Originally Posted by Ghoxt
For one, the US govt blundered against Microsoft in monopoly litigation years ago , and I doubt they'd fare much better against Intel if it came to it especially now.
A Monopoly has to be proven "in court" to be an illegal monopoly. I could see Intel and a hoard of Lawyers defense start with the number of chips in different segments of "processing" and downplay the corporate pc market piece and drag mobile / tablet into the equation where the global picture is not Intel 80%+ of the entire market. 25 years ago Mobile was not a thing like it is now and Lawyers might gain ground with that argument better today than they could years ago. I'm assuming...
Additionally aren't China and Russia making their own chips or planning to to get the NSA off their chips?
Again I'm not trying to be an expert on exact percentages servers, OEM pc, home built pc, mobile etc, just saying the demographics could be argued as different if Intel chose to try to focus on that in any pending litigation defense. And they have the cash... When cash is involved never underestimate how nasty things can get argument wise lol.
Monopolies isn't simple when you are talking about highly skilled technical fields.
It is legal to have a monopoly by out smarting everyone, such as Microsoft and Intel.
They dont have monopolies but they do have a 70/80%+ market share in their resective sectors. (MS is close to 90% market share in OS market)
Even if Intel and MS had zero competitors it wouldn't be because of monopolistic tactics. They have products that people want with intellectual property that no one else can engineer to the same degree. They have earned that leading stake in the market by making their products so comprehensive thag any new and current competitors need to be spending an absurd amount of capital expenditures to even keep pace, this number would be on the scale of 5-10% of the market cap of Intel/Ms which would be 20-40billikn just to stay competitive.
When the next biggest competitor is AMD and they arent even worth 10b as a whole, it is hard if not impossible to develop products that will perform on par or better. Unless of course your intellectual property can give you an improvement with physical silicon. Which is exactly what AMD is trying to do with their ondie AI on the Ryzen platform.
It is illegal however to do actions to protect a monopoly such as undercutting under production costs, buying up all manufacturing supply and equipment or artificially raising the cost to enter the market. For Intel it would be actions like leasing out 100% of digital foundry, taiwan semiconductors and qcom assembly lines and keep them idle.
Some sectors like the telecom and aviation transportation (of people and of items) have cost to entries that are so high that only a limited number of participants can be in the market at any given time and that number decreases as the largest firms eventually merge to improve margins when revenue can no longer be improved.
The cost to entry eventually gives the larger market cap firms the national/global monopoly instead of a localized
monopoly (think of your local energy provider or local airliner, that belongs tona larger corporation, or when people only have one telecom company in the region)Edited by b0oMeR - 4/30/17 at 12:13pm