14,927
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 11:
Line 11: − + Line 18:
Line 18: − − − ==Intel and ICANN== − On January 26, 2010, Intel expressed its disappointment regarding the [[Special Trademark Issues]] Working Team (STI) Report on Trademark Protection on New [[gTLD]]s. 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 a draft of the [[Applicant Guidebook|applicant guidebook]]. They note that the IRT's recommendations effectively created a system of inter-working mechanisms that 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 during new gTLD pre-launch, and during [[UDRP|Uniform Rapid Suspension System]] (URSS) and [[Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy]] (UDRP) proceedings for all TLDs, including existing ones. The also wanted information submitted to the Trademark Clearinghouse to be shared to [[Registry|registries]] and [[Registrar|registrars]] solely for the purpose of supporting RPM procedures, unless otherwise authorized by trademark owners. Intel believed that fees to submit trademarks to the Trademark Clearing House should be minimal. Regarding the URS process, Intel agrees that it will be a beneficial tool as long as the process is made less expensive and quicker.<ref>[http://forum.icann.org/lists/sti-report-2009/msg00068.html Intel Corporation Comments on STI Report]</ref> Line 31:
Line 27: − + Line 72:
Line 68: − + Line 83:
Line 79: − + Line 92:
Line 88: − + − + − + − + − + + + + + + + + − In 2009, EC ruled that Intel committed anti-competitive business practices and ordered the company to pay $ 1.45 billion fine. According to E.U. Competition Commissioner [[Neelie Kroes]], Intel seriously violated the E.U. antitrust riles which cannot be tolerated. Furthermore she states that, + − "Intel has harmed millions of European consumers by deliberately acting to keep competitors out of the market for computer chips for many years." On the other hand, 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.<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1897913,00.html The Chips Are Down: Intel's $1.45 Billion Fine]</ref>+ − + + − +
removed Category:Companies using HotCat
| products =
| products =
| employees = 82,500 as of 2010<ref>[http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/50863/000095012311015783/f56033e10vk.htm#F56033112 Form 10-K]</ref>
| employees = 82,500 as of 2010<ref>[http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/50863/000095012311015783/f56033e10vk.htm#F56033112 Form 10-K]</ref>
| revenue = $43.623 billion as of 2010 <ref>[http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/50863/000095012311015783/f56033e10vk.htm#F56033112 Form 10-K]</ref>]
| revenue = $43.623 billion as of 2010 <ref>[http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/50863/000095012311015783/f56033e10vk.htm#F56033112 Form 10-K]</ref>
| website = [http://www.intel.com www.intel.com]
| website = [http://www.intel.com www.intel.com]
| blog =
| blog =
| twitter =
| twitter =
| keypeople = [[Paul Otellini]], President & CEO <br> [[Jane Shaw]], Chairman
| keypeople = [[Paul Otellini]], President & CEO <br> [[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.<ref>[http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/history2/84/Intel-Corporation.html Reference for Business, Intel Corporation]</ref>
'''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.<ref>[http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/history2/84/Intel-Corporation.html Reference for Business, Intel Corporation]</ref>
==Timeline==
==Timeline==
* 1969- Intel launched the first metal oxide semiconductor, MOS 1101 and the company logo. Its first product was introduced to the market, the 3101 Schottky bipolar random access memory (RAM).
* 1969- Intel launched the first metal oxide semiconductor, MOS 1101 and the company logo. Its first product was introduced to the market, the 3101 Schottky bipolar random access memory (RAM).
* 1970-1103 DRAM was released as the standard compute memory for the computer industry
* 1970-1103 DRAM was released as the standard compute memory for the computer industry
* 1971, The company went public and offered its stock at $23.50 per share
* 1971- The company went public and offered its stock at $23.50 per share
* 1972- The first international manufacturing facility in Penang, Malaysia was opened and released the first 8-bit microprocessor 8008.
* 1972- The first international manufacturing facility in Penang, Malaysia was opened and released the first 8-bit microprocessor 8008.
* 1973- The developed P/LM, the first high level language for microprocessors and introduced the intellec 4-40 software development tool
* 1973- The developed P/LM, the first high level language for microprocessors and introduced the intellec 4-40 software development tool
* '''McAfee'''- a computer security technology company- $7.68 billion transaction<ref>
* '''McAfee'''- a computer security technology company- $7.68 billion transaction<ref>
[http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100819005699/en/Intel-Acquire-McAfee Intel to Acquire McAfee]</ref>
[http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100819005699/en/Intel-Acquire-McAfee Intel to Acquire McAfee]</ref>
* '''Infineon Technologies WLS''', a standalone wireless business unit which makes baseband processors, radio-frequency (RF) transceivers, power management integrated circuits and system software, $1.4 billion transaction <ref>[http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/mobile-devices/2010/08/31/intel-buys-infineons-wireless-wing-for-4g-lift-off-40089960/ Intel buys Infineon's wireless wing for 4G lift-off]</ref>
* '''Infineon Technologies WLS'''- a standalone wireless business unit which makes baseband processors, radio-frequency (RF) transceivers, power management integrated circuits and system software, $1.4 billion transaction<ref>[http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/mobile-devices/2010/08/31/intel-buys-infineons-wireless-wing-for-4g-lift-off-40089960/ Intel buys Infineon's wireless wing for 4G lift-off]</ref>
* '''SYSDSoft'''- an Egyptian 4G Wireless company which designs software for wireless, mobile platforms such as WiMax, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, Wireless USB, CDMA-DO and LTE related technologies, transaction undisclosed<ref>[http://venturebeat.com/2011/03/14/intel-buys-4g-lte-sysdsoft-in-egypt/ Intel buys 4G wireless software firm SySDSoft]</ref>
* '''SYSDSoft'''- an Egyptian 4G Wireless company which designs software for wireless, mobile platforms such as WiMax, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, Wireless USB, CDMA-DO and LTE related technologies, transaction undisclosed<ref>[http://venturebeat.com/2011/03/14/intel-buys-4g-lte-sysdsoft-in-egypt/ Intel buys 4G wireless software firm SySDSoft]</ref>
* '''Fulcrum Microsystems Inc.'''- manufacturer of high bandwidth network switching chips, transaction undisclosed<ref>[http://eetimes.com/electronics-news/4217982/Fulcrum-buy-could-signal-shift-for-Intel- Fulcrum buy could signal shift for Intel]</ref>
* '''Fulcrum Microsystems Inc.'''- manufacturer of high bandwidth network switching chips, transaction undisclosed<ref>[http://eetimes.com/electronics-news/4217982/Fulcrum-buy-could-signal-shift-for-Intel- Fulcrum buy could signal shift for Intel]</ref>
===AMD Antitrust Lawsuit===
===AMD Antitrust Lawsuit===
In 2005, Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) filed an anti-trust lawsuit against Intel in the Unite States District Court of Delaware for allegedly practicing scare and coercion tactics on 38 companies to monopolize the x86 microprocessor industry.<ref>[http://news.cnet.com/AMD-files-antitrust-suit-against-Intel---page-2/2100-1001_3-5765844-2.html?tag=mncol AMD files antitrust suit against Intel]</ref> In its complaint, AMD cited Intel pressured HP's Senior Managers to fire an executive who planned to use AMD chips on the HP Evo computers 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.<ref>[http://news.cnet.com/AMDs-case-Market-forces-or-manipulation/2100-1014_3-5766776.html?tag=mncol;txt AMD's case: Market forces or manipulation?]</ref> The company also filed the same charges against Intel with the Japanese Fair Trade Commission and Korea's competition authorities.<ref>[http://www.ccianet.org/CCIA/files/ccLibraryFiles/Filename/000000000062/Antitrust-Competition.pdf Computer & Communications Industry Association:Antitrust Competition Policy]</ref>
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.<ref>[http://news.cnet.com/AMD-files-antitrust-suit-against-Intel---page-2/2100-1001_3-5765844-2.html?tag=mncol AMD files antitrust suit against Intel]</ref> 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.<ref>[http://news.cnet.com/AMDs-case-Market-forces-or-manipulation/2100-1014_3-5766776.html?tag=mncol;txt AMD's case: Market forces or manipulation?]</ref> The company also filed the same charges against Intel with the Japanese Fair Trade Commission and Korea's competition authorities.<ref>[http://www.ccianet.org/CCIA/files/ccLibraryFiles/Filename/000000000062/Antitrust-Competition.pdf Computer & Communications Industry Association:Antitrust Competition Policy]</ref>
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:<ref>[http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10396188-92.html Intel to pay AMD $1.25 billion in antitrust settlement]</ref>
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:<ref>[http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10396188-92.html Intel to pay AMD $1.25 billion in antitrust settlement]</ref>
* Offering inducements to customers or others to delay or forebear in the development or release of computer systems or platforms containing AMD microprocessors, whether on a geographic, market segment, or any other basis
* Offering inducements to customers or others to delay or forebear in the development or release of computer systems or platforms containing AMD microprocessors, whether on a geographic, market segment, or any other basis
* Offering inducements to retailers or distributors to limit or delay their purchase or distribution of computer systems or platforms containing AMD microprocessors, whether on a geographic, market segment, or any other basis
* Offering inducements to retailers or distributors to limit or delay their purchase or distribution of computer systems or platforms containing AMD microprocessors, whether on a geographic, market segment, or any other basis
* Withholding any benefit or threatening retaliation against anyone for their refusal to enter into a prohibited arrangement such as the ones listed above.
* Withholding any benefit or threatening retaliation against anyone for their refusal to enter into a prohibited arrangement such as the ones listed above
===Transmeta Patent Infringement Case===
===Transmeta Patent Infringement Case===
In 2006, Transmeta Corporation,a company engage in developing and licensing innovative computing, microprocessor and semiconductor technologies and other related intellectual property filed a patent infringement case against Intel. According John O'Hara Horsley, Vice-president of the company said, "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 including attorneys fees. <ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20070501122930/http://investor.transmeta.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=214275 Transmeta Announces Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against Intel Corporation]</ref> In 2007, Transmeta settled the case with Intel. TRansmeta agreed to license the Transmeta patent portfolio to Intel. In return, Intel will make an initial payment of $150 million to Transmeta and a $20 million annual license fee for the next five years.<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/10/24/transmeta-lawsuit-intel-idUSWNAS782620071024 Transmeta settles patent suit with Intel]</ref>
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|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.<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20070501122930/http://investor.transmeta.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=214275 Transmeta Announces Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against Intel Corporation]</ref> 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.<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/10/24/transmeta-lawsuit-intel-idUSWNAS782620071024 Transmeta settles patent suit with Intel]</ref>
===State of New York Antitrust Lawsuit===
===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, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law for practicing anti-competitive business practices and monopolizing the x86 CPU market.<ref>[http://www.oag.state.ny.us/media_center/2009/nov/NYAG_v_Intel_COMPLAINT_FINAL.pdf State of New York Antitrust Lawsuit Againt Intel]</ref> On the other hand, 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."<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/04/AR2009110402015.html N.Y. files antitrust lawsuit against Intel]</ref>
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.<ref>[http://www.oag.state.ny.us/media_center/2009/nov/NYAG_v_Intel_COMPLAINT_FINAL.pdf State of New York Antitrust Lawsuit Againt Intel]</ref> 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."<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/04/AR2009110402015.html N.Y. files antitrust lawsuit against Intel]</ref>
===European Commission Anti-Competitive Lawsuit===
===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:<ref>[http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/07/314& Competition: Commission confirms sending of Statement of Objections to Intel]</ref> <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/5316447/Intel-faces-biggest-ever-EU-competition-fine.html Intel faces biggest ever EU competition fine]</ref>
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:<ref>[http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/07/314& Competition: Commission confirms sending of Statement of Objections to Intel]</ref> <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/5316447/Intel-faces-biggest-ever-EU-competition-fine.html Intel faces biggest ever EU competition fine]</ref>
* Intel offered significant amount of rebates to various Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) with a condition to purchase all their CPU requirement from Intel
* Intel offered significant amount of rebates to various Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) with a condition to purchase all their CPU requirement from Intel
* Paid OEM to entice them to delay or cancel the launching of product lines with an AMD-based CPU
* Paid OEM to entice them to delay or cancel the launching of product lines with an AMD-based CPU
* Intel offered CPUs on average or below cost in bidding against AMD-based products for strategic customers in the server market
* Intel offered CPUs on average or below cost in bidding against AMD-based products for strategic customers in the server market
In response to the allegations, Intel's General Counsel Bruce Sewell said that 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." <ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/07/27/idUSL2788098920070727?sp=true Intel says EU made errors in antitrust charges]</ref>
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."<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/07/27/idUSL2788098920070727?sp=true Intel says EU made errors in antitrust charges]</ref>
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.<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1897913,00.html The Chips Are Down: Intel's $1.45 Billion Fine]</ref>
==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.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/comments-mail/comment-udrp/current/msg00095.html Comments on the Draft UDRP, Accompanying Rules, and Provider Selection]</ref>
On January 26, 2010, Intel expressed its disappointment regarding the [[Special Trademark Issues]] Working Team (STI) Report on Trademark Protection on New [[gTLD]]s. 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 [[New gTLD Applicant Guidebook|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 [[UDRP|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 [[Registry|registries]] and [[Registrar|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.<ref>[http://forum.icann.org/lists/sti-report-2009/msg00068.html Intel Corporation Comments on STI Report]</ref>
==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.<ref>http://isoc.org/wp/newsletter/?p=2450 Newsletter, ISOC.org]</ref>
==References==
==References==
{{reflist}}
<div style="column-count:2;-moz-column-count:2;-webkit-column-count:2">
{{reflist}}</div>
[[Category:Companies]]
[[Category:Electronics]]