Man, the EU is really not too fond of Intel, is it? Adding to all the other antitrust charges filed against the chipmaker, the friendly grey suits at the European Commission have slapped on an additional three: paying a "leading European retailer" not stock AMD products, giving incentives to PC makers to switch to Intel chips, and paying an unspecified company to delay the launch of an AMD-based product. For its part, Intel is reacting like it always does when the Europeans get prickly: by steadfastly denying everything. Intel has eight weeks to file a formal response, but as with all of these cases, we wouldn't expect a resolution any time soon.

[Thanks, Ricky]

Intel is no stranger to antitrust problems, the company just got nailed with a $25 million fine in Korea, Europe's been breathing down its neck for years, and AMD has been trying to drum up antitrust accusations against Intel since time immemorial, but the FTC just embarked upon what could be Intel's biggest headache yet. The Federal Trade Commission has opened up a formal antitrust investigation of Intel, and has subpoenaed Intel, AMD and other smaller competitors for dirt on the company. Intel is being accused of using pricing policies designed to maintain a near-monopoly on the market, and while the company has been protected from a formal FTC inquiry by former head Deborah Majoras, the new chairman William Kovacic seems to see things a bit differently. A less formal review of the company has been ongoing since 2006.

This is gonna leave a mark: Intel was just handed a $25 million slap on the wrist due to its questionable kickbacks to Korean computer manufacturers. The Korea Fair Trade Commission dropped the fine as punishment for the rebates Intel slipped to Samsung and Trigem in order to remain exclusive to its chips. Intel dolled out about $37 million in rebates -- under the guise of co-marketing campaigns -- over 2.5 years. While it is unclear whether or not Intel forced the manufacturers into any exclusive arrangement, it seems the commission believes such a clause was implied. Meanwhile, Intel is already under the European Union's microscope for the same practices. Intel plans to appeal the ruling, and adds, "We'll never do something that violates Korean law. We don't believe we have ever done that." While such practices remain under the legal radar here in the States, this practice isn't so kosher elsewhere.

The EU has doled out some pretty hefty fines in the past, but it looks like Nintendo is pushing back against the one it got slapped with back in 2002, with the company now saying that it was "unfair, illegal, even shocking." That fine (some 140.1 million Euros, or about $220 million), was the result of some alleged price fixing on Nintendo's part back during the SNES-fueled glory days of 1991 to 1998, during which time European Union regulators say Nintendo colluded with seven different distributors to raise hardware and software prices. For its part, the EU commission maintains that the fine "was not of a capricious nature, or based on wild estimates," and that it "was for an infringement that was considered very serious." No word on Nintendo's next move just yet, but if past appeals of EU rulings are any indication, they certainly seem to be facing an uphill battle.

[Via Pocket-lint]

Microsoft's no stranger to appealing antitrust decisions before the European Commission's Court of the First Instance, and it looks like it's saddling up for another go 'round: the software giant has decided to appeal that $1.3B antitrust fine handed down in February. Saying that it was only filing as part of a "constructive effort to seek clarity from the court," Microsoft has asked that the decision be annulled. Yeah, that seems pretty clear. As always, our suggestions that this be resolved with a GTA IV / CoD4 round-robin deathmatch on Live have gone unheeded in favor of tedious paperwork and months of delay, but we're still holding out hope.

[Thanks, Hosain]

Echoing the reactions of many to Microsoft's decision to open things up this morning, the European Commission issued a statement this morning saying that while it welcomes any moves towards "genuine interoperability," it's not going to believe it until it sees it -- it's counted four similar announcements by Redmond in the past, with nothing to show for it. Of course, Microsoft is currently being investigated for antitrust violations in Europe, so there's a whispered belief that the new steps are a ploy to derail that process, but that's pretty doubtful -- and the EU's not having it anyway, saying that "Today's announcement by Microsoft does not address the tying allegations." For its part, Microsoft actually agrees, saying that it's opening things up on its own -- the move reflects both "the reality of our unique legal situation" as well as "new opportunities and risks in the connected world." That's certainly an interesting approach -- but we'll see how the EU reacts if and when Microsoft follows through on these promises.

As part of their investigation into the company's alleged abuse of its market position at the expense of rival AMD, EU competition regulators have raided chip giant Intel's offices in Munich, Germany, along with those of Metro AG-owned Media Markt and other unnamed PC retailers. The European Commission has been keeping a close eye on Intel since last summer, when the company was formally accused of offering rebates and making payoffs to customers and retailers in exchange for preferential treatment -- charges that Intel has repeatedly, although somewhat obtusely, denied. It's not clear at this point what material, if anything, was confiscated in these latest raids, which come exactly a month prior to a closed hearing the megacorp faces on this matter in Brussels.

[Via BBC]

Sure, most of the Microsoft antitrust action is going down in Europe nowadays, but Uncle Sam's lingering judgment against Redmond is still kicking around -- Judge Colleen Kollar Kotelly (remember her?) just issued a ruling extending the consent decree against Microsoft for another two years. The judge said that the company has been extremely cooperative with the government thus far, but that "the extreme and unforeseen delay" in acquiring technical documentation from Bill and the boys requires that monitoring continue. That pretty much leaves things at the status quo, although we're not exactly holding our breath for anything to change once the consent judgment actually does expire.

Microsoft, the ever-present target of scorn from the little guy, has once again been hit with antitrust charges in the EU, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal today. This time it's charges related to the company's refusal to disclose "interoperability information" for a variety of products, including Office, which is keeping competitors from marketing compatible software (we've heard complaints of this type from Open Office users for some time). Additionally -- just as we reported in December -- Norwegian web browser outfit Opera is stepping up to the plate, alleging that Redmond's inclusion of Internet Explorer with its ubiquitous operating system leaves little room for rival companies to enter the game. Considering how Microsoft's last antitrust case went in the EU, this may bode poorly for the giant, though a ruling in favor of reforms could benefit the end user. Stay tuned to this space for more information as we get it.

In addition to laying down the smack, AMD and the office of New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo just slammed Intel with an antitrust probe. Cuomo's office issued a "wide-ranging subpoena" on Thursday seeking documents and more information from Intel. The probe was launched after a preliminary probe "raised questions" about Intel coercing customers to exclude AMD CPUs.

This is all pretty standard procedure, and totally expected after the company's rebuttal this summer, but Intel is responding to EU's antitrust charges against them and will seek a hearing. The specific charges and Intel's response are still confidential, which means there aren't a lot of specifics about the mud slinging between these two, but the general thrust is that the EU thinks Intel is hurting competition and therefore consumers by offering chips below cost, and semi-bribing manufacturers to sell Intel exclusively. Obviously, Intel's saying it stuck to the law in this situation. Stakes are high, since the EU can fine companies up to 10% of global revenues, and it certainly looks like we're in for a protracted fight on this one.

Apple's been hit with antitrust lawsuits over the dominance of the iPod / iTunes system before, but there's a new case brewing down California way that argues not that Apple has illegally tied the iPod to iTunes, but that Apple has abused its dominant market position by not supporting WMA. That's right, we've come full circle -- Apple is now being accused of locking Microsoft out of the market. The case, brought by San Diego attorney Stacie Somers, claims that since Apple disables the WMA functionality of the PortalPlayer chip inside many iPods, it's shipping "crippleware," and that it's doing so deliberately to abuse its position as the market leader. Of course, unprotected WMA files import into iTunes on Windows just fine, so this is really a DRM compatibility issue -- and given Apple's official position on DRM and the fact that Microsoft's own Zunes don't exactly play nice with all the flavors of WMA DRM, this suit could be over sooner than expected.

Disclaimer: Although this post was written by an attorney, it is not meant as legal advice or analysis, and should not be taken as such.

One brave, intelligent, and super-cool Boston man has taken the law into his own hands -- vis-à-vis a bunch of attorneys -- and is taking HP and Staples to task for an alleged antitrust scheme. According to Ranjit Bedi, the two companies have been in cahoots in an attempt to stop the sale of inexpensive, third-party printer ink at Staples stores. In the suit, it's suggested that HP paid Staples $100 million to refrain from sale of the cartridges. The story might be harder to believe if it weren't for the nature of the printer ink business, which seems to be rife with companies engaging in questionable business practices (like selling cartridges which give you an inaccurate read on ink remaining, barring the use of third-party cartridges, and wildly overcharging for branded ink). If you've ever owned an ink-jet printer, we're pretty sure you know exactly what we're talking about. People -- it's time to fight back.

Oh man, here we go again. Opera just filed an antitrust suit against Microsoft in Redmond's least favorite place to litigate, the EU. The suit claims that Microsoft is stifling competition by distributing Internet Explorer in its Windows OS. The Norwegian company, backed by the European Committee for Interoperable Systems (ECIS), a long-time opponent of Microsoft, is asking the EU Commission to force Microsoft to comply with industry standards for web browsers and either unbundle IE from the OS or include other browsers along side IE. That would be the Opera Browser we presume, eh Opera (wink, wink). Unlike Apple, Nokia/Symbian, and others who also bundle a browser with their OS, Opera argues that web designers build their sites with IE in mind due to its dominant position in the marketplace and non-compliance with industry standards for web browsing. As such, other browsers won't render some pages correctly -- a disincentive for users to browse with anything other than Microsoft's IE. Sit tight kids, this ride will be bumpy.

Update: Here's Opera's press release on the matter.

After losing the appeal and suffering daily penalty payments for years, Microsoft has finally conceded to the European commission. This after withdrawing its appeal in the South Korea antitrust case last week. The "substantial changes" to Microsoft's behavior can be boiled down as follows:

• Rival software developers (including open-source) can now access and use Microsoft interoperability information
  
• Royalties for this information will be reduced to a one-off payment of €10,000 / $14,000
  
• Royalties for a world-wide license to use Microsoft's product and patents will be reduced from 5.95% to just 0.4%

While Microsoft can technically still appeal the September ruling on the original 2004 decision, it certainly looks like this dog has been beaten into obedient, doe-eyed submission.