back to article EU case relies on dodgy evidence: says Intel

Intel's general counsel has made a spirited defence of the company and accused the European Competition Commission of relying on dodgy evidence and ignoring documents which contradicted its case, after receiving a record fine for anti-competitive practices. Bruce Sewell, Intel's general counsel, said in a statement: "We take …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Intel confession

    "I know of no instance where we've tried to hide anything."

    Their lawyer isn't even denying it. He's simply claiming he was unaware of it.

    "Sewell said he was unaware of this evidence, or of other claimed anti-competitive behaviour."

    Not disputing it even disputing it exists.

    "Intel's chief lawyer said there had been no victimisation of either consumers or OEMs."

    So nobody went out of line, even to the extent of refusing FREE chips they complied with Intels demands.

    "Such funds are the juice that computer distribution runs on - disties as well as computer makers and retailers often rely on marketing money to turn dud deals into profitable ones."

    There's the confession.

  2. Anonymous Coward


    Really? A sentence written by El Reg constitutes a confession by Intel? What an interesting legal system they must have in your country!

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward


    "A sentence written by El Reg constitutes a confession by Intel?"

    I know nothing about ElReg's writing of this sentence, ergo I have successfully rebutted your accusation that that last sentence is not El Reg quoting Sewell but rather El Reg putting in background info! The evidence is weak about who wrote that last sentence! There was no harm in attributing that last sentence to Intel! You are relying on hearsay! :)

    He's going to have to do a lot better than this. Saying the evidence is 'weak' is an admission there is evidence. I'm reading Otellini comments too, he's doing the same mistake. When he talks about "no harm" to consumers, he's put up a scale of zero harm to lots of harm. 'Good' isn't even on that scale.

    They can't even come out with a point by point rebuttle of "this is false, intel did no such thing" "that is false, we did not do that", "that never happened", "no that is not true...." etc.

    They need to refute it, or admit it and say it is competition and pretend it was for the greater good, but sort of half mincing non denial denials, and statements of the 'weak evidence', are just destroying their own case.

  4. Lars Silver badge
    Thumb Down

    Dear EU

    As I have no information, and know nothing, about what you say has happened, then clearly Intel is completely innocent.

    It would also be very nice if you would consider how hard the times are at the moment.

    Regards Ottelini

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward


    The public are not the judge in this case. I'm sure Intel are busy preparing a strong defense for the appeal - it's not us they need to impress, and what they say in these inteviews is only relative to PR, not the ruling.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like