Thread by @lewis_crofts

Today #Intel court fight coming back atcha. (AMD started the case with a complaint in 2000 #FastmovingMarkets). I'll be mostly tweeting about this for next 3 days. Sorry. It's tricky but goes right to heart of how @EU_Competition takes on big cases like Qualcomm. Thread /1

AMD complained that Intel was using rebates that squeezed it out of market for computer chip deals with the likes of Lenovo, Dell and HP. The EC found that these rebates were "exclusionary" & anticompetitive. Intel appealed & eventually the ECJ said.../2

Judges needed to take closer look at economic test the @EU_Competition used. This is called the As Efficient Competitor Test: in short, economists compare whether a rival as efficient as Intel could have entered the market. Why? Coz comp law shouldn't protect inefficient firms/3

.@EU_Competition believes AEC test is one - but not the only - test & its suitability isnt absolute. There are other tests & crucially other qualitative info that make clear what Intel was up to. In short: EC wasn't obliged to do test. But it did it anyway & so don't complain/4

Intel & big firms like Qualcomm & Royal Mail have argued officials must do the test & have failed to do it properly. They have looked at wrong cost base to make comparisons, e.g. Their competitors aren't "as efficient" & so Intel/Qualcomm pass the test & EC case crumbles /5

So, big fight over this test is existential. @EU_Competition doesn't want to be obliged to do the test. Companies say EC has to do it: it gives them a better shot at overturning cases against them. While this is water under the bridge for Intel/AMD (they kissed & made up)... /6

The test and the AEC assessment are core to cases against Google AdSense, Google Android and Qualcomm. So strap in. /7 ends