Antitrust

Government antitrust investigators plan to recommend within the next week that the Federal Trade Commission charge chip maker Intel Corp. with unfairly using its market clout to strong-arm corporate customers, according to lawyers familiar with the case.

Intel Corp. won a key antitrust victory as a federal appeals court lifted an order that required the chip maker to provide patented microprocessor technology to a smaller company. A Washington, D.C., appeals court said Intel probably didn't violate antitrust laws when it withheld advance product information and samples from Intergraph Corp., a company that makes graphics chips and workstations.

Microsoft Corp. formally denied allegations it used illegal business practices to quash competition in the Internet browser market and simultaneously countersued the states that accused it of anti-competitive behavior. In its first official response to antitrust suits filed in May by the Justice Department and 20 state attorneys general, the software giant said the states unconstitutionally seek to undermine its federal copyright protections.

Federal regulators said Wednesday they had agreed to close a loophole in the antitrust laws that has enabled partnerships to evade an advance-notice requirement for takeovers of big corporations. Under the new Federal Trade Commission rules, which will take effect in about five weeks, partnerships will be required to obtain advance clearance from federal antitrust agencies before they can complete a major merger or acquisition deal.

Philip Morris Cos., RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp. and at least two tobacco leaf processors were served with subpoenas from a federal grand jury in Philadelphia investigating possible antitrust violations in the tobacco leaf industry. Philip Morris, RJR, Universal Corp. and Dimon Inc. confirmed receiving the demands for information on leaf purchases in what the Justice Department said was a broadened probe that grew out of a preliminary inquiry it disclosed in January.

Chip maker Intel Corp. said it would not object to a court order to produce documents related to its international business practices as part of an antitrust case filed by rival Advanced Micro Devices Inc. Sunnyvale, Calif.-based AMD said the court order issued Wednesday was a "significant legal victory." AMD alleged in 2005 that its business was harmed by Intel's practice of offering rebates, discounts and other incentives to persuade PC makers to use chips from Intel instead of AMD.

The arbitrary, uncomplying and unjudicable antitrust laws have felled another big, bad business: cable companies ("Major Firms Settle Massive Antitrust Case," June 9). Paul Farhi states that this settlement will "help break the cable industry's hold over its 60 million subscribers." What kind of "hold" are we talking about here? Did the cable industry "hold" a gun to 60 million people's heads and demand they subscribe or else? Every one of those subscribers had the choice to decline cable TV if the price was too high, regardless if they had a choice between two or more cable companies.

Taking issue with other courts, a federal judge held Wednesday that the NFL has been liable for antitrust violations since its last agreement with the players' union expired nearly four years ago. In a ruling for the players suing over pay for developmental squad members, U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth in Washington wrote that in his opinion the league's labor exemption has been void since Aug 31, 1987, when the 1982 agreement ran out.

A class-action antitrust suit on behalf of NFL players who claim they were restricted by the first-refusal compensation system was filed against the league in federal court Thursday in Washington. Named as parties to the suit were all veteran players whose contracts expired Feb. 1, 1989, and were subjected to the compensation system unilaterally imposed by NFL clubs that year.