Trail by lawyers or by contest?
On Thursday, the same day the Korean Fair Trade Commission fined Intel $25.4m for abusing its market dominance to the detriment of AMD, both companies were subpoenaed by the US Federal Trade Commission about possible anticompetitive behaviour in the microprocessor market.
Also on Thursday, the trial date for AMD’s US federal antitrust lawsuit against Intel was postponed for almost a year to give more time to interview witnesses, which will take it into its fifth year. The case was delayed in 2007 after Intel admitted erasing documents and e-mails related to the case.
The Japanese authorities also found Intel guilty of monopolistic behaviour in 2005, and both the EU and the state of New York are investigating similar allegations. The EU decision is expected before the end of September, and it has the power to fine a company up to 10 percent of its annual revenue.
AMD is barred from introducing international findings as evidence in its lawsuit, which alleges that Intel gave deep discounts to vendors to exclude AMD, punished OEMs that used AMD chips, and gave away products in order to maintain market share.
Intel’s attorneys have countered that AMD has failed to deliver products able to keep pace with the needs of customers and with market changes. The case already involves 150-200 million documents, and the company’s attorneys insist that none of any importance have been destroyed.
With reference to the US FTC’s subpoena, Intel said it had already provided thousands of documents and that its business practices are “well within US law.” Foreign antitrust laws are different, the company says, because robust competition is encouraged in the US.
Intel argues that AMD is trying to make up in the courts for failure in the marketplace. “When competitors perform and execute the market rewards them,” said the company statement. “When they falter and under-perform, the market responds accordingly.”
It remains to be seen if the US FTC differs from its Japanese and Korean counterparts, and agrees that trial by contest has its place in modern jurisprudence.
