News Article
Intel given extra two weeks to respond to Japanese allegations of selling malpractice
World number one chip maker Intel has been granted a two week extension to a deadline to respond to allegations by Japan's Fair Trade Commission that it had violated the country's monopoly laws.
World number one chip maker Intel has been granted a two week extension to a deadline to respond to allegations by Japan's Fair Trade Commission that it had violated the country's monopoly laws.
The company now has until April 1, rather than March 18, to defend its Japanese-based subsidiary - based in Tokyo - against accusations it had used heavy-handed sales practices and taken advantage of its dominant market condition to cajole computer makers into using only its microprocessors.
The commission has not at present fined Intel but it has threatened to prosecute the company if it does not alter its sales techniques. Intel has defended its sales methods, claiming that they don't break any laws.
News that Intel's Japanese subsidiary was being investigated first emerged in April last year when three of its offices were raided by the Fair Trade Commission.
Investigators were searching for evidence that the company had used illegal methods to discourage personal computer makers from using microprocessors from rival chip makers such as AMD and Transmeta Corp.
The company now has until April 1, rather than March 18, to defend its Japanese-based subsidiary - based in Tokyo - against accusations it had used heavy-handed sales practices and taken advantage of its dominant market condition to cajole computer makers into using only its microprocessors.
The commission has not at present fined Intel but it has threatened to prosecute the company if it does not alter its sales techniques. Intel has defended its sales methods, claiming that they don't break any laws.
News that Intel's Japanese subsidiary was being investigated first emerged in April last year when three of its offices were raided by the Fair Trade Commission.
Investigators were searching for evidence that the company had used illegal methods to discourage personal computer makers from using microprocessors from rival chip makers such as AMD and Transmeta Corp.
