1 00:00:00,080 --> 00:00:03,160 Speaker 1: Intel's clash with the European Union over chip pricing has 2 00:00:03,240 --> 00:00:06,440 Speaker 1: dragged on for eight years, but could tomorrow's ruling in 3 00:00:06,600 --> 00:00:09,560 Speaker 1: Intel's case at the EU Court of Justice room the 4 00:00:09,640 --> 00:00:13,720 Speaker 1: e use twenty year winning streak in antitrust cases. Intel 5 00:00:13,720 --> 00:00:17,079 Speaker 1: has continued its battle against the Commission's one point twenty 6 00:00:17,079 --> 00:00:20,440 Speaker 1: six billion dollar penalty in two thousand nine for using 7 00:00:20,480 --> 00:00:24,079 Speaker 1: discounts to push out advanced micro devices and the decision 8 00:00:24,120 --> 00:00:27,200 Speaker 1: by the EU second highest court to back the regulator 9 00:00:27,760 --> 00:00:30,600 Speaker 1: joining us. Is Pinur Actman, a professor at the University 10 00:00:30,600 --> 00:00:34,000 Speaker 1: of Leeds School of Law, par Will you start by 11 00:00:34,040 --> 00:00:38,960 Speaker 1: explaining the case against Intel? Sure? So? The case against 12 00:00:39,000 --> 00:00:42,800 Speaker 1: Intel was that Intelling age in two types of anti 13 00:00:42,800 --> 00:00:46,159 Speaker 1: competite behavior. The first one was that is engaged in 14 00:00:46,479 --> 00:00:51,159 Speaker 1: giving rebates to originally equipment manufacturers the company's lifestyle and 15 00:00:51,360 --> 00:00:55,760 Speaker 1: HP and so on, in return for sailing computers that 16 00:00:56,040 --> 00:01:00,360 Speaker 1: had exclusively Intel, so essentially was encouraging them to sell 17 00:01:00,600 --> 00:01:03,240 Speaker 1: computers with intellliships as opposed to computers with a n 18 00:01:03,280 --> 00:01:06,039 Speaker 1: D hips. And the second conduct was that it also 19 00:01:06,160 --> 00:01:09,360 Speaker 1: gave some months and payments uh to certain companies in 20 00:01:09,440 --> 00:01:12,640 Speaker 1: Europe to delay the promotion of A and D products 21 00:01:12,680 --> 00:01:15,320 Speaker 1: and so on, and the Commission, the European Commission sol 22 00:01:15,400 --> 00:01:19,399 Speaker 1: thought that both of these practices infringed the rule against 23 00:01:19,400 --> 00:01:21,800 Speaker 1: the vius of the dominant position in the year, and 24 00:01:21,880 --> 00:01:24,440 Speaker 1: the General Court, which is the first court of instance 25 00:01:24,640 --> 00:01:29,640 Speaker 1: um essentially upheld the decision. So what we are waiting 26 00:01:29,680 --> 00:01:32,600 Speaker 1: tomorrow is the final judgment on the matter which we 27 00:01:32,600 --> 00:01:34,840 Speaker 1: were delivered by the Court of Justice of the opinion, 28 00:01:35,600 --> 00:01:38,280 Speaker 1: and what what clues do we have is to how 29 00:01:38,319 --> 00:01:40,800 Speaker 1: the court is likely to come out in this case. 30 00:01:42,080 --> 00:01:45,160 Speaker 1: So a very important clue we have is the opinion 31 00:01:45,240 --> 00:01:48,600 Speaker 1: of the Advocate General Neil All, which was delivered on 32 00:01:48,760 --> 00:01:53,720 Speaker 1: twenties October two thousand sixteen as a general opinion quite 33 00:01:53,720 --> 00:01:57,480 Speaker 1: heavily criticized the legal assessment of the General Court in 34 00:01:57,480 --> 00:02:00,840 Speaker 1: this case, and essentially as good General has argued that 35 00:02:01,200 --> 00:02:04,800 Speaker 1: Thintel should win almost all of the grounds of appeals. 36 00:02:04,920 --> 00:02:09,080 Speaker 1: The Court of just generally follows that general. It doesn't 37 00:02:09,120 --> 00:02:11,760 Speaker 1: always do so, but it's probably about eighty percent of 38 00:02:11,800 --> 00:02:13,760 Speaker 1: the cases it's wont to follow the opinion of the 39 00:02:13,800 --> 00:02:17,680 Speaker 1: Addux General. So that's really the main mainten actually we 40 00:02:17,760 --> 00:02:22,240 Speaker 1: have in this case. So pinar if Intel does win. 41 00:02:23,240 --> 00:02:26,000 Speaker 1: What does effect does that have on other companies? What 42 00:02:26,040 --> 00:02:28,920 Speaker 1: does it mean for other companies that are fighting the 43 00:02:29,160 --> 00:02:34,440 Speaker 1: EU antitrust cases. So it would be most directly relivant 44 00:02:34,720 --> 00:02:39,320 Speaker 1: for any other companies who might and who might have 45 00:02:39,440 --> 00:02:42,720 Speaker 1: a certain degree of market power in their own markets. 46 00:02:42,960 --> 00:02:45,880 Speaker 1: The area on rebase is one of the most controversial 47 00:02:45,919 --> 00:02:50,200 Speaker 1: areas of European composition law because there's severe criticisms of 48 00:02:50,360 --> 00:02:53,600 Speaker 1: how the law has developed in this area to the 49 00:02:53,600 --> 00:02:58,840 Speaker 1: extent that it's very formalistic, and essentially because it's found 50 00:02:58,840 --> 00:03:01,400 Speaker 1: on the basis of the type of rebate is opposed 51 00:03:01,400 --> 00:03:05,040 Speaker 1: to the effect of any given rebate on the competitive 52 00:03:05,280 --> 00:03:10,200 Speaker 1: competitive structure and the competition on the market. So tomorrow's 53 00:03:10,240 --> 00:03:13,600 Speaker 1: judgment is the Court desided in the way that the 54 00:03:13,680 --> 00:03:16,960 Speaker 1: Advocate General has appoint would suggest that we will be 55 00:03:17,000 --> 00:03:21,919 Speaker 1: moving towards a more economic effects based approach, whereby rebase 56 00:03:22,000 --> 00:03:24,520 Speaker 1: will than the judge on their actually effects on the 57 00:03:24,600 --> 00:03:27,960 Speaker 1: market or potacial defects on the market as opposed to 58 00:03:28,800 --> 00:03:32,040 Speaker 1: what their names like. So, for example, at the moment, 59 00:03:32,200 --> 00:03:36,000 Speaker 1: the General Court um judgments suggests that all exclusive rebates 60 00:03:36,160 --> 00:03:40,240 Speaker 1: are very sale mowful, which the Advocate General has suggested 61 00:03:40,520 --> 00:03:42,920 Speaker 1: is a misinterpretation of the law. So it would be 62 00:03:43,000 --> 00:03:46,400 Speaker 1: important for first of all all the companies who might 63 00:03:46,480 --> 00:03:51,880 Speaker 1: begin rebates in their commercial relations with their customers, but 64 00:03:52,000 --> 00:03:57,720 Speaker 1: also possibly for other dominant companies UM cases at the year, 65 00:03:57,760 --> 00:03:59,840 Speaker 1: at the moment, because as you have that at the 66 00:03:59,840 --> 00:04:02,240 Speaker 1: Bain in the European Commission hasn't lost the case of 67 00:04:02,320 --> 00:04:05,600 Speaker 1: the visa dominance in over two decades. Can we put 68 00:04:05,640 --> 00:04:08,640 Speaker 1: some specific companies names of companies to that. So there 69 00:04:08,800 --> 00:04:12,040 Speaker 1: there's a case involving Qualcom, there's an investigation involving Google. 70 00:04:12,560 --> 00:04:16,800 Speaker 1: Are those companies that could benefit from this ruling? It 71 00:04:16,880 --> 00:04:19,440 Speaker 1: depends on how far the Court of Justice goes. I 72 00:04:19,480 --> 00:04:23,479 Speaker 1: mean they could benefits and principle if the court shows 73 00:04:23,520 --> 00:04:27,039 Speaker 1: that it's willing to move towards a more sect sphased 74 00:04:27,080 --> 00:04:31,039 Speaker 1: approach rather than a formalistic approach. UM Google comes to 75 00:04:31,120 --> 00:04:34,800 Speaker 1: mind first because an Intel's case BBS in question was 76 00:04:34,880 --> 00:04:38,160 Speaker 1: actually and abies that has been found to be unlovel 77 00:04:38,200 --> 00:04:41,400 Speaker 1: in many previous cases as well. So it's the court 78 00:04:41,440 --> 00:04:44,800 Speaker 1: shows some willingness to change the interpretation of the law 79 00:04:44,880 --> 00:04:47,800 Speaker 1: in such a well established area of conduct. It might 80 00:04:47,880 --> 00:04:50,040 Speaker 1: also suggest that it could be willing to do so 81 00:04:50,240 --> 00:04:53,320 Speaker 1: in more novel types of practices, as is arguably the 82 00:04:53,360 --> 00:04:57,640 Speaker 1: case in Google. Thank you so much for being with us. 83 00:04:57,720 --> 00:05:00,080 Speaker 1: That's been our actment and professor of the University of 84 00:05:00,200 --> 00:05:03,560 Speaker 1: Leads School of Law, and we will have that decision 85 00:05:03,600 --> 00:05:05,440 Speaker 1: for you tomorrow on Bloomberg Law.