Brussels, 21/09/2009 (Agence Europe) - It was unusual for the Commission to publish the censored text of its charges against Intel, together with a press statement on Monday 21 September. It is normal for the Commission to publish these documents in versions that do not contain the “secrets of the case”. The authorities, however, decided to send out a statement too this time, in an effort to justify themselves in the eyes of those who raised questions about the rigour of its analysis on the dossier in question.
Some quarters said that the investigation into the practices of the world number one in computer chips had not taken all the facts into account. The Commission spokesperson for competition stressed in his statement on Monday that the investigation had been rigorous enough and that the decision was not based “more on allegations than facts”. Jonathan Todd informed the Brussels press corps on Monday that, “with the publication of this decision you can see for yourselves precisely the facts on which the decision was based and how Intel broke the law”.
Intel, the main manufacturer of computer parts received a fine of €1.06bn in May for having illegally kept AMD, a competitor out of the computer chip market (EUROPE 9901). A report from the European ombudsman criticised the Commission last month for not having sufficiently recorded a conversation it had had with a representative from a computer manufacturer (a major INTEL client). This representative explained that its preference for Intel chips was due to its superior quality to those of AMD and not to any illegal pressure (EUROPE 9960).
In its Monday statement, the Commission rejected the accusation of “maladministration” from the ombudsman and a significant amount of “contemporaneous evidence and company statements” it had received. An email from a Dell to a superior described the threats expressed by Intel over the possible desertion of the computer manufacturer to AMD chips; the observation made by the HP manufacture to the Commission confirms that HP agreed to take 95% of Intel's chips and not to talk about this agreement, concluded verbally; an email from an Intel manager who was pleased to have prevented Acer from getting a laptop with AMD chips, out several months late. The Commission evidence shows that the Saturn and MediaMarkt resale chains was obliged to sell exclusively in its PC shops equipped exclusively by Intel. Several statements received by the Commission bear out the quality of AMD chips and their quality price relationship, which were often better than those of Intel in the same category.
An appeal against the Commission decision was submitted by Intel at the Court of First Instance in July (T-286/09). The appeal will take place in nine months according to sources close to the case. The Court refused to suspend sanctions on Intel until the result of the appeal. (C.D./trans/rh)