Robert Myers wrote:
For all that everybody whines and bitches, Intel is not a
monopoly and probably never will be. People who don't want
to buy Intel chips have realistic choices, much more so than
people who would rather never give another nickel to Gates or
the co-predators who live in that ecosystem (like symantec).

The legal definition of monopoly requires "market control",
not 100%. There is little doubt in my mind that Intel controls
the market for desktop and laptop CPUs. If they dropped the
price, everyone else would have to follow. If they raised
the price, few/none would lag (full fabs).

The Japanese nor the European nor anybody else's action
is going to make a difference unless and until somebody
uncovers a pattern of behavior complete with smoking guns.
I assume Intel just isn't that stupid.

Smoking guns (incriminating docs from high levels) would help
prosecution, but aren't absolutely necessary. A widespread
pattern would be just as good. US Antitrust law is a scary beast.
The burden of proof is "guilty until proven innocent".

I agree that Intel isn't that stupid, and most likely this
is low-level overzealousness. Intel also plays nice with
the DoJ in stark contrast with Microsoft. Charging for
dead trees documents doesn't make them nasty.

-- Robert