The European Commission levied a record $1.45 billion fine against Intel for what it says were anti-competitive practices against smaller rival Advanced Micro Devices.
The Commission ordered Intel to stop the illegal practices of offering rebates to systems manufacturers for buying only Intel chips, and for making direct payments to OEMs to stop or delay the launch of products powered by x86 processors from chip makers other than Intel.
In a statement, Intel President and CEO Paul Otellini said the company will appeal the Commission's fine.
"We believe the decision is wrong and ignores the reality of a highly competitive microprocessor marketplace-characterized by constant innovation, improved product performance and lower prices," Otellini said in the statement. "There has been absolutely zero harm to consumers."
European commissioners disagreed.
"Intel has harmed millions of European consumers by deliberately acting to keep competitors out of the market for computer chips for many years," Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes said in a statement. "Such a serious and sustained violation of the [European Union's] antitrust rules cannot be tolerated."
According to the Commission, between 2002 and 2007, Intel gave rebates to OEMs on the condition that they buy all or most of their chips from Intel. The Commission said the systems makers impacted by the rebates were Acer, Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Lenovo and NEC.
"Furthermore, Intel made payments to major retailer Media Saturn Holding from October 2002 to December 2007 on condition that it exclusively sold Intel-based PCs in all countries in which Media Saturn Holding is active," the Commission said in a statement announcing the fine.
The commissioners said that in many cases, rebates can help consumers by leading to reduced prices for products. However, they said, a case like Intel's-where it holds an almost 80 percent share of the $30 billion global x86 processor market-can hurt competition. They said that their concerns were not with the rebates, but with the conditions put on them.
To compete with Intel, rival chip makers faced having to offer rebates that in some cases were lower than the cost of producing the CPUs, commissioners said. AMD offered 1 million free chips to one OEM, which would have lost the Intel rebate had it taken all those free AMD chips. Eventually, the systems maker took only 160,000 of the free AMD chips.
The result was less competition in the market and fewer choices for consumers, they said.
Otellini said the Commission's ruling ignored the basics course of competition.
"The natural result of a competitive market with only two major suppliers is that when one company wins sales, the other does not," Otellini said in his statement. "The Directorate General for Competition of the Commission ignored or refused to obtain significant evidence that contradicts the assertions in this decision. We believe this evidence shows that when companies perform well the market rewards them, when they don't perform the market acts accordingly."
Because Intel invests heavily in innovation, manufacturing and development, it can discount products to compete in a highly competitive market, he said. This helps consumers by passing along the efficiencies Intel has created.