Intel

From ICANNWiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Intel.JPG
Type: Public
Industry: Semi-coductors
Founded: July 18, 1968
Founder(s): Gordon Moore & Robert Noyce
Headquarters: Santa Clara, California
Country: USA
Employees: 82,500 as of 2010[1]
Revenue: $43.623 billion as of 2010 [2]
Website: www.intel.com
Key People
Paul Otellini, President & CEO
Jane Shaw, Chairman

Intel Corporation is the the world's largest semiconductor manufacturer and the inventor of the first microprocessor. Eighty percent of computers worldwide use Intel microchips. The company also designs and manufactures other advance computing and communications components including flash memory, graphic chips, embedded processors, motherboard chip sets, network interface controllers and integrated circuits. Intel was established in 1968 and its headquarters is located in Santa Clara, California.[3]

Contents

Timeline

Below are significant events about Intel based on the company's corporate timeline.[4]

Acquisitions

As of 2010, Intel acquired the following assets:

Global Processor Market Share

On August 2011, IDC reported that Intel's market share for global microprocessor was 79.9 percent. The company's market share was down 1.4 percent compared to the 80.7 percent share on the second quarter of 2010. Intel recorded 84.4 percent market share for laptop processors while 70.9 percent for desktop processors and 94.5 percent for server processors. Meanwhile, the company's market share for pc microprocessor with an integrated graphics processing was 88 percent.[9] [10]

Legal Battles

Intel has been confronted with several legal antitrust legal cases in the United States and internationally including:

AMD Antitrust Lawsuit

In 2005, Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) filed an anti-trust lawsuit against Intel in the United States District Court of Delaware for allegedly practicing scare and coercion tactics on 38 companies to monopolize the x86 microprocessor industry.[11] In its complaint, AMD claimed Intel pressured HP's Senior Managers to fire an executive who planned to use AMD chips on the HP Evo computers and that is why HP turned down AMD 's free microprocessors offer to HP. In addition, AMD also claimed that Intel offered to pay 300 million yen per quarter in exchange for caps on purchasing from AMD. The result, AMD's 84% share on NEC's consumer business was completely lost within six months.[12] The company also filed the same charges against Intel with the Japanese Fair Trade Commission and Korea's competition authorities.[13]

In 2009, Intel agreed to pay AMD $1.25 billion to settle the anti-trust lawsuit and agreed to refrain conducting the following business practices:[14]

Transmeta Patent Infringement Case

In 2006, Transmeta Corporation, a company engaged in developing and licensing innovative computing, microprocessor and semiconductor technologies filed a patent infringement case against Intel. According to John O'Hara Horsley, Vice-president of the company, "After endeavoring to negotiate with Intel for fair compensation for the continued use of our intellectual property, we have concluded that we must turn to the judicial system to be fairly compensated for our inventions". Transmeta alleged that Intel used Transmeta inventions on its microprocessor product lines including Intel Pentium III, Pentium 4, Pentium M, Core and Core 2. The company requested a court order prohibiting Intel to continue to sell the products, financial damages and royalties on infringing products, and attorneys fees.[15] In 2007, Transmeta settled the case with Intel. Transmeta agreed to license the Transmeta patent portfolio to Intel. In return, Intel was to make an initial payment of $150 million to Transmeta and begin $20 million annual license fees for the next five years.[16]

State of New York Antitrust Lawsuit

In 2007, New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo filed a complaint againts Intel in the U.S. District Court of Delaware for allegedly violating Section 2 of the Sherman Act and violating the Donnelly Act, by practicing anti-competitive business practices and monopolizing the x86 CPU market.[17] Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy said that the allegations were wrong and said, "Neither consumers who have consistently benefited from lower prices and increased innovation nor justice are being served by the decision to file a case now. Intel will defend itself."[18]

European Commission Anti-Competitive Lawsuit

In 2007, the European Commission filed an anti-competitive case against Intel. According to the EU Statement of Objection, the company violated Article 82 of the EC Treaty rules on abuse of a dominant position. EU cited that Intel conducted the following business practices:[19] [20]

In response to the allegations, Intel's General Counsel Bruce Sewell said that the EC committed factual mistakes on its charges against Intel, particularly on the company's pricing and manufacturing costs. Sewell said, "I can tell you that having read the SO there are factual assumptions which have been made which we think the Commission has simply gotten wrong -- not intentionally."[21]

In 2009, the EC ruled that Intel committed anti-competitive business practices and ordered the company to pay a $1.45 billion fine. According to E.U. Competition Commissioner, Neelie Kroes, Intel seriously violated the E.U. antitrust rules. Furthermore, she stated that, "Intel has harmed millions of European consumers by deliberately acting to keep competitors out of the market for computer chips for many years." Intel Chairman Paul Otellini said that the company will appeal the decision and the Commission failed to acknowledge the reality of a highly competitive microprocessor market.[22]

ICANN Involvement

On October 13 1999, Scott B. Schwartz, Intel Corporation's Senior Attorney for Trademarks & Brands, provided comments regarding the Accompanying Rules, and Provider of ICANN's Draft UDRP. Schwartz commented that ICANN demonstrated a positive advancement towards the protection of trademarks in cyberspace by posting the UDRP to its website; he believed, however, that certain sections needed revision.[23]

On January 26, 2010, Intel expressed its disappointment regarding the Special Trademark Issues Working Team (STI) Report on Trademark Protection on New gTLDs. The company was disappointed that many of the strategies recommended by the prior Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) were not incorporated into the STI Team's report or any draft of the applicant guidebook. They noted that the IRT's recommendations effectively created a system of interworking mechanisms, which included a globally protected marks list, and that by leaving them out in the STI report, the effectiveness of any one measure was severely compromised. Intel urged ICANN to reconsider incorporating some of the IRT recommendations. Meanwhile, Intel acknowledged the benefits of a Trademark Clearinghouse as necessary protection tool for trademarks. The company suggested that its use and scope be expanded and that it should be used during new the gTLD pre-launch and during Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URSS) and Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) proceedings for all TLDs, including existing ones. They also proposed that information submitted to the Trademark Clearinghouse be shared with registries and registrars, for the purpose of supporting RPM procedures, unless otherwise authorized by trademark owners. Intel believed that fees to submit trademarks to the Trademark Clearinghouse should be minimal. Regarding the URS process, Intel agreed that it would be a beneficial tool as long as the process was made less expensive and quicker.[24]

ISOC

Intel is a sponsor of a component of ISOC's Next Generation Leaders Programme, which is an academic and field-based program, launched in 2010 in conjunction with the DiploFoundation, intended to further the skills of promising Internet professionals and individuals working in Internet governance. Intel specifically sponsors a fellowship with the IETF, a part of the academic portion of the NGL programme.[25]

References

  1. Form 10-K
  2. Form 10-K
  3. Reference for Business, Intel Corporation
  4. Intel Museum: Corporate Timeline
  5. Intel to Acquire McAfee
  6. Intel buys Infineon's wireless wing for 4G lift-off
  7. Intel buys 4G wireless software firm SySDSoft
  8. Fulcrum buy could signal shift for Intel
  9. IDC Reduces Yearly Processor Shipment Growth Forecast
  10. IDC cuts PC microprocessor forecast
  11. AMD files antitrust suit against Intel
  12. AMD's case: Market forces or manipulation?
  13. Computer & Communications Industry Association:Antitrust Competition Policy
  14. Intel to pay AMD $1.25 billion in antitrust settlement
  15. Transmeta Announces Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against Intel Corporation
  16. Transmeta settles patent suit with Intel
  17. State of New York Antitrust Lawsuit Againt Intel
  18. N.Y. files antitrust lawsuit against Intel
  19. Competition: Commission confirms sending of Statement of Objections to Intel
  20. Intel faces biggest ever EU competition fine
  21. Intel says EU made errors in antitrust charges
  22. The Chips Are Down: Intel's $1.45 Billion Fine
  23. Comments on the Draft UDRP, Accompanying Rules, and Provider Selection
  24. Intel Corporation Comments on STI Report
  25. http://isoc.org/wp/newsletter/?p=2450 Newsletter, ISOC.org]
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Platinum Sponsor
Gold Sponsors
Silver Sponsor
Bronze Sponsors
Follow Us

Twitter
Facebook

Toolbox