1 Competition Policy in a Global Market AMD v. INTEL Presented by Lucy Cradduck LLB, LLM (TechLaw),...
-
Upload
leona-ross -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of 1 Competition Policy in a Global Market AMD v. INTEL Presented by Lucy Cradduck LLB, LLM (TechLaw),...
1
Competition Policy in a Global Market
AMD v. INTELPresented by
Lucy Cradduck LLB, LLM (TechLaw), Solicitor
QLS European Perspectives on Law ConferenceParis, 17-19 October, 2007
Session 8
2
“It is not enough to succeed. Others must fail.”
Vidal, Gore US author & dramatist (1925 - )
3
Competition PolicyFocus on protecting competition not
competitorsSuccessful competition can result in
damage to competitors ‘Aggressive’ competitive behaviour may be
acceptable but anticompetitive behaviour is prohibited or regulated
Underlying rationale of policies vary – i.e. economics plays a much greater role in
competition policy in the US than in AustraliaProhibited conduct similar not same
4
What is all the fuss about?
AMD v INTEL
5
Presentation Overview
A little bit of history Issues Relevant Laws Complaints Current US action The Australian perspective Presentation context
6
A little bit of historyIntel Corporation (‘Intel’)
– Founded in 1968– Initial focus on development of ‘integrated circuit
memory device’ and ‘dynamic random access memory’
– First microprocessor was the 4004– 1970’s: began working collaboratively with clients– 1980’s: IBM selection of Intel chip architecture for
its PCs – focus now on PC market– 2003 - 2005 increased competition from AMD– 2006: collaboration with Skype– 90% of chip revenue globally (allegedly)
7
A little bit of history, contAdvanced Micro Devices, Inc (‘AMD’)
– Founded in 1969– 1970: introduces first proprietary device: Am2501
logic counter – Initial focus on development of ‘integrated circuit
memory device’ and ‘dynamic random access memory’
– 1982: agrees to be secondary source for IBM re Intel’s x86 chips under a Technology Sharing Agreement (‘TSA’)
– 1999: first AMD x86 chip with Intel – the Athlon microprocessor
– 2003: introduced Opteron microprocessor for servers– April 2005: AMD named “Processor Company of
2005”– 10% of chip revenue globally (allegedly)
8
A little bit of history, cont
NB – figures refer to number of PCs sold not revenue
Source – Advanced Micro Devices, Inc and Anor v Intel Corporation and Anor Civil Action No.05-441-JJF, United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Complaint filed 27 June 2005 - paragraph 25
A global market -
9
A little bit of history, cont
Previous ‘disagreements’ between AMD and Intel- Re TSA
1982: dispute re Intel’s failure to share information re 80286 chip
1984: dispute re 80386 chip 1987: arbitration re TSA
1992 – arbitration award of $10 mil to AMD 1994 – Californian Supreme Court upheld award
Re Intel’s 287 Microcode 1990: Intel alleged copyright infringement by AMD’s 80C287
code 1992: jury verdict in Intel favour 1993: new trial ordered (AMD application) 1994: jury verdict in AMD favour
10
A little bit of history, cont Antitrust allegations by AMD against Intel
1991: AMD filed complaint
Re Intel’s 386 Microcode 1991: Intel alleged copyright infringement by AMD’s 80C386
code Non-issue subsequent to AMD’s success in 287 Microcode
litigation
Intel Business Interference litigation 1992: AMD alleged tortious interference with economic
advantage – violation of Unfair Comp. Act (Cal.) Action stayed
1995 – global ‘settlement’ of claims regarding conduct occurring before 6 January, 1995
1997 – trademark infringement alleged by Intel against AMD – settled
11
A little bit of history, cont
Principles for Responsible Business
“Intel encourages competition, which benefits consumers by prohibiting unreasonable restraints on trade. Intel competes vigorously while at the same time adhering to both the letter and spirit of antitrust laws.”
http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/prin_resp_bus.htm (viewed 05/09/2007)
12
A little bit of history, cont
Intel Code of Conduct May 2, 2007
“To adhere to antitrust laws, we must not:– Communicate with any competitor relating to
price, any term that affects pricing, or production levels,
– Divide or allocate markets or customers,– Agree with a competitor to boycott another
business, or– Put inappropriate conditions on purchases or
sales.”http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/docs/code-of-conduct.pdf (viewed 05/09/2007)
13
A little bit of history, cont
Current concerns regarding “rebate policy” and corporate behaviour
Intel is alleged to be a “monopolist” in the “global duopoly” of microprocessor manufacturing
Albert A. Foer, The American Antitrust Institute letter to US Federal Trade Commission 29 August, 2007 http://breakfree.amd.com/en-us/assets/AAI%20FTC%20Letter%208.30.07.pdf (viewed 4/9/2007)
14
Issues
How is conduct regulated when – Occurs across multiple jurisdictions Competition laws and policies are
similar but not the same No one regulator or regulatory
system to monitor, investigate and punish
Availability and scope of private penalties varies
15
Relevant lawsEuropean Union
Article 82 EC TreatyAny abuse … of a dominant position within the common market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited … in so far as it may affect trade between Member States. Such abuse may, …consist in:
(a) …imposing unfair …prices or other unfair trading conditions;(b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers;(c) applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions…thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;(d) making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance…of … obligations not connected with the subject of such contracts.
16
Relevant laws, cont
South Korea
Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade ActArticle 3.2 – prohibits a “market-dominating
enterprise” from –• Price maintenance• Controlling the sale of service• Interfering with the business activities of others• Impeding the participation of new competitors• Acting to exclude competitors or harm the
interests of consumers
17
Relevant laws, contUnited StatesSherman Antitrust Act 1890 prohibits -
Sec. 1 – “Every contract, combination …or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations…” Sec. 2 – Monopolizing or attempting to monopolize “…trade or commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations…”
Clayton Act Antitrust Act 1914Sec. 4 – a successful plaintiff may recover “…threefold the damages by him sustained, and the cost of suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee…”
18
Relevant laws, cont
Japan
Antimonopoly ActArticle 3 – “No entrepreneur shall effect private monopolization or unreasonable restraint of trade”Article 6 – “No entrepreneur shall enter into an international agreement or an international contract which contains such matters as fall under unreasonable restraint of trade or unfair trade practices.”
Unofficial English translation - http://www.jftc.go.jp/e-page/legislation/ama/amended_ama.pdf (accessed 14/9/2007)
19
Complaints
European Union
South Korea
United States
Japan
20
Complaints, cont
European UnionEC Statement of Objections - EC Press Release MEMO/07/314 Brussels, 27 July 2007
2001: EC commenced investigation (includes German action)
June 2004: raids across Europe by various competition regulators
12 July 2005: raids by EC27 July 2007: Statement of Objections served on
Intel10 weeks for Intel to respond (i.e. by 5 October 2007)
NB Response not available at time of provision of powerpoint slides to QLS (28/9/7)
21
Complaints, cont
South KoreaSouth Korean Fair Trade Commission
– Violations of antitrust regulations– 11 Sept. 2007 - Statement of Objections
served –• "the results [of the investigation] are about
suspicions over Intel's abuse of its dominant market power in Korea.“ KFTC official Kim Sung Man
– Allegations to be reviewed by the full Fair Trade Commission
• Adverse decision subject to Court review
22
Complaints, cont
United States
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc and Anor v Intel Corporation and Anor Civil Action No.05-441-JJF, United States District Court for the District of Delaware
– Commenced June 2005– Allegations that Intel and Intel KK (Japan) engage in conduct
violating the Sherman Act (by illegally abusing its monopoly position to exclude and limit competition) and the California Business and Professions Code by-
• Discriminatory discounts• Rebates • Interfering with prospective business advantages of AMD
– Subpoenas issued for third party discovery – includes Microsoft, Skype
23
Complaints, cont
Japan Japan Fair Trade Commission recommendation decision to Intel Kabushiki Kaisha (8 March 2005)
– IKK “made the five major Japanese [operating equipment manufacturers] refrain from adopting competitors’ CPUs …by making commitments to provide …rebates and/or…[market development funds]…”
– Breach of Article 3 Antimonopoly Act
AMD Japanese Subsidiary v Intel Kabushiki Kaisha (2 actions) -
– Seeking civil damages arising from the breaches of the Antimonopoly Act
24
Complaints, cont
A comparison
Start
Jurisdiction
Instigator
Conduct Status
1984 USA AMD Various 1995 Settlement
2001 EU EC (2000 - AMD complaint)
Unfair business practices
27/7/7 – SO sent - Ongoing
8/4/4 Japan JFTC Abusive conduct re rebates and MDF
8/3/5 – decision became order 31/3/5 - abuse of monopoly power
2005 South Korea SKFTC Abuses of dominant market power
9/2/6 – raids by FTC12/9/7 – statement of objections served
25
Complaints, cont
Start
Jurisdiction Instigator Conduct Status
27/6/5
USA AMD Discounts, rebates, interference
Ongoing – trial 2009 Thursday, April 27 at 9:30 a.m.
2005 USA – US District Courts and State Courts
78 class actions
Rebates Consolidated to either MLP Delaware or California - ongoing
30/6/5
Japan AMD Breaches Anti-monopoly Act
16/12/5 – Order made JFTC to hand over docs re its investigations
26
Current US actionIssues
Claims relating to conduct outside the USA struck out
Discovery permitted re struck out claims Action also hampered by Intel’s
‘archiving’ policy and ‘preservation’ system
Cost • 36+ Discovery subpoenas and 42+ Class
subpoenas– 11 subpoenas just to Intel
27
Current US action, cont
A ‘global’ market? • EU – internal market but with extraterritorial
application if conduct affects internal competition
• USA – market – not defined but not limited other than by FTAIA but subject matter jurisdiction issues can arise
• Sth Korea - internal market but with extraterritorial application if conduct affects internal competition
28
The Australian perspective
AustraliaTrade Practices Act 1974
S. 46(1) – “A corporation that has a substantial degree of power in a market shall not take advantage of that power in that or any other market for the purpose of:
(a)Eliminating or substantially damaging a competitor…(b)Preventing the entry of a person into that or any other
market;(c)Deterring or preventing a person from engaging in
competitive conduct in that or any other market…”
29
The future
How do we get there? Co-operation of enforcement
agencies• Detection and prosecution of cartels
Harmonisation of laws• “One law”?• International treaties - trade• Bilateral agreements
30
The future, cont
• Issues impacting on co-operation– Prohibited conduct similar but not the
same
• Issues impacting on harmonization– (ab)use of trade power by more
developed nations to force agreement– No distinction between hard core
cartel behaviours and beneficial agreements
31
The future, cont
• Other – Conflict between copyright laws (TPMs) and
competition laws• Absolute and State protected monopolies will
impact on the effectiveness of competition laws
– Foreshadowed changes to EC Treaty – removal of words “free and unfettered competition” from Objects
– USA Antitrust modernization commission report
– AMD’s current alliances
32
Presentation context PhD Candidate: Information Security Institute,
QUT, Brisbane, Australia Thesis title: “Technological Protection Measures:
A Cartel for Anti-competitive practices” Research context: How can “…competition law
rectify or ameliorate the real or potential excesses of the enforcement of digital rights management schemes?”
Research is part of ARC Discovery Grant on “The use of information and cryptographic technology to restrict competition” - Chief Investigators are Prof. Bill Caelli, Prof. Stephen Corones and Dr. Adrian McCullagh