Rebate payments are a sales promotion technique that acts as incentives for buyers. Intel’s rebate payments were made on strict adherence to the condition that microprocessor chips were not bought from AMD. As was the case with Dell in which the company was offered quarterly payments that amounted for most of its profits. Though, the rebate payments cut-down on the cost which benefited the customers, in this instance the customers were denied a free choice. It was observed that the sales of AMD were reported to being higher while Dell continued to suffer from a decrease in sales. The Dell customers were not offered AMD microprocessor chips despite their demands – all because of the Intel’s rebate payments being made to the company. Thus, the attempt to reward buyers by eliminating their preference for any other supplier does not qualify as a legal rebate payment. (Blinder, William, Colton 212)
The Sherman Act acts as an important legislation to curb the practice of monopoly and forms basis of antitrust laws. The two main sections of the Sherman Act are as follows (Labiaga 169):
Section 1:
“Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal.”
Section 2:
“Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony [. . . ]” (Labiaga 169)
With Intel holding a significant market share and its subsequent practices find the company in opposition to the above mentioned Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Intel’s rebate payments with Dell are an importance factor in determining its violation of the Sherman Act. Dell was itself one of the largest PC manufacturing companies in the world and therefore, one of the biggest customers. Intel made significant payments of up to $100 million to Dell with specific condition to not buy products from AMD. This step is viewed as a blatant move to establish the company’s monopoly in the microprocessor industry. It affected the trading ability of Dell which was not able to give its customers what they demanded. (Labiaga 169)
The decision of making rebate payments by Intel also marks the beginning of the time when AMD sales started to decrease. Before that, the company was on its way to increasing its overall share the market. Most of the customers found that AMD provided them with better performing microprocessors that were superior in quality to those provided by Intel. Major companies such as Sony, NEC and Toshiba had started buying AMD over Intel. AMD had developed a better product and had won applause from its customers fair and square. (Haemer 35)
回扣是一种促销技术作为激励者。英特尔的回扣是严格遵守了，微处理器芯片不从AMD购买条件。如戴尔在该公司提供季度付款，其大部分利润总额。虽然，退税支出削减成本而受益的客户，在这种情况下，客户都否认自由选择。据观察，AMD的销售报告给高而戴尔继续遭受销售下降。戴尔的客户没有提供AMD微处理器芯片尽管他们的要求–都是因为英特尔的回扣支付正在为公司。因此，试图消除他们的奖励买家的任何其他供应商选择不符合法定给付回扣。（科尔顿Blinder，威廉，212）
舍曼法作为遏制垄断和反垄断法的形式基础上的实践的一个重要的立法。舍曼法案的两个主要部分如下（labiaga 169）：
1节：
“每一个合同，在信托或其他形式的组合，或阴谋，在贸易或商业的约束在各州，或与外国国家，被宣布为非法。”
2节：
“每个人的垄断，或企图垄断，或结合或与他人合谋，垄断的贸易或商业的任何部分在各州，或与外国的，应视为犯有重罪[。..]”（labiaga 169）
英特尔持有相当的市场份额和其随后的实践发现公司反对上述第2舍曼法。英特尔与戴尔的回扣是决定其行为违反了舍曼的一个重要因素。戴尔本身是其中一个最大的个人电脑制造公司在世界上，因此，一个最大的客户。英特尔取得了显着的支付高达100000000美元的戴尔的具体情况不买产品从AMD。这一步是在微处理器行业建立公司的垄断明目张胆地移动。它影响了戴尔这是不能够给客户所要求的交易能力。（labiaga 169）
由英特尔制造回扣的决定也标志着当AMD销售开始下降的开始时间。在那之前，该公司以提高其整体市场份额的方式。大多数顾客发现AMD为他们提供更好的微处理器，质量优于英特尔提供的。大公司如NEC和索尼，东芝已经开始购买了英特尔AMD。AMD已经开发出更好的产品，赢得了客户的公平公正的掌声。（haemer 35）
