Wintel Under the Antitrust Microscope: A Comparison of the European Intel Case with the U.S. Microsoft Cases

N. Hawker
{"title":"Wintel Under the Antitrust Microscope: A Comparison of the European Intel Case with the U.S. Microsoft Cases","authors":"N. Hawker","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1103617","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The European Union has issued a statement of objections to Intel regarding the company's conduct aimed at suppressing competition from Intel's chief rival, AMD. Although the statement of objections remains confidential, the allegations in AMD's private litigation are public and provide a useful basis for analysis. Intel dominates the PC chip market almost to the same degree that Microsoft dominates the PC operating system market. As in the Microsoft case, Intel's aggressive marketing tactics prevented OEMs from offering rival products to consumers. And like Microsoft, Intel has engaged in this conduct to maintain its existing monopoly. These parallels between the Microsoft and Intel suggest that Intel's anticompetitive practices harm consumers, including American consumers, by denying them the access to innovative products at lower prices from rivals. The United States established that Microsoft repeatedly and willfully violated the antitrust laws, but failed to achieve an effective remedy. The EU, however, should have an easier time achieving an effective remedy. First, unlike the OS market, a viable competitor still exists in the chip market, i.e., AMD. Second, Intel has relied primarily on exclusionary rebates, not commingling of intellectual property, to maintain its monopoly. Consequently, the EU should be able to fashion a remedy that does not require Intel to redesign its product.","PeriodicalId":344620,"journal":{"name":"Entrepreneurship & Marketing eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Entrepreneurship & Marketing eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1103617","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The European Union has issued a statement of objections to Intel regarding the company's conduct aimed at suppressing competition from Intel's chief rival, AMD. Although the statement of objections remains confidential, the allegations in AMD's private litigation are public and provide a useful basis for analysis. Intel dominates the PC chip market almost to the same degree that Microsoft dominates the PC operating system market. As in the Microsoft case, Intel's aggressive marketing tactics prevented OEMs from offering rival products to consumers. And like Microsoft, Intel has engaged in this conduct to maintain its existing monopoly. These parallels between the Microsoft and Intel suggest that Intel's anticompetitive practices harm consumers, including American consumers, by denying them the access to innovative products at lower prices from rivals. The United States established that Microsoft repeatedly and willfully violated the antitrust laws, but failed to achieve an effective remedy. The EU, however, should have an easier time achieving an effective remedy. First, unlike the OS market, a viable competitor still exists in the chip market, i.e., AMD. Second, Intel has relied primarily on exclusionary rebates, not commingling of intellectual property, to maintain its monopoly. Consequently, the EU should be able to fashion a remedy that does not require Intel to redesign its product.
反垄断显微镜下的Wintel:欧洲英特尔案与美国微软案之比较
欧盟针对英特尔压制其主要竞争对手AMD的行为发表了一份反对声明。尽管反对声明仍然是保密的,但AMD私人诉讼中的指控是公开的,并为分析提供了有用的基础。英特尔在个人电脑芯片市场的主导地位几乎与微软在个人电脑操作系统市场的主导地位相同。与微软的案例一样,英特尔咄咄逼人的营销策略阻止了oem厂商向消费者提供竞争产品。和微软一样,英特尔从事这种行为是为了维持其现有的垄断地位。微软和英特尔之间的这些相似之处表明,英特尔的反竞争行为损害了消费者,包括美国消费者,因为他们无法以更低的价格获得竞争对手的创新产品。美国认定微软屡次故意违反反垄断法,但未能获得有效补救。然而,欧盟应该更容易找到有效的补救措施。首先,与操作系统市场不同,芯片市场仍然存在一个可行的竞争对手,即AMD。其次,英特尔主要依靠排他性回扣,而不是知识产权合并,来维持其垄断地位。因此,欧盟应该能够制定一项不需要英特尔重新设计其产品的补救措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信