"To me, it looks like this AMD suit could have far more impact on precedent than the 3M case as the allegations are much stronger (IMHO). For instance, AMD goes into detail in the complaint about how Intel's rebates create conditions that are impossible to compete against even for an equally-efficient competitor, while LePage's was criticised for not doing so."
Seems most plausible. Great info in your posts.
For me, the "Dell" factor makes the INTC "illegal monopoly practice" charge all the more pernicious as it extends the "illegal monopoly practices" beyond the INTC corporate definition.
Essentially Dell, in its INTC-only stance, seems to be acting as INTC's henchman. Dell is effectively an INTC subsidiary in all but name, which if true, just extends the oppressive reach of the INTC tentacles.
For anti-trust legislation to be effective, any OEM with more than 5% CPG marketshare should have to offer competitor's product in some meaningful quantity.
Ideally as an outcome to AMD's law suit, INTC will initially get knocked back to 60% to 70% CPG market share (or lower if continuing with uncompetitive products) over time and OEM's, with 5% market share or more will be compelled to offer some minimum (i.e. 20%) of equally performing non-INTC CPG product.
As long as Dell (different from INTC in name only when it comes to CPGs) is permitted to be INTC-only, it's awfully tough to smash any INTC monopoly, unless HP were to become AMD only.
(Again, seems to me that Dell should be forced by the courts to offer some minimum percentage of AMD product...but I suspect that now that AMD has filed their SC, Dell will move in this direction ahead of any court direction in this regard. Could happen anytime now.) |
