We knew AMD would be celebrating its victory over Intel and its record $1.45 billion fine doled out by EU over violation of antitrust rules, but we figured that just meant a very fancy cake and maybe a trip to the local zoo. Nay, we were mistaken, as the chip maker has gone all out in creating an entire website dedicated to its victory. "AMD Break Free" is pretty amazing in its thoroughness, and you'll find all kinds of court documents, press releases, explanations of antitrust laws, and even a news feed to follow further developments. Of course, Intel's appeal is a sure sign this case will be drag on for a very long time, possibly even become overturned, and none of this apparent gloating is gonna help one bit in getting the company back into the top ten rankings for chip manufacturers.

[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]

The verdict is in and it's huge. As expected, the EU is fining Intel a record €1.06 billion or $1.45 billion (Billion!) dollars due to violations of antitrust rules in Europe. The record fine surpasses that of the €497 million fine originally levied against Microsoft. The EU ruled that Intel illegally used hidden rebates to squeeze rivals out of the marketplace for CPUs. In a statement issued by European Union Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes, the EC said,

Intel has harmed millions of European consumers by deliberately acting to keep competitors out of the market for computer chips for many years.

Intel was ordered to cease the illegal practices immediately and has three months from the notification of the decision to pay up. Of course, Intel will appeal and this will drag the litigation on for years as did Microsoft. Regardless, we'll bet that AMD, who raised the complaint against Intel back in 2000, will be celebrating come dawn in Sunnyvale.

Update: Intel has issued a formal response to the ruling saying that the commission "is wrong and ignores the reality of a highly competitive microprocessor marketplace," and that its practices have caused, "absolutely zero harm to consumers." Oh, and it will <gasp> appeal the decision. Hurrah for corporate lawyers!

[Via Canada.com]

There are many tried and true methods for beating your competition in the free-market. Product innovation seems to work as does a proprietary ecosystem of peripherals, media, and services that keep customers locked-in for life. Or you can take Intel's approach: pay computer makers and retailers "to postpone or cancel" products containing CPUs from AMD, Intel's chief rival. That's the allegation it faces in the EU which, according to Reuters, has completed its antitrust investigation and is preparing to announce its decision on Wednesday. According to Reuters' sources, the European Commission will fine Intel for the violations discovered over the last eight years and order changes to Intel's business practices. It remains to be seen if the related fine exceeds the $655 million levied against Microsoft in 2004. But given the EU's distaste for anti-competitive practices, we're not expecting Intel to get off easy -- self-proclaimed "rock star" status or not.

The relationship between Apple and Google has always been pretty cozy -- Mac OS X and the iPhone tie into a variety of Google services, Google's developed rule-breaking iPhone apps, we've heard endless whispers of Apple meddling in the development of the G1, and on and on. In fact, the relationship between the two companies is so tight they actually share board members: Google CEO Eric Schmidt and former Genentech CEO Arthur Levinson take meetings in both Cupertino and Mountain View. That's apparently raised some hackles at the Federal Trade Commission, which has reportedly informed both companies they're being investigated for violating a rarely-enforced section of the Clayton Antitrust Act prohibiting "interlocking directorates" when it reduces competition. That sounds like someone at the FTC just noticed that Apple makes the iPhone and Google's responsible for Android, but nothing's set in stone yet -- and we've got a feeling Android's open-source codebase could throw a monkey wrench into an already-complex legal analysis. We'll obviously be tracking this one closely, keep an eye out.

Aw, snap! Just months after Funai took the reins from Philips in North America, along comes a lawsuit for its lawyers to deal with. VIZIO, still feeling proud after its all-business Super Bowl ad, has thrown a potent antitrust and unfair competition lawsuit in Funai's direction. The outfit alleges that Funai, "acting alone and in concert with others, unlawfully restrained trade and monopolized the market for the licensing of technology used to interpret and retrieve information from a digital television broadcast signal, as well as the market for digital television sets and receivers." Specifically, VIZIO seems perturbed that Funai inappropriately acquired the rights to one single US patent, and ever since it has "unfairly discriminated against VIZIO in the licensing and enforcement" of said patent to the "detriment of trade and commerce." There's no mention of how many bills VIZIO thinks will fix the problem, but Funai better not try filling stacks of hundies with Washingtons in between.

[Image courtesy of TooMuchNick / WireImage]

Gulp, here we go again. The European Commission is accusing Microsoft of unfairly dominating its competition by bundling Internet Explorer with its Windows OS. Yup, the very same argument heard in the US courts more than a decade ago after Netscape saw its 86% market share plummet in the face of a bundled IE. The commission, which already fined Microsoft $1.35 billion for anti-competitive practices in early 2008, has published the following preliminary view on the matter:

"Microsoft's tying of Internet Explorer to the Windows operating system harms competition between web browsers, undermines product innovation and ultimately reduces consumer choice."

Microsoft has 8 weeks to reply to the charge. It's worth noting that while Apple bundles its Safari browser with OS X, Apple commands a much, much smaller share of the operating system and web browser markets globally, particularly outside of the US. The EU's ruling does, perhaps, shed some light on why Apple's App Store is suddenly stocked with a variety of browsers for the hot selling iPhone, eh? Regardless, we have a feeling that the Norwegian cats behind Opera are feeling pretty smug right about now; Google too, as it kicks back licking its Chromium chops on the road to dominating "The Cloud."

[Thanks, Marcus]

Oh, Psystar. Fresh from the court's smackdown of its antitrust claims against Apple, the wannabe Mac cloner has amended its lawsuit to ditch that argument and instead allege that Steve-o is committing the sin of copyright abuse by not letting it sell OS X compatible machines. Yes, copyright abuse. The little-known doctrine is generally used by by those being sued for copyright infringement as a defense, and Psystar's now questionably hotshot legal team is essentially throwing a Hail Mary by arguing that Apple's EULA is anticompetitive because it relies on the power of copyright law to restrict the use of OS X to Apple's machines. If you're thinking to yourself, "But imposing conditions on a licensee is exactly the sort of power granted to a copyright owner!" congratulations -- you have incredibly boring thoughts. You're also exactly correct -- we don't see this argument getting any farther than the antitrust one did. Honestly, at this point we're pretty certain Psystar is hurting the OSx86 movement way more than it's helping -- Apple's started making noise like it's coming after the hackers who make it possible, and that's the last thing we want to have happen. Maybe stop tickling the dragon, guys?

P.S.- The PDF of the new counterclaim is an entertaining read -- the law students out there might want to read it as reassurance they'll eventually be paid the big bucks to spew out some deep crazy.

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.