It looks as if Intel will be adopting the ‘there seems to have been a bit of a misunderstanding M’lud’ defence to the EC’s charges against it, with Intel’s lawyer saying that it was ‘a failure of logic’ to suggest that payments made to allegedly delay launches of AMD-based products were part of any kind of anti-AMD activity.
On the contrary, says Intel’s lawyer, Bruce Sewell, the commission misunderstood the nature of these payments. They were just part of a regular discount programme.
As to the charges that Intel sold chips below cost, Sewell states that the EC's 'assumptions' about Intel's product costs 'are wrong."
As to the third EC allegation, that Intel gave discounts if a company limited its purchase of AMD processors to an agreed ceiling, Sewell states: “The commission has chosen certain facts which it uses to conclude that there is an exclusivity agreement,” adding that Intel has other facts which dispute that.
It seems the EC’s ‘certain facts’ emerged as a result of emails found during dawn raids on PC manufacturers’ offices, including HP and Dell.
Sewell is suggesting that Intel has other emails showing that Intel doesn’t ask for exclusivity agreements in return for discounts. (I ask you, M'lud, would we do such a thing?)
Sewell’s pugnacious statements will hardly endear themselves to the EC’s highly motivated anti-trust lawyers who may be offended to have it suggested that, after years of investigation, they have drafted charges based on a selective use of evidence.
TOMORROW: TEN BEST SEMICONDUCTOR VENTURE CAPITALISTS
Leave a comment