A former policy director at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), David Balto
, has just published an article in the National Law Journal
that describes the importance of the commission's case against Intel
Balto, who now works at the Center for American Progress, a Washington think tank, argues that recent criticism of the case is 'exaggerated and misplaced.' He notes that Intel has already lost proceedings before three other anti-trust commissions ' in Japan, Korea and the European Union ' and faces charges in New York State. He also asserts that the FTC had to act for four reasons:
(Note: David Balto has received compensation from NVIDIA.)
- Previous cases hadn't addressed Intel's efforts to thwart development of the GPU because of its threat to the CPU.
- Action by the FTC can be resolved more quickly than in other courts, with a trial date now set just five months away.
- By using Section 5 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, the commission can respond not only to violations of anti-trust laws but to the violations of the policies that these laws were intended to promote.
- AMD's settlement against Intel was largely a monetary settlement that didn't address the need to protect consumers.