That
Whenever the subject of anti-trust charges have been raised, Intel execs have responded that the PC processor market is 'highly competitive'.
With two suppliers?
I don't think so.
What if there were ten suppliers of PC Processors? Would the average price of a PC processor still be about $100? Would the price of a PC be about $1,000?
I don't think so.
But those prices on processors and PCs have lingered for 20 years, although
OK, processors have added more functions and got faster, but not enough to wipe out the economic effect of Moore's Law for a couple of decades.
Say ARM was the standard PC processor. With some 40 licensees, each making ARM processors, each paying a few cents per processor to ARM, would that have an effect on the price of PC processors and, in consequence, the price of PCs?
You betcha.
What it "shows" David, is that the FTC were toothless, for whatever reason. Possibly they got orders to "desist" after they failed with RMBS or they got lazy and followed the same easy, lobbyist-guided path as the Powell FCC did with the Telcos in the destruction of the common carrier model.
Who knows where the NY State thing will go - it seems that whatever the outcome of the initial trial, there's always a reversal on appeal - see RMBS vs. anybody. I'm not optimistic and nothing that happens is going to help AMD unfortunately.
Your mention of ARM is very relevant here though and obviously Intel has seen the writing on the wall. The important message could be to prevent a repeat of the same Intel behavior as ARM graduates up through Netbooks, Laptops (yes, I believe it will happen) to who knows what new devices are in the labs now and in the future.
I do agree, Scunnerous, the most important result would be if Intel decides for forego the dark arts of market manipulation and compete on engineering - once again.