Simply disgusting, and difficult to understand. How is a market leader bribing OEMs not to use a competitor's product not the definition of anticompetitive behaviour and abuse of a dominant position?
From the court's summary:
>The commission did not consider properly the criterion relating to the share of the market covered by the contested practice and also did not analyse correctly the duration of the rebates.
>It follows, therefore, from all of the foregoing considerations that the analysis carried out by the commission is incomplete and, in any event, does not make it possible to establish to the requisite legal standard that the rebates at issue were capable of having, or were likely to have, anticompetitive effects, which is why the General Court annuls the decision.
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/202...
I am not saying this is good or bad, but that's the intuition behind the reversal I think.
EDIT: Please don't shoot the messenger, I am just offering a conjecture, I am not even European or American.
Yeah it sounds like it. My understanding from the summaries is that the commission failed to quantify the damage with enough accuracy and certainty. It sucks.
There's no theoretical reason for this. Nobody makes them because they won't be able to sell them, apparently, but they could make them.
You used to be able to, but Intel cut off the rights to use their chipsets' interconnect. Before that point 'integrated on the chipset' was a valid way to do integrated graphics.
But this is false. The reason Intel had to pay laptop OEMs to not use AMD's chips in the first place, was because in the time window in question (2003-2006, before the core2* family), AMD's chips were superior.
If they are in fact using the reasoning you think they are, then they are even bigger idiots than I had previously thought.
The more you learn about the actual workings of justice systems, the more you see how unjust it. Especially wealthy vs poor people.
Hopefully, somebody with more legal knowledge will step in and enlighten a bit more.
See e.g.: http://dukeundergraduatelawmagazine.org/2018/12/06/scotlands...
I have the impression it's mostly there to protect against wrongful convictions, which seems very different from the "it doesnt matter what actually happened, but what lawyers can prove" what the comment I replied to said.
The EU ruling here isn't a criminal trail with a jury system anyway, so quite different in any case.
So even though you know what happened you can't technically prove it as your proof cannot be taken into account.