That’s how Intel describes the record $1.45 billion antitrust fine levied against it by the European Union, one the company evidently believes was meted out in error.

In an appeal filed with the European Court of First Instance, Intel asks that the European Commission’s antitrust ruling against it be annulled on the grounds that the EC failed “to meet the required standard of proof.”

Seems the chip giant feels the Commission’s analysis of its discounts and rebate programs was too shoddy to be trusted–especially when it’s being used as justification for the largest single penalty imposed on a company for antitrust breaches in Europe.

“The Commission fails to prove that Intel engaged in a long-term strategy to foreclose the competitors,” Intel (INTC) argues in its appeal. “Such a finding is not supported by the evidence and is impossible to reconcile with the fragmented nature of the Commission’s allegations (in relation to both products covered and time period) in respect of each Intel customer….The applicant also submits that all or part of the Decision should be annulled on the basis that the Commission infringed essential procedural requirements during the administrative procedure, which materially infringed Intel’s rights of defence.”

Clearly, former Intel general counsel Bruce Sewell, who left the company to take a job with Apple (AAPL) Tuesday, was busy right up until the time he packed up his desk.

Anyway, Intel asks the court to annul “whole or in part” the EC’s ruling and, barring that, to at least annul or reduce the fine imposed. Finally, it would also like to see the EC ordered to pay its legal expenses.

That’s how Intel describes the record $1.45 billion antitrust fine levied against it by the European Union, one the company evidently believes was meted out in error.

In an appeal filed with the European Court of First Instance, Intel asks that the European Commission’s antitrust ruling against it be annulled on the grounds that the EC failed “to meet the required standard of proof.”

Seems the chip giant feels the Commission’s analysis of its discounts and rebate programs was too shoddy to be trusted–especially when it’s being used as justification for the largest single penalty imposed on a company for antitrust breaches in Europe.

“The Commission fails to prove that Intel engaged in a long-term strategy to foreclose the competitors,” Intel (INTC) argues in its appeal. “Such a finding is not supported by the evidence and is impossible to reconcile with the fragmented nature of the Commission’s allegations (in relation to both products covered and time period) in respect of each Intel customer….The applicant also submits that all or part of the Decision should be annulled on the basis that the Commission infringed essential procedural requirements during the administrative procedure, which materially infringed Intel’s rights of defence.”

Clearly, former Intel general counsel Bruce Sewell, who left the company to take a job with Apple (AAPL) Tuesday, was busy right up until the time he packed up his desk.

Anyway, Intel asks the court to annul “whole or in part” the EC’s ruling and, barring that, to at least annul or reduce the fine imposed. Finally, it would also like to see the EC ordered to pay its legal expenses.

An interesting variation on the “membership drive” and one that’s gotten Tagged in hot water with New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo, who intends to sue the company “for deceptive e-mail marketing practices and invasion of privacy.”

“This company stole the address books and identities of millions of people,” Cuomo said in a statement. “Consumers had their privacy invaded and were forced into the embarrassing position of having to apologize to all their e-mail contacts for Tagged’s unethical–and illegal–behavior. This very virulent form of spam is the online equivalent of breaking into a home, stealing address books and sending phony mail to all of an individual’s personal contacts. We would never accept this behavior in the real world, and we cannot accept it online.”

Tagged, for its part, claims this is all just a big misunderstanding. In a statement of its own, the company denied abusing its users’ personal address books, saying, essentially, it had their consent to do so.

“When our company tested a new registration process, we discovered that our ‘invite your friends’ language was confusing,” said Tagged CEO Greg Tseng. “…In no instance did Tagged access a person’s personal address book without their consent and no emails were sent without the person giving us permission. We realize that some were confused and accidentally agreed to invite their friends.”

Oh, and next time you register for a social network, be sure to read its Terms of Service–especially the portions that are presented in ALL CAPS. They might be important. From Tagged’s Terms of Service:

“E) Notice Regarding Commercial Email

MEMBERS CONSENT TO RECEIVE COMMERCIAL E-MAIL MESSAGES FROM TAGGED, AND ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT THEIR EMAIL ADDRESSES AND OTHER PERSONAL INFORMATION MAY BE USED BY TAGGED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INITIATING COMMERCIAL E-MAIL MESSAGES.”

An interesting variation on the “membership drive” and one that’s gotten Tagged in hot water with New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo, who intends to sue the company “for deceptive e-mail marketing practices and invasion of privacy.”

“This company stole the address books and identities of millions of people,” Cuomo said in a statement. “Consumers had their privacy invaded and were forced into the embarrassing position of having to apologize to all their e-mail contacts for Tagged’s unethical–and illegal–behavior. This very virulent form of spam is the online equivalent of breaking into a home, stealing address books and sending phony mail to all of an individual’s personal contacts. We would never accept this behavior in the real world, and we cannot accept it online.”

Tagged, for its part, claims this is all just a big misunderstanding. In a statement of its own, the company denied abusing its users’ personal address books, saying, essentially, it had their consent to do so.

“When our company tested a new registration process, we discovered that our ‘invite your friends’ language was confusing,” said Tagged CEO Greg Tseng. “…In no instance did Tagged access a person’s personal address book without their consent and no emails were sent without the person giving us permission. We realize that some were confused and accidentally agreed to invite their friends.”

Oh, and next time you register for a social network, be sure to read its Terms of Service–especially the portions that are presented in ALL CAPS. They might be important. From Tagged’s Terms of Service:

“E) Notice Regarding Commercial Email

MEMBERS CONSENT TO RECEIVE COMMERCIAL E-MAIL MESSAGES FROM TAGGED, AND ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT THEIR EMAIL ADDRESSES AND OTHER PERSONAL INFORMATION MAY BE USED BY TAGGED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INITIATING COMMERCIAL E-MAIL MESSAGES.”