Prepared Remarks of D. Bruce Sewell - Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice - Intel... Above the Law.

"Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Intel Corporation

Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice

Hearings on Section 2 of the Sherman Act

February 13, 2007

I want to begin by thanking the antitrust enforcement agencies for giving me the opportunity
to participate in these very important hearings.

I appreciate the considerable effort that
has been devoted to these hearings and the dedication that the agencies’ able staffs have brought to bear on these issues. I am confident that the agencies’ report will make a significant contribution to the analysis of single-firm conduct.

The development of the law of single-firm conduct is of obvious interest to my company.
We are the defendant in a highly visible Section 2 litigation that has generated considerable
interest in the press and among antitrust specialists.

I was somewhat dismayed to see that the
plaintiff in our case used these hearings as a forum to rebroadcast allegations that it has already
made in its district court filings and in the press. With respect to this, I will only say the following:

Intel prefers to litigate in the courtroom, and I therefore will not use this policy forum to
argue the merits of our case, other than to state that I unequivocally deny the allegations that
were made against Intel at the January 30 hearing in Berkeley.

Instead, my remarks today will address the policy issues that have been the focus of these
hearings. In particular, I would like to discuss the appropriate role of Section 2 with respect to
pricing and discounting practices.

I hope that my company’s perspective on these policy issues will help to advance the debate that the agencies have generated through these hearings.

At the risk of stating the obvious, the challenge of Section 2 enforcement is to curb anticompetitive single-firm conduct that harms consumers without deterring the type of aggressive competition that benefits consumers through lower prices and greater innovation. This is a great challenge.

As Professors William Baumol and Janusz Ordover observed 20 years ago; “[t]here is a specter that haunts our antitrust institutions.

Its threat is that, far from serving as the bulwark of competition, these institutions will become the most powerful instrument in the hands of those who wish to subvert it.”1 Professor Baumol and Ordover stressed the important concept that “rules that make vigorous competition dangerous clearly foster protectionism,”2 and they warned of the “runner-up who hopes to impose legal obstacles on the vigorous competitive efforts of his all-too-successful rival.”

3 These observations were more recently echoed by Professors Preston McAfee and Nicholas Vakkur, who catalogued seven strategic abuses of the antitrust laws, including punishing non-cooperative behavior and preventing a successful firm from competing .....

Full Document At..
http://www.brucesewell.com/2010/01/prepared-remarks-of-d-bruce-sewell.html



CEO Paul Otellini