Intel has settled a lawsuit with the New York Attorney General that alleged it violated US and state antitrust laws, with the chip giant making a token payment of $6.5 million to cover legal costs.
Intel has settled a lawsuit with the New York Attorney General that alleged it violated US and state antitrust laws.
The chip giant paid out $6.5 million to settle the charges, which were originally filed in November 2009. The settlement also follows a court ruling in December 2011 which significantly reduced the scope of the Attorney General's lawsuit, which explains the relatively small payment involved. The payment is intended to cover some of the costs of litigation rather than act as a penalty for wrong-doing, a fact that Intel will be very pleased with.
The settlement also included conditions where Intel was recognised as not admitting any guilt for the alleged violations of law. Intel is also not required to make any changes to its business, which makes this settlement little more than a token victory, if even that, for the Attorney General.
“Following recent court rulings in Intel’s favor that significantly and appropriately narrowed the scope of this case, we were able to reach an agreement with New York to bring to an end what remained of the case,” said Doug Melamed, SVP and general counsel at Intel. “We have always said that Intel’s business practices are lawful, pro-competitive and beneficial to consumers, and we are pleased this matter has been resolved.”
The original complaint centred around allegations that Intel had obtained exclusive or near-exclusive agreements from large computer makers in exchange for billions of dollars of payments and retaliation threats to rival companies. Bribery and coercion of original equipment manufacturers in order to destroy competition with AMD was also part of the accusations.
Intel claimed that the Attorney General's complaint was grounded on “rhetoric and politics” rather than fact and law, and this latest settlement certainly supports its assertion that it did nothing wrong.
Leave a comment