The deal settling the Federal Trade Commission's antitrust case
against Intel appears destined to sail toward final approval by early
summer.
Representatives at both Intergraph
and Compaq Computer, two companies
alleged to have been harmed by Intel's
predatory conduct, indicated that they will not file objections to the
consent order, which is now open for a 60-day comment period.
"We believe the proposed consent decree between the FTC and Intel addresses the interests of the
industry and most importantly, our customers," a Compaq spokesman said.
"Compaq therefore supports the proposed settlement."
An Intergraph spokeswoman likewise said the Huntsville, Alabama, maker of
workstations would not file objections.
In a complaint filed
last June, the FTC alleged Intel was a monopolist that forced customers to
sign away valuable patent rights or lose access to crucial Intel product
information and samples. Intel did not dispute most of the factual
allegations, but said it was not a monopolist and that its actions were
completely legal.
The settlement, which was announced a day before the two sides were to
square off in court, was tentatively approved Wednesday in a 3-0 vote by
the agencies commissioners. It prevents Intel from withholding products and
product information from customers that assert intellectual property
rights, as long as they agree not to seek court orders prohibiting the sale
or use of Intel chips. It is expected to receive final approval a few weeks
after the comment period closes, possibly as early as July 4.
William Kovacic, an antitrust specialist at George Washington University, said even when
there is opposition, commissioners almost never derail a proposed settlement.
"It is exceedingly rare that a consent decree would be abandoned
completely, and it is unusual for proposed consent decrees to be modified
in light of public comments," Kovacic said. "The typical case is that the
consent decree is entered as originally proposed."
Nonetheless, the settlement could still receive criticism from academics or
trade groups, who may argue it is unfair to smaller companies that do
business with Intel.
"It seems to me there are some big holes in" the proposed settlement, said
Richard H. Stern, a Washington, D.C., patent attorney, who criticizes the
settlement for not protecting Intel customers that seek injunctions against
the company's chips. "Your bargaining position for collecting a royalty
depends in part on your asking for an injunction."
The FTC may receive objections to the settlement, Stern said, but "none
that I think the government is going to listen to."