SAN FRANCISCO – A group of 34 U.S. attorneys general on Friday filed suit in California District Court against seven computer memory chip manufacturers alleging the firms violated antitrust laws, and harmed consumers and governmental agencies, by conspiring to fix prices they charged for widely used DRAM chips.
The defendants include
Infineon
Technologies, Hynix Semiconductor, Micron Technology, Mosel Vitelic, Nanya Technology, Elpida Memory and
NEC Electronics America. Also named as defendants were certain subsidiaries that sold and
distributed DRAM chips in the U.S.
Infineon, Hynix, Micron, along with
Samsung, control roughly 70% of the U.S. market.
“The defendants in this
case conspired to rig the U.S. market for this essential computer
product, working together to keep prices artificially high," California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said in a statement. "In the
process, they victimized individual consumers, governmental agencies,
schools and taxpayers."
The antitrust complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California. The complaint alleges the defendants violated state and
federal antitrust laws through a four-year conspiracy (from 1998
through June 2002) to fix DRAM chip prices, artificially restrain
supply, allocate among themselves the production of DRAM chips and
markets for the chips, and rig bids for DRAM chip contracts.
In 2003, the United States was home to about $5 billion of the $17
billion in worldwide sales.
"This lawsuit seeks compensation for those
victims and to ensure the defendants never again violate fundamental
tenets that make our economy work properly," Lockyer said.
He said that means the
damages suffered by California consumers and governmental entities
easily could total in the tens of millions of dollars. As permitted
under antitrust laws, the complaint asks the court to order the
defendants to pay three times the amount of damages for which the court
finds them liable.
The lawsuit grows out of a criminal antitrust case brought by the U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ) against what officials called “one of the
largest cartels ever discovered.” Afer DOJ launched its investigation
in June 2002, Micron agreed to cooperate with investigators in exchange
for amnesty from federal criminal charges. Subsequently, Samsung,
Hynix, Infineon, Elpida, along with 12 individuals, pled guilty to
criminal price-fixing and collectively paid more than $730 million in
fines.
From 1998 through June 2002, the complaint alleges, the
U.S. market also was marked by a widespread antitrust conspiracy. The
unlawful, concerted action unjustly enriched the defendants at the
expense of the computer manufacturers that bought DRAM chips, and the
schools, governmental entities and individual consumers who purchased
computers, according to the complaint.
As described in the complaint, the defendants started discussing and
coordinating the prices they charged to large computer OEMs in
1998, at a time when the DRAM market had excess supply. The OEMs included
Apple Computer, Compaq Computer, Dell, Gateway, Hewlett-Packard and
IBM.
“The manufacturers did not limit this pricing coordination to isolated
or occasional conversations,” the complaint alleges. “On the contrary,
during a roughly four-year period, there were frequent pricing
communications among the conspiring manufacturers, exchanges that
intensified in the days immediately preceding the dates on which they
submitted bids to supply DRAM to the (computer makers), their largest
and most important customers.
In 2001, according to the complaint, the defendants “agreed to reduce
supply in order to artificially raise prices.”
The complaint cites a
Fall 2001 meeting of DRAM manufacturers during which a Mosel Vitelic
executive said “a basis for understanding had been reached ... to “trim
some production starting in September.”
The defendants’ unlawful conduct, the complaint alleges, harmed
computer makers and buyers of computers because they were unable to
purchase DRAM or DRAM-containing products at competitive prices and
paid more for such products than they would have paid “in a free and
open competitive market.”