Innovation, Competition and Antitrust: An Examination of the Intel Case

Abstract

Microprocessor-maker Intel has been subjected to the highest fine in the history of EU competition policy. Intel operates in a market with one other main supplier, a fact that seemed to provide grounds to those accusing it of abusing a dominant position. The authors argue that, in spite of the limited number of players, the microprocessor market showed the distinctive marks of dynamic competition: ever-lower prices and ever-growing innovation. Political considerations more than sound economic reasoning seem to be behind the EU antitrust decision.

Should the State Control Tariffs?

“…5 of 1999 prohibits predatory pricing practice because it can lead to monopolistic practice. It is even further strengthened by the large amount of literature that agrees with the law that punishing predatory prices is the worst illegal open exploitation because the strategy is using the economic justification for getting an attempt to monopolize (Kennedy, 2020;Taylor et al, 2013) after the market is 'cleared' (Mazzone & Mingardi, 2011). For jurists or legal scholars and some other economists who argue that predatory pricing is rational, they also note that predatory pricing will only make sense if predatory firms compensate for their initial losses after gaining monopoly power.…”

The Role of Competition Law: An Asian Perspective

“…It is drafted to protect the smaller firms from the power of the larger enterprises (Calvani, 1981;Lapachi & Ketevan, 2002). In Intel case law, it was found that political considerations played more important role than economic reasoning behind the EU antitrust decision (Mazzone & Mingardi, 2011). Tackling of monopolistic pricing is also a main concern (Wu, 2012).…”