Username or EmailPassword
Intel working with OEMs is by definition competition. Anti-competitive behavior would include using government to force AMD to do or not do particular things... such as patents and other so called intellectual property statutes. If AMD can't compete on price they can't compete. Too bad. If they can't compete on technology they can't compete. Too bad.
Do you all advocate going after ARM for having a monopoly on the ARM architecture? Or go after those who produce ARM CPUs for being in a cartel? Intel is not a monopoly in the CPU industry. There are plenty of competitors and they all work within the same paradigm. What the EU wants is money and favor from those who dislike the big guys, not competition. If you want to punish Intel for wheeling and dealing in a way you don't like... don't buy their products and try to convince others to do the same and work toward convincing the OEMs that other companies chipsets will gain them more income and happier customers.
All this does is provide an illegitimate advantage to those companies (AMD and VIA) who aren't as well established. It's a subsidy, a bailout.
I'm hearing a lot of argumentum ad miserecordiam, argumentum ad consequentiam and argumentum ad verecundiam. Where's the economic, social, political, moral analysis of such behavior?