Speaker 1: Intel's clash with the European Union over chip pricing has
Speaker 1: dragged on for eight years, but could tomorrow's ruling in
Speaker 1: Intel's case at the EU Court of Justice room the
Speaker 1: e use twenty year winning streak in antitrust cases. Intel
Speaker 1: has continued its battle against the Commission's one point twenty
Speaker 1: six billion dollar penalty in two thousand nine for using
Speaker 1: discounts to push out advanced micro devices and the decision
Speaker 1: by the EU second highest court to back the regulator
Speaker 1: joining us. Is Pinur Actman, a professor at the University
Speaker 1: of Leeds School of Law, par Will you start by
Speaker 1: explaining the case against Intel? Sure? So? The case against
Speaker 1: Intel was that Intelling age in two types of anti
Speaker 1: competite behavior. The first one was that is engaged in
Speaker 1: giving rebates to originally equipment manufacturers the company's lifestyle and
Speaker 1: HP and so on, in return for sailing computers that
Speaker 1: had exclusively Intel, so essentially was encouraging them to sell
Speaker 1: computers with intellliships as opposed to computers with a n
Speaker 1: D hips. And the second conduct was that it also
Speaker 1: gave some months and payments uh to certain companies in
Speaker 1: Europe to delay the promotion of A and D products
Speaker 1: and so on, and the Commission, the European Commission sol
Speaker 1: thought that both of these practices infringed the rule against
Speaker 1: the vius of the dominant position in the year, and
Speaker 1: the General Court, which is the first court of instance
Speaker 1: um essentially upheld the decision. So what we are waiting
Speaker 1: tomorrow is the final judgment on the matter which we
Speaker 1: were delivered by the Court of Justice of the opinion,
Speaker 1: and what what clues do we have is to how
Speaker 1: the court is likely to come out in this case.
Speaker 1: So a very important clue we have is the opinion
Speaker 1: of the Advocate General Neil All, which was delivered on
Speaker 1: twenties October two thousand sixteen as a general opinion quite
Speaker 1: heavily criticized the legal assessment of the General Court in
Speaker 1: this case, and essentially as good General has argued that
Speaker 1: Thintel should win almost all of the grounds of appeals.
Speaker 1: The Court of just generally follows that general. It doesn't
Speaker 1: always do so, but it's probably about eighty percent of
Speaker 1: the cases it's wont to follow the opinion of the
Speaker 1: Addux General. So that's really the main mainten actually we
Speaker 1: have in this case. So pinar if Intel does win.
Speaker 1: What does effect does that have on other companies? What
Speaker 1: does it mean for other companies that are fighting the
Speaker 1: EU antitrust cases. So it would be most directly relivant
Speaker 1: for any other companies who might and who might have
Speaker 1: a certain degree of market power in their own markets.
Speaker 1: The area on rebase is one of the most controversial
Speaker 1: areas of European composition law because there's severe criticisms of
Speaker 1: how the law has developed in this area to the
Speaker 1: extent that it's very formalistic, and essentially because it's found
Speaker 1: on the basis of the type of rebate is opposed
Speaker 1: to the effect of any given rebate on the competitive
Speaker 1: competitive structure and the competition on the market. So tomorrow's
Speaker 1: judgment is the Court desided in the way that the
Speaker 1: Advocate General has appoint would suggest that we will be
Speaker 1: moving towards a more economic effects based approach, whereby rebase
Speaker 1: will than the judge on their actually effects on the
Speaker 1: market or potacial defects on the market as opposed to
Speaker 1: what their names like. So, for example, at the moment,
Speaker 1: the General Court um judgments suggests that all exclusive rebates
Speaker 1: are very sale mowful, which the Advocate General has suggested
Speaker 1: is a misinterpretation of the law. So it would be
Speaker 1: important for first of all all the companies who might
Speaker 1: begin rebates in their commercial relations with their customers, but
Speaker 1: also possibly for other dominant companies UM cases at the year,
Speaker 1: at the moment, because as you have that at the
Speaker 1: Bain in the European Commission hasn't lost the case of
Speaker 1: the visa dominance in over two decades. Can we put
Speaker 1: some specific companies names of companies to that. So there
Speaker 1: there's a case involving Qualcom, there's an investigation involving Google.
Speaker 1: Are those companies that could benefit from this ruling? It
Speaker 1: depends on how far the Court of Justice goes. I
Speaker 1: mean they could benefits and principle if the court shows
Speaker 1: that it's willing to move towards a more sect sphased
Speaker 1: approach rather than a formalistic approach. UM Google comes to
Speaker 1: mind first because an Intel's case BBS in question was
Speaker 1: actually and abies that has been found to be unlovel
Speaker 1: in many previous cases as well. So it's the court
Speaker 1: shows some willingness to change the interpretation of the law
Speaker 1: in such a well established area of conduct. It might
Speaker 1: also suggest that it could be willing to do so
Speaker 1: in more novel types of practices, as is arguably the
Speaker 1: case in Google. Thank you so much for being with us.
Speaker 1: That's been our actment and professor of the University of
Speaker 1: Leads School of Law, and we will have that decision
Speaker 1: for you tomorrow on Bloomberg Law.