Intel to face antitrust case in Australia?

AMD has not ruled out moving its battle against Intel's antitrust behaviour onto Australian soil.

(AMD K6 image by ThaRemix, CC2.0)

Last night, the European Commission fined Intel more than €1 billion for violating antitrust legislation after receiving complaints from rival AMD.

The EU found that Intel had been illegally keeping AMD out of the market by giving rebates to computer manufacturers on condition that they bought all their CPUs from Intel and making payments to manufacturers to delay the launch of specific products containing competitors' CPUs.

AMD said it had never filed an antitrust complaint against Intel in Australia, but would not confirm or deny whether the company would consider filing a complaint in the country given the European win.

In place of a direct answer, ZDNet.com.au received a statement from Ben Williams, AMD corporate VP Asia Pacific. "Today, I would like to focus our attention on this important ruling by the EU. I wish to highlight the EU ruling is about consumers, who were hurt by Intel's illegal conduct, but now will benefit from greater choice, innovation and value. Fair and open competition spurs competitors to innovate faster and to price more competitively. That means that consumers will be the direct beneficiaries of the EC ruling," he said.

The Intel case has not been the only antitrust case in Europe, with Microsoft stepping often into the firing line. Qualcomm also gained the Commission's attention.

Across the Atlantic, the US has also seen antitrust legislation exercised liberally to keep technology giants fair. Microsoft, Intel and Oracle have all come under scrutiny.

Australia, however, has not seen antitrust action against any of these players, despite the fact that it has strong trading relationships with both jurisdictions and has formed an agreement to share antitrust information with the US.

When asked why this was so, and whether the government would seek a stronger stance on antitrust in technology, spokespeople for Digital Economy Minister Stephen Conroy and Innovation Minister Kim Carr directed the queries elsewhere.

The ACCC declined to comment as it could not give out any information on investigations that might or might not occur in the future.

Competition Minister Chris Bowen's office has as yet not been able to provide comment.

Advertisement

Talkback 2 comments

    Intel? And not Microsoft? The Coal Faced Truth -- 15/05/09

    So, tell me... what percentage of the CPU market does Intel have, compared to say AMD, VIA, ARM and nVidia? 30%? 40%

    Now, what percentage of the market does *Microsoft* have for pre-installed operating systems, by comparison? 95%?

    So, which of the two, Intel or Microsoft, should the ACCC *really* be looking to bring an antitrust case against in Australia?

    Yes, that's right - Microsoft.

    And where are they, our friends at the pro-competition ACCC, I hear you ask? Damn good question...

    Market Share Gerard -- 17/05/09 (in reply to #320136385)

    You have your numbers off a little bit. According to market research firm iSuppli Corp released early April09, Intel has 81.9% CPU market share worldwide.

    Intel is just as important as Microsoft in the way of anti-trust. The CPU market is an oligopoly with a small number of players. Intel obviously being the biggest. Microsoft is in an almost exactly the same situation.

    Anti-trust is an interesting situation because they have to prove that Intel/Microsoft/whoever was actively tainting the market to be rid of it's competition by means that aren't competitive. Microsoft and Intel have done this by forcing on vertical markets anti-competitive conditions in order to gain access to their products competitively. If for instance Dell was not able to purchase Intel products at competitive prices to HP, then they would lose their own market share. If their access to competitive pricing from Intel is directly related conditions that prevent AMD from entering the market, then there are grounds for anti-trust.

    Microsoft did exactly the same thing when they went to PC manufacturers and demanded they did not include Netscape in their PC images, but included Internet Explorer. Very similar to this Intel situation. Microsoft's OEM may have been in the past forced onto large PC manufacturers, but if you look into independent PC manufacturers of late, they would be much more competitively priced if they included a free copy of say Ubuntu with their no-name computer, but they all have Windows as first choice. Its what the market demands and relies upon. Microsoft may have reached that end by unscrupulous means, but these days Microsoft should be more scrutinised for always trying to steal other competitors' ideas (doesn't Hyper-V in 2008 R2 sound a lot like VMware's VI3?? which I'm sure VMware has some pretty significant patents for....)

    The ACCC would need a formal complaint to be made to actually investigate this. As far as this article goes, AMD hasn't seemed to lodge the complaint as yet. The ACCC cannot just start an investigation because a company thinks there might be some anti-competitive behaviour happening, it could tarnish the name of a company and cost considerable tax payer dollars. There needs to be significant compelling evidence of actions within Australian borders brought to their attention before they can act at all.

Add your opinion

Latest Videos

Sponsored content

Power Centre - Content from our premier sponsors

Blogs

Tags

Back to top

Featured