EU Re-Imposes $400 Million Fine on Intel

Intel
(Image credit: Intel)

According to a Reuters report the European Commission has once again fined Intel, this time for €376.36 million ($400.26 million), citing the company's misuse of its market dominance in the computer chip sector. This decision comes in the wake of the EU's General Court overturning a previous fine of 1.06 billion euros imposed on Intel in 2009. The initial penalty was for Intel's attempts to undermine AMD on the market of x86 CPUs.

Previously, the Commission had argued that Intel's financial incentives to computer manufacturers had negatively impacted market competition. However, the court had dismissed this claim, leading to the annulment of the hefty fine. The focus of the new penalty is on Intel's transactions between 2002 and 2006 with major computer producers such as Acer, HP, and Lenovo.

Intel's dealings with these manufacturers were allegedly aimed at stalling or even halting the introduction of products that incorporated CPUs from their competitors back in the early 2000s. Back then, Intel competed mostly against AMD, though there were other smaller x86 CPU suppliers. The court, in its recent judgment, recognized these rebates as a clear misuse of Intel's powerful market position. 

However, the court's decision last year to nullify the original fine was not based on a rejection of Intel's market abuse. Instead, it was due to ambiguities regarding how the fine was related to Intel's questionable practices. The European Commission's renewed decision to fine Intel aims to address these ambiguities and hold the tech giant accountable for its actions during the specified period.

In summary, while Intel's market practices from 2002 to 2006 have been acknowledged as abusive, the exact penalties and their justifications have been a point of contention. The recent fine by the European Commission seeks to rectify past oversights and ensure that Intel's market dominance is not misused to the detriment of competitors and the broader industry.

Anton Shilov
Freelance News Writer

Anton Shilov is a Freelance News Writer at Tom’s Hardware US. Over the past couple of decades, he has covered everything from CPUs and GPUs to supercomputers and from modern process technologies and latest fab tools to high-tech industry trends.

  • -Fran-
    And, from what I remember, AMD in the US settled outside of court and this gives Intel free reign to do it again (or so I recall) without AMD (or any other as part of the settlement) to object.

    At least it seems like in the EU this won't be forgotten so easily... Although this feels (and looks) like "too little, too late".

    Still, I'd say this is the worst time for this to hit Intel. The timing seems... Unfortunate for them.

    Regards.
    Reply
  • punkncat
    Lol, I giggle a bit when there is mention of how "Intel is hurting", "it's a bad time for them"

    On the worst projection they are sitting near a 70% market share. That is a LONG LONG way from hurting. Maybe they aren't as dominant as they once were, and that has been nothing but good for the market as well as pushing them to innovate as well. Intel isn't going anywhere.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    punkncat said:
    Lol, I giggle a bit when there is mention of how "Intel is hurting", "it's a bad time for them"
    Well, they only posted a net profit in 2 of the last 5 quarters. The most recent quarter was the best of the lot, suggesting they might've turned a corner.

    punkncat said:
    On the worst projection they are sitting near a 70% market share. That is a LONG LONG way from hurting. Maybe they aren't as dominant as they once were, and that has been nothing but good for the market as well as pushing them to innovate as well. Intel isn't going anywhere.
    It's certainly not as if they'll go out of business. The issue would just be that they might have to cancel more products/projects or exit/spin-off more product lines. It also costs money "innovate" (i.e. to invest in future products). Less $$$ means they might have to scale back some features, optimizations, redesigns, etc.

    I'm not saying the fine will break them. It seems like a manageable expense, but it could impact their operations and (more importantly) hurt their financial performance - and that's something the execs care about, a great deal.

    I'd add that I'm currently annoyed not to be hearing about Alchemist+. I was thinking about buying one, if it delivers a measurable improvement over the current A770. I hope it didn't get cancelled, but it would probably make sense for them to have killed it.
    Reply
  • punkncat
    bit_user said:
    Well, they only posted a net profit in 2 of the last 5 quarters. The most recent quarter was the best of the lot, suggesting they might've turned a corner.



    I am just going to drop this here:

    https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/INTC/intel/net-income-loss#:~:text=Intel%20annual%20net%20income%2Floss,a%200.71%25%20decline%20from%202019.
    Look at the years leading up to 2017. Look at '18-20. All this is a market correction back to what has been the average for years. They had exceptionally good years three years running, well above (nearly double) their traditional income.

    This is like the little hen crying about how bad things are with a country ham under her arm.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    punkncat said:
    This is like the little hen crying about how bad things are with a country ham under her arm.
    The quarter before the last one was their worst in like 20 years. I get that Intel's performance had been abnormally strong since 2017, but that doesn't make it any easier, when you're losing so much money. Right now, their profitability still seems a bit precarious.

    And I can't emphasize this point enough: the investors want profitability and they want the execs to do whatever it takes to achieve that. So, execs will do dumb things like canceling important investments the company is making into R&D. Gelsinger has to fight to keep those, which is why he sacrificed so many other activities @ Intel that he deems to be not absolutely essential to the company's long-term strategy.

    BTW, I'm neither defending Intel nor condemning the finding or the fine (other than how comically late they are). Just agreeing with @-Fran- that the timing is not great, for them.
    Reply
  • JarredWaltonGPU
    bit_user said:
    The quarter before the last one was their worst in like 20 years. I get that Intel's performance had been abnormally strong since 2017, but that doesn't make it any easier, when you're losing so much money. Right now, their profitability still seems a bit precarious.

    And I can't emphasize this point enough: the investors want profitability and they want the execs to do whatever it takes to achieve that. So, execs will do dumb things like canceling important investments the company is making into R&D. Gelsinger has to fight to keep those, which is why he sacrificed so many other activities @ Intel that he deems to be not absolutely essential to the company's long-term strategy.

    BTW, I'm neither defending Intel nor condemning the finding or the fine (other than how comically late they are). Just agreeing with @-Fran- that the timing is not great, for them.
    I do wonder how much this even hurts, as this is related to actions that happened 15–20 years ago. It feels like the sort of thing that amounts to a slight slap on the wrist. The timing is potentially bad, but don't be surprised if this shows up as an "unexpected expense" in the future when there was otherwise a big jump in profits. Creative accounting practices.

    I also wonder how much money has been spent on the lawyers fighting this stuff. There are probably people who have been working on basically nothing else other than fighting these fines for their entire lawyer careers! Someone's resume could probably be boiled down to: "Worked for from 2010-present, fighting to overturn Intel's fines."


    Related to this, I can't help but think of Nvidia and what it's doing with GPUs, not to mention DXR and DLSS. Someone, somewhere, is trying to figure out how to effectively bring an anti-competitive practices lawsuit / fine against Nvidia. Count on it. But Nvidia seems to have been a bit less direct in many areas, which makes it harder to prove. I'm sure there are plenty of similarities to Intel's past behavior.
    Reply
  • TechieTwo
    IMO Intel will always violate law for profit. It's their way of conducting business and they have enough lawyers to make it financially profitable.
    Reply
  • punkncat
    bit_user said:

    BTW, I'm neither defending Intel nor condemning the finding or the fine (other than how comically late they are). Just agreeing with @-Fran- that the timing is not great, for them.

    No worries, I get it. To me this seems to be reminiscent of how bad Nvidia was crying a while back about how bad off they were from the slump after the shut ins and now are making record profits from all this AI stuff.

    Intel has WAY too much going for them for this to last. They will move a few things around, make a couple of changes and the investors will be happy once more.
    Reply
  • mikewinddale
    Somehow, the EU is almost 70 years behind the consensus of economic research that predatory pricing is not a legitimate concern and should not be outlawed by antitrust law.

    As economists have known since 1958, predatory pricing of the sort outlawed by antitrust law is not economically rational, and it would tend to hurt the perpetrator more than the victim.

    McGee, John S. "Predatory price cutting: the Standard Oil (NJ) case." The Journal of Law and Economics 1 (1958): 137-169.
    Reply
  • ikjadoon
    I'll never forget that, in Intel's heyday of market abuse, Intel literally had Microsoft to throw PC OEMs under the bus on years & months of platform changes just so Intel could make quarterly earnings. That was all it took.
    Intel's common 915 chipset doesn't meet sys requirements for Vista's new GPU driver model. Intel lobbies Microsoft to lower the Vista UI requirements so the 915 systems can use the new Vista UI.
    HP makes a massive, expensive upgrade to its PC platforms, migrates to Intel's upgraded & compatible 945. Microsoft promises HP it won't cave to Intel's complaints; the 945 will be the minimum for Vista.
    Intel complains more & tells Microsoft that one of Intel's quarterly earnings will allegedly miss market expectations because the 945 is in short supply and they would rather sell the cheaper 915 to OEMs.
    Microsoft decides to throw HP (and other PC OEMs) under the bus. Within weeks of the upcoming Vista launch, Microsoft backtracks on all its commitments and says the 915 chipset as Vista "Capable".A direct email quote from Microsoft General Manager John Kalkman on Feb 26, 2007:
    In the end, we lowered the requirement to help Intel make their quarterly earnings so they could continue to sell motherboards with 915 graphics embedded.

    These internal emails were released as part of a lawsuit discovery process that Ars Technica wrote about.
    Reply