facebook rss twitter

Why is the New York Attorney General filing an antitrust case against Intel?

by Sylvie Barak on 6 November 2009, 11:40

Tags: Intel (NASDAQ:INTC)

Quick Link: HEXUS.net/qaurr

Add to My Vault: x

Election season: picking on Intel?

Others may also pontificate the notion that whilst GlobalFoundries has been successfully spun-off from Intel rival AMD - and is now majority-owned by Abu Dhabi-run ATIC - the firm is still affiliated with AMD. Furthermore, the fabrication company is currently ploughing some $4bn into building up a couple of manufacturing facilities in Saratoga, NY - a fact probably not lost on any politician in New York State.

It is also worth bearing in mind that back in the late '90s, when the Microsoft antitrust case was in play, filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ), 27 other AGs from across the US joined ranks and supported the suit. Not a single other attorney general is joining Cuomo in this latest campaign, and industry insiders tell HEXUS that's not for lack of his trying.

Even if this case has nothing to do with political ambition and protecting state interests, the filing treads on some very thin ice when it comes to some of the information posted in it, which had previously never surfaced in the public domain.

The NY AG's office has apparently taken information from the case files pending in Delaware and put them directly into the complaint, including emails from Michael Dell himself, IBM executives and Intel executives.

The problem with publishing such sensitive information in the run up to an already-scheduled trial is that the various firms named and shamed can't actually comment on what's just been published because they are all signatories to a protective order. This basically means that the firms have their hands tied when it comes to being able to comment on the emails and documents published.

An industry insider told HEXUS someone would have to answer to the court for the plethora of legal issues the published information caused. "The New York attorney general obviously doesn't care about the protective order," our source told us.

He added that the case was even more complex because of the sheer number of third parties involved, each with their own agendas and packs of legal advisors.

Intel has said it will defend itself and that the new suit serves neither consumers nor justice itself.



HEXUS Forums :: 11 Comments

Login with Forum Account

Don't have an account? Register today!
I'm not sure I understand what the problem is, that article wasn't very helpful in explaining it.

I'm still confused. Can someone give me anymore detail?
It's election season.
There have been a number of corporate failures lately from Wall St to Defence procurement. This would appear to be an election publicity stunt to show the candidate as being tough on poor ethical behaviour by big companies.
Ties in well to public opinion right now. Check to 240+ comments on our own tiny little corner (+Phorm of course). People care more than ever about the ethics of the big corporates. A good sign being cynically exploited.
Phage
A good sign being cynically exploited.

That's politics. “We care about monkeys” “We pledge to free the monkies from the Zoo.”
What needs explaining? Intel are a criminal company that tried to illegally run amd out of business and now they are being made pay for it.
I think the point is that many of these events occurred some years ago, and have been covered elsewhere. It's the timing of this suit that's sus.
Also, Galleon, Microsoft, Enron, Wall Street (en masse), UK MP Exes…Not unusual.