With the breaking news that New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is investigating Intel for violations of state and federal antitrust laws, I sat down with John Peirce, an expert in domestic and foreign antitrust law and a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Bryan Cave LLP. What follows is that conversation in which Peirce gives his take on what prompted the New York AG to begin his investigation and how With the breaking news that New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is investigating Intel for violations of state and federal antitrust laws, I sat down with John Peirce, an expert in domestic and foreign antitrust law and a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Bryan Cave LLP.What follows is that conversation in which Peirce gives his take on what prompted the New York AG to begin his investigation and how far Peirce thinks it will go.ES: Do you think this investigation was inspired by the on going EU [European Union] investigation into Intel’s business practices? JP: The EU investigation has been going on for six years. It has now asked Intel to make a formal response, something they call a “statement of objections” to the allegations.Cuomo sees that the EU has gotten some traction with their investigation and so he may have decided that for the benefit of New York consumers he would look into the charges.Also, the Wall Street Journal carried an article today that said AMD is building a $3 billion plant in New York. It is perfectly logical for AMD as a prospective taxpayer to go to the AG and say something is wrong with Intel’s business practices. ES: What exactly is Cuomo and the EU investigating?JP: The EU is looking into whether or not Intel is locking up all customers [PC manufacturers] with exclusive arrangements that state they won’t buy any AMD products. The EU is also investigating whether or not Intel is using predatory pricing, selling chips below cost as an unfair competitive advantage. ES: Is that illegal?JP: In this country exclusive arrangements are common. It has to be something exceptionally harmful that prevent competitors from getting a toehold in the market. It is a hard case to prove in U.S. but in the EU it is easier to prove. ES: What’s necessary to prove that exclusive arrangements have violated U.S. anti-trust law? JP: The easy part is to show that there was an exclusive arrangement. It is probably contractual. The hard part is to prove that there are so many of these in place that it is starting to look like a monopoly. ES: So what is the New York AG’s next step? JP: To continue his investigation. He doesn’t need the courts permission. Cuomo can collect data from Intel with his subpoena power and get cooperation from the EU and then have some very frank conversations with Intel.I might add that it is unlikely they will try and prove criminal violations based on predatory pricing. More than likely if Intel lost it would be a civil fine based on the Donnelley Act. It could be large amounts of money and injunctive relief, requiring that Intel not engage in certain kinds of contracts. ES: So what’s your take on all of this?JP: The allegations don’t suggest that this is a classic case of monopolistic practices against a competitor. Intel could very well show that AMD is a viable competitor with its products in many PCs with a healthy advertising campaign. Technology Industry