go on a crusade for money. I guarantee you that the people of the EU weren't going to see a penny of that original judgement. It was always going to remain in the parliamentary coffers.
Re: (Score:2)
EU or any country don't regulate markets because of the fine money, they do to avoid abuse from market leaders... the fine, while big, it a punishment for intel, so it do not try to repeat that same strategy (that in the past was already fined for it and repeated the same strategy years later)
there are courts that make those fines go to community or health projects instead of the state
Also, regulators must not be afraid of attacking big companies, it is exactly their job to do that, as a big company can bul
Re: (Score:2)
So, instead, Intel gets a free pass to be anti-competitive by offering exclusivity rebates that lock competitors out of the market, generally fucking over the industry and consumers as a whole?