Abstract:Microsoft and Intel are both obvious targets for antitrust litigation; both wield considerable control in their respective segments of the computer industry. But while Mircrosoft has been mired in court for years now--its name and business practices dragged through the mud, and its very future as a single company thrown into doubt--Intel has avoided a prolonged, high-profile antitrust case. Intel's success is not a matter of luck. The company's antitrust compliance program, refined over many years, has been an integral element in the chip maker's business strategy. In this article, the authors suggest that Intel's approach to compliance provides a valuable model for any enterprise that may come under regulators' scrutiny. They describe how Intel created extremely conservative antitrust compliance standards and then instituted a series of unique training events that had active support from then--CEO Andy Grove and others in senior management. First, live training -- not just instructional pamphlets or videos -- was given to all affected employees. Those classes were followed by customized training programs for different parts of the company. Then, to drive antitrust awareness deeper into the company's memory, Intel carried out random audits of employees' files and conducted mock depositions. "It's fascinating to see," Grove says. "A memo is introduced into evidence and you shrug. You fully understand how that memo could be written. Moreover, you could have written it yourself. And then you see that memo turned into a tool and a weapon against you, in front of your eyes." Intel recognizes that no matter how cautious it is, it will always face extraordinary scrutiny as a market leader. But "since antitrust is embedded in everything we do," Grove says, "we can control our destiny."

Rebates after the General Court’s 2022 Intel judgment

Rebates under EU Competition Law after the 2017 Intel Judgment: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

The Intel judgment: the Commission threw the first stone but the EU courts will throw the last

The Judgment of the EU General Court in Intel and the So-Called 'More Economic Approach' to Abuse of Dominance

Conditional Rebates and Intel: A Step Backwards by any Standard?

The Judgment of the EU Court of Justice in Intel and the Rule of Reason in Abuse of Dominance Cases

Resale price maintenance: by object infringements and per se infringements – mind the gap!

Navigating ne bis in idem: bpost, Nordzucker and the Digital Markets Act

A Unified Test for the European Ne Bis in Idem Principle: The Case Study of Digital Markets Regulation.

Huawei ./. ZTE, or, how the CJEU closed the Orange Book

ECONOMIC PRINCIPLES FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF ABUSE OF DOMINANCE PROVISIONS

The Privacy/Antitrust Curse: Insights from GDPR Application in Competition Law Proceedings

How the European Commission Implements WTO Rulings and European Courts’ Judgments Annulling Trade Defence Regulations: Identifying Similar Trends

Recent Developments at DG Competition: 2023/2024

Playing by the rules. How Intel avoids antitrust litigation

Differentiated Treatment in Platform-to-Business Relations: EU Competition Law and Economic Dependence

Resale price maintenance: The European Commission fines four consumer electronics manufacturers for imposing fixes or minimum resale prices on their online retailers (Asus ; Donan & Marantz ; Philips ; Pionner)

A systematic content analysis of innovation in European competition law

Automated individual decision-making and profiling [on case C-634/21 - SCHUFA (Scoring)]

Europe’s Green Ambition: New Guidelines of the European Commission on the Application of Art. 101 TFEU to Sustainability Agreements – A Critical Account

Recent developments in Korean antirust cases concerning FRAND-encumbered standard essential patents