Intel Defiant Over EU Antitrust Ruling, AMD Jubilant

"I would like to draw your attention to Intel's latest global advertising campaign, which proposes Intel as 'The sponsors of tomorrow.' Well, now they are the sponsors of the European taxpayers, I have to say," Kroes said Wednesday in the course of announcing the EC ruling against Intel.

"I don't think it's a joking matter, and I think she was making a joke," Otellini said when asked about Kroes' statement.

The EC ruling is the third major decision by a regulatory agency against Intel on antitrust grounds, following decisions by Japanese regulators in 2005 and South Korean authorities in 2007. But Otellini took on the argument that as the losses pile up for Intel, a pattern is developing.

"In Japan there was no admission of [Intel wrongdoing] and there was no fine," he said. The South Korean Fair Trade Commission did end up fining Intel $23 million in 2008, but Otellini seemed to indicate that this sum, contrasted against the much larger EC fine, was evidence that the two regulatory bodies were not on the same page in finding against Intel.

"Korea imposed a fine of $23 million dollars and Korea is not 1/1,000th the size of Europe. There seems to be no correlation between the number and the process," he said.

AMD, meanwhile, was demure in its official statement about the EC ruling, but more animated in a conversation with Channelweb.com.

A Level Playing Field

"Anything the authorities do to level the playing field, and we're not asking for an unfair advantage, is to make choice for consumers better," said Nigel Dessau, AMD's chief marketing officer. "We congratulate the EU and the commissioner for supporting the consumer and thinking about the consumer first."

Dessau, speaking to Channelweb.com Wednesday, said the size of the fine is less important to AMD than the ending of "the illegal practices by Intel."

"This is about a level playing field, one that's not controlled by a monopolistic player. Just so there is no doubt, [EU regulators] are disallowing the use of rebates whether in secret or not in secret to limit the access of competitors into the market, as well as paying retailers or paying OEMs illegally," he said.

Dessau took exception to some of the statements by Otellini in response to the ruling, particularly with regard to earlier decisions against Intel in Japan and South Korea.

"For a company that wants to have high morals, dismissing the Japanese and Korean trade commissions' findings is disingenuous. It's clear to me that either he doesn't get it or he's not remorseful or he's not willing to accept what the EU has ruled, or the Japan or Korea rulings," he said.

Dessau also addressed the argument that a major ruling against one of the world's most successful companies was not helpful for the recovery of the high-tech industry in a global recession.

"So when is it not OK to break the law? When is it unacceptable to use monopolistic powers? When the economy's doing well? Then it's OK to do it? That's a facile argument. Breaking the law is a pretty binary thing. Either you do it or you don't," he said.