July 4, 2010; revision 5.1 with exhibit refinements, more detail on RICO proofs and monopoly pointers.
To: Chairwoman Schapiro & Commissioners,
Securities and Exchange Commission
United States Senate
Congressional Committees
State Attorney Generals
United States Attorneys
Chairman Leibowitz & Commissioners, FTC
Director Robert Mueller, FBI
Honorable Eric Holder, DOJ
Vice President Joseph Biden
Fm: Mike Bruzzone
Camp Marketing Consultancy
6025 McBryde Avenue
Richmond, CA 94805
Re: Intel Corporation Competition Case Update
2nd Notice of Intel Network SEC Violations; Case Reference HO-1248999
- Intel consumer & industrial monopoly recoverable grows to $88 billion
- $26.442 to $42 billion subset is consumer fraud legitimately due consumers.
- $43.827 billion industrial monopolization due industry & harmed shareholders.
- Quanda Model RICO proof; Intel Insider stock trading & NASDAQ market rig.
- Lettered Relator Seeks Attorney; FCA, 31 USC 3279, recovery of monopoly & fraudulent cost imposed on Federal Government’s Intel based PC purchases.
Honorable Commissioners, Senators, Congressmen, State Attorney Generals, U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, Vice President Joseph Biden:
Pursuant to Camp Marketing Consultancy ongoing Intel Network case assessment: Consumer recoverable Intel Inside transport charge, monopoly price premium, industry monopolization on Intel economic and financial analysis grows total intent to monopolize recovery, by 12%, to $88 billion.
Monopoly recovery estimate is based on two investigative tracks. First, Intel monopoly system metric applied to Intel sales revenues on manufacturing estimates of Intel microprocessor quantities, per quarter, by Micro Design Resource. Second, sorting out Intel monopoly system expenses misrepresented as legitimate costs within Intel financials.
Data analysis parallels FTC Docket 9341 time frame and covers day one on January 1, 1999 through mid 2004 on production; extending to 2006 on Intel financials. For the purpose of optimizing in period recovery estimate, data from both investigative tracks are
SEC, U.S. Senate, Congressional Committees, State Attorney Generals, U.S. Attorneys
relied. Findings include proofs and pointers of RICO, enterprise network corruption and Sherman Act Section 1 and 2 per se condemnations of law. Findings are submitted to FTC, U.S. DOJ Antitrust, DOJ Criminal and Consumer Fraud, New York State DOJ for follow on discovery from Intel Network.
Revision 5.1 of this briefing updates State Attorney Generals on particulars of the case matters. Is meant by this case steward; the Relator original source, too solicit counsel for False Claims Act recovery of fraudulent and monopoly costs imposed on Federal government’s Intel microprocessor based computer purchases. This analyst believes FCA is now proven on weight of Intel false statements to conceal. monopoly and fraudulent costs imposed on Federal government and related GSA computer procurement claims.
Further this analyst encourages dialogue between State Attorney Generals and U.S. Attorneys for establishing a coalition to recover consumer harms, in each State, which can be calculated by the domestic ‘Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area’ subset of what is a worldwide consumer recovery value. Make sure your State and Federal District get its actual share of the consumer recovery in relation to not calculating this amount subject to worldwide distribution. Recover the transport charge ‘kick back’ value stolen by Intel Network, from general consumers within your State and Federal buyers within your District, and not a penny less.
To estimate the recovery in your own State House and Federal Building: 1) go to the IT Department; 2) find out how many Intel based PCs have been purchased and deployed their annually since May 1993; 3) multiply that amount by $25.50 each to determine your combined Federal Building and State House recovery values.
Background
Beginning Docket 9288, May 1998, various reports and analysis are submitted by this analyst to FTC now operating in voluntary civic service capacity under Department of Labor Code 3363.5. Today a decade of analysis delivers tens of Docket 9341 discovery proofs or pointers to proofs. Many of which this audience are familiar from prior reports by this analyst submitted to U.S. Senate, Congress, State AGs and U.S. Attorneys.
Under Docket 9341 discovery rules, work from this analyst is passed by FTC Bureau of Competition to Intel for legal rebuttal.
Three Components of Monopoly Recovery
Monopoly recovery is a worldwide financial value having three main components:
1) Consumer recovery is based on the system costs of Intel Inside tied charge back for routing Intel microprocessors across state lines and inter nation boundaries inside a computer chassis. See prior analyst submissions for specific details covering the illegal aspects of this market rigging rebate fee scheme.
SEC, U.S. Senate, Congressional Committees, State Attorney Generals, U.S. Attorneys
2) Consumer recovery from monopoly price premium associated with some Intel microprocessor and PC product introductions.
3) Industrial harms which include predatory product dumping, Intel selling at a price less then average total cost, measures of variable down to average fixed cost. Finally, estimation of the marginal cost for Intel to produce a single x86 microprocessor in relation to price sought with variable cost cross check. Where price is within or lower then average fixed cost, variable or marginal cost, revenues
from those quantities are recorded as an industrial monopolization recovery value for FTC discovery.
Consumer Recovery Subset 1; kick back, in violation of Sherman Act Section 1, Section 2, Clayton Act Section 2, 3, 4, 5, 13e, 13c, 13d, Title 48, 1986 anti kickback act
Of the $26.442 billion subset of consumer recovery documented from Intel production estimates (where $42 billion total set is documented by contract), $22.657 billion or 85% is associated with Intel Inside tied charge back sum misrepresented in Intel and PC Dealer financials. That sum is split between Intel and PC Companies 50:50 for the purpose of this analysis based on the Intel Inside monopoly system metric. Yet Intel’s portion is known to increase, and PC Companies decrease, over the 15 year duration of this Intel Insider operation.
Intel financials associate Intel Inside as a marketing cost credited to PC Company micro- processor sales. When this commissionable sales value is actually an accrued Dealer rebate passed through Intel as a sales reward for Media Sales Agents taken as their fee, to sustain the supply chain’s product distribution ties between Intel, PC Dealers and Media Agent’s sales channels. Sales Channels include PC Week, PC Magazine, Computer Shopper, Family Computing, PC World, Windows Magazine, other PC and some general media.
Rebate values are sustained from back in time with forward time purchase agreements. Production short run to short run, Dealer’s microprocessor purchases are unnaturally weighted to benefit them guiding Media Agents sales preferences. Intel 1st tier Dealers purchase microprocessors in excess of end demand solely to strip margin values, including consumer transport charge, prior to reselling overage into secondary broker channels. PC Dealers who are Intel’s 1st tier brokers monopolize majority of Intel margin values, including tied charge back, sustaining their Media Sales Agent artificial attractor and the cross industry distribution tie in total.
This relationship is a financially driven one, planned and implemented for Media Sales Agents to register, meter, report level’s of Intel microprocessor flows through PC dealer channels back to Intel. That is the nature of the charge back; for media registering and reporting back channel sales flows through PC Companies to Intel. Over time the system evolved into one which accelerated Dealer product flows artificially from one Intel product generation to the next, on the weight of Intel kickback placements meant to discharge certain Dealer inventory, to end market buyers, on an Intel time schedule.
SEC, U.S. Senate, Congressional Committees, State Attorney Generals, U.S. Attorneys
One Combined Cartel Proof
Additionally, for Dell and Gateway certainly, Intel PC Dealers earn a cartel margin gain from their Media Sales Agents as a result of their Intel Inside kick back. Cartel margin gain on this routing fee is secured when any PC Dealer’s annual advertising pages exceed Intel’s annual advertising pages.
Under Intel Inside contract guide all PC Dealers receive the Intel Corporation advertising page frequency discount rate from Media Sales Agents. Note the competitive limiter here for non Intel Dealers lacking this form of Intel Network scale economy. For PC Dealers who advertise at a greater annual page frequency rate then Intel Corporation annual pages, Cartel margin gain is secured on the difference in frequency discounts applied to Intel pages verse any Dealer’s deeper ad discount rate from Media Sales Agents.
Media’s ad frequency discounts, called network buys, are based on any one Dealer’s annual volume page purchase agreement with Media Sales Agents. When anyone Intel Dealer’s annual pages of advertisement exceed Intel annual pages, added margin value is earned on every Intel kick back for every future ad insertion by these foremost cartel members. System diagram of cross enterprise industry bottleneck monopoly is depicted above.
SEC, U.S. Senate, Congressional Committees, State Attorney Generals, U.S. Attorneys
PC Company matching half of the media sales tie triggers the tied charge back match from Intel’s Dealer Accruals to Media Sales Agents. That value tie is misrepresented in PC Dealer financials as an advertising cost applied to every computer sale. Taken together computer end buyers pay both halves of this hidden transport charge in their computer’s end sales price. 100% of the consumer charge is taken by Media Sales Agents for directing Intel PC consumer search. Making consumer search focused, quick and easy.
This hidden consumer transport tax for Intel microprocessor product routing, taken by Intel and PC Companies from consumers, and paid to Media Sales Agents, is meant as a sales commission to pay for Media’s cost of Intel product sales; communications medium, display space, news coverage, Intel and Dealer content development including Dealer’s PC product reviews. For ZD, certainly, this payment was also a form of extorted tribute.
Because the tie is based on a variable commission reward on Intel microprocessor price, Media Sales Agents tend to push computers to consumers containing Intel’s highest priced; latest and greatest microprocessors. Or will focus on moving large lots of slow moving Intel microprocessor based computers that have been clogging up the Intel supply system; those capable of delivering a large total reward value to Media, when routed together until discharged from Intel PC Dealer inventories.
The existence of this Intel tied charge back system is the accounting compliment to Dell Corporation misrepresenting Intel kickbacks; rebates and loyalty rewards, as sales revenue now under investigation by the SEC. Intel’s half of the Dell accounting fraud is documented as cooperative advertising accounts misrepresented within Intel’s own financials since 1993. There is currently a rather extensive accounting fraud being hidden within Intel, by Intel and Intel Network. And I would presume under current investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Securities Exchange Commission? Intel market rig was reported by this analyst to SEC in 2007; HO 1248999.
Intel tied charge back misrepresented in financials as a cooperative advertising expense documented contractually with Dealers x 2 for total set consumer calculation.
Reported in $ Billions
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
.325 .459 .654 .974 1.2 1.3 1.7 2.0 1.6 1.7 1.8 2.1
2005 2006
2.6 2.3 Total Docket 9341 Period of Review = $15,800,000,000
Total through Program Operation = $20,712,000,000
Source: Intel Annual Report to Stockholders
Note: x2 by contract agreement between Intel & Dealers = $31.6 billion to $41.424 billion
SEC, U.S. Senate, Congressional Committees, State Attorney Generals, U.S. Attorneys
Consumer Recovery Subset 2; monopoly price premiums -
The remaining 15% consumer subset recovery of $3.785 billion is associated with personal computer end buyers paying a monopoly price premium on some Intel PC purchases. That percent of product, one Intel product generation to the next, where consumers paid a monopoly price for the microprocessor above the monopoly competitive or equilibrium price. Which means computer’s containing the latest and greatest Intel microprocessors. Computer’s featuring the highest speed, or most microprocessor cores, or the highest combination of performance and power savings in a notebook model. Microprocessors typically offered in the high performance computer brand models within Intel Dealer PC product lines. But can also be associated with computers containing Intel value priced microprocessors.
$3.785 billion dollar sum is conservative and advantages Intel on analysis which uses average price on quantities. Using preferred average weighted price across product types, the monopoly price premium can grow. Infra marginal product, that which Intel makes least of and charges most for, offers highest end buyer recovery potential for these small short lots of monopoly priced microprocessors. Product associated with Intel new microprocessor and new PC product introductions displaying patterns of 1st degree price discrimination, exclusive dealing, the raising of microprocessor price following predatory price moves designed to monopolize markets and to stop channel sales flows of competitor’s products. Competitors include x86 microprocessor horizontal competitors including AMD, chip set & graphic vertical rivals and compliments, like VIA and nVidia, other x86 and inter platform computers and some PC platform replacements.
One of the consumer monopoly price premium examples -
Below find partial economic analysis from the Intel planned economy; Pentium 3 risk production code name Katmai, 0.25 micron lithography, 450 to 600 MHz clock speeds.
Katmai average weighted price is calculated on Intel 1,000 piece price and Micro Design Resource quantities on speed splits. Micro Design Resource quantity estimates are long time and widely accepted by technology, finance and media industries who are Intel customers, stake holders and stockholders. MDR estimates are in fact the intra industry regulator itself, that was made into an inter industry sales game by Intel Network.
For Katmai, economic analysis below reveals $300,990,000 in consumer loss from paying a monopoly price greater than $450 for first quarter’s production of 1,905,000 units. Monopoly competitive equilibrium price is $363 which suggests a monopoly deadweight cost of up to $400,106,000 on second quarter production of 5,438,000 units. Run down quantities are less than $363, with end of run quantities priced $262 down to $178; are between average total and average fixed costs. No below fixed cost production is recorded for this specific desktop microprocessor short run. Although quantity and revenue difference in analyst and MDR Intel estimated shut down points are raised.
SEC, U.S. Senate, Congressional Committees, State Attorney Generals, U.S. Attorneys
Foremost, consumer monopoly price premium of $300,900,000 and $764,517,480 in Intel Inside charge back values are recorded. Charge back values represent matching halves of the Intel and PC Dealer tie passed through to Media Sales Agents. In this estimate at 3% each on Intel total production revenue’s of $12,741,958,000. The specific percentage pass through value is defined contractually within the Intel Inside contract agreement between Intel, Dealers and Media Sales Agents. An evolutionary series of guidelines concerning tied charge back I’ve encouraged FTC to discovery for a decade now.
Katmai analysis is not a proof, but a pointer to two consumer losses totaling $1,065,417,480 for FTC Docket 9341 discovery. Findings from this analyst are passed on by FTC to Intel, for Intel rebuttal. So what has FTC learned from Intel’s document production in rebuttal?
Consumer Recovery Time frame
$3.785 billion consumer monopoly price recovery is calculated on Intel product runs occurring between January 1, 1999 and July 2004. The analysis is undergoing a third evolution of refinement.
For FTC Docket 9341 review period, additionally, six years of Intel production estimates are currently missing from this specific analysis. Both the existing and remaining
SEC, U.S. Senate, Congressional Committees, State Attorney Generals, U.S. Attorneys
production and price data require FTC and or DOJ discovery from Intel for validation as a monopoly proof. RICO; specifically cross enterprise, cross profession network driven markets rigging is proven regardless. Proven on structure and directly witnessed conduct.
Industrial Subset 3
Industrial subset is estimated principally on Micro Design Resource estimates of Intel product short runs; estimated quarterly quantities at Intel stated price in period, cross referred against Intel average total cost, average fixed cost, variable cost determined on Intel financials. Finally, the marginal cost estimate to produce a single microprocessor from economic analysis cross checked with variable cost from Intel financials.
Classic economics analysis is used because classic era rules appear to offer the foundation of Intel’s economic technology until Pentium M 2005 product segmentation phase. In decomposing Intel systems structure academic theory of the 1930s through 1970s is insightful. This key for decomposing Intel systems theory appears established using similar texts that Messrs. Moore, Grove, Barrett and other executives might have been taught, as the syllabus of FTC primary and secondary case research documents. Although practiced on a slightly more sophisticated level then solely running the neighborhood breakfast shop or determining the customer demand for egg dishes. Intel system mechanics appear to be designed by engineers and system theorists.
Economic Calculations
Five primary calculations are used in Intel economic analysis decomposing a cost based quantitative mathematical model relied on by inside traders for playing the Intel stock price. Price multiplied by quantities to determine quarterly revenue and change in revenue. Change in price and quantities to determine price elasticity. For a cost based model, change in revenue (suspect as change in total cost), divided by change in total quantity for estimating marginal cost average. The result can correlate with variable cost cross check from financials. Change in revenue (suspect as cost) divided by change in quantity suspect at Marginal Revenue approximation. Actually an indicator of Intel product stocks acceleration, the calculation can be compared against the cross check MR = P*(1-1/Elasticity).
One of the At and < Fixed Cost Examples -
Below find example of Pentium 3 Celeron Mobile Value priced at and below fixed cost. On revenue of $3,132,065,000 estimates industrial monopolization of $2,780,853,050 where price is less than Average Fixed Cost of $136; and $351,211,950 industrial monopolization where price is at or less than Average Variable Cost of $117 and suspect below Marginal
SEC, U.S. Senate, Congressional Committees, State Attorney Generals, U.S. Attorneys
Cost at production end of run. Intel Inside tied charge back consumer recovery value associated with this Intel mobile short run is $187,923,900.
Calculated primarily on average product price, industrial monopolization is currently estimated at $43.827 billion for the period January 1, 1999 through June 2004. That is one half of the time period under review in Docket 9341. Industrial recovery values principally include Intel product price, near and below average fixed cost, with a variable cost check. Approximately 28%, or $9.781 billion of the total sum, has been estimated on classic economics, economic calculations and financials too be priced less then the marginal cost for Intel to produce that single unit of production. With evolution of the economic calculation to average weighted price on product speed grade splits, industrial monopoly recoverable is expected to be slightly less then stated here. Coincidently this average price, verse average weighted price trade off, may cause some consumer recovery values to rise.
Accounting vs. Economics
This analyst takes the accounting view that Intel marginal cost to produce one unit is the Average Total Cost of that unit. An industrial economist might argue that marginal cost is no less then Average Fixed Cost per unit. Some have proposed marginal cost as the
SEC, U.S. Senate, Congressional Committees, State Attorney Generals, U.S. Attorneys
Manufacturing cost for one unit which this analyst rejects; although economic analysis suggests. Where Intel price is at or less than marginal cost defined here as fixed cost, or variable cost, that portion of the production run is subject to Areeda Turner review.
However, Intel intent to monopolize appears proved on 9th Circuit Court filter regardless. Showing monopolization; economically & structurally, occurring across consecutive Intel microprocessor production short runs. This analyst has assessed 23 production short runs.
Quantitative Model confirms RICO proof of Intel Insider stock trading.
In analyzing the economics of Intel production short runs for FTC, this analyst has been decomposing the components of an Intel insider stock trading tool. Recomposed components of the tool yield a rudimentary Intel economics simulation.
The tool requires one quasi public, and one public signal, that when filtered together enable the inside trader to estimate changes in Intel’s revenue and margin out into the future. And can specifically be used to estimate Intel profit margin ahead into future time; for playing the stock price, INTC.
Input to perform the necessary economics calculations to play the stock are supplied by the quasi public signal from Micro Design Resource; which are Intel quarterly microprocessor quantities estimated two years into future time. The public signal is Intel change in price notices which are widely publicized in business, finance and trade news sources; including New York Times, PC Week, CNET, Register and other hard copy and web publications. Who knew they were more then simply Intel price announcements?
Intel change in price notices have traditionally been released to the public audience, trade and Intel supply channels 90 days ahead of the actual price changes taking affect. This lag effect gives the Intel Inside Stock trader a 90 day window for recalculating change in Intel revenues and profit margins for playing the stock. And can be accomplished simply
with two inputs; price change calculated against Micro Design Resource quantities estimated into future time.
Typically the inside trader could project Intel revenue and margin value 3 months ahead on Intel advance notice of changes in microprocessor prices. Periodically, public notice of Intel price change has been shorter then 3 months. And multiple price changes have occurred within some Intel quarterly production periods under analysis.
Mr. Gwennap who is principle analyst and proprietor of Micro Design Resource (MDR), raised concerns on his perceived misuse of MDR Intel production estimates, by the investment banking community, to this analyst in 2001. Mr. Gwennap provided the Intel production estimates on which this analyst has decomposed the Quanda against Intel 1,000 piece stated price. Resulting in a tool for retrospectively playing Intel Corporation stock price and for calculating monopoly costs and consumer harms based on change in quarterly revenue and margin potential.
SEC, U.S. Senate, Congressional Committees, State Attorney Generals, U.S. Attorneys
Several questions exist concerning future time Micro Design Resource estimate of Intel microprocessor quantities on wafer dice estimates. First are they purely an MDR estimate of Intel production capability? Second, might estimates be Intel’s actual production forecast passed to MDR for industry publication? Third, if purely MDR estimates were quantities confirmed by Intel end of quarter, as quarterly PC shipments are confirmed by PC Companies to PC industry analysts? Fourth, how accurate are the MDR estimates? Fifth, and the wild card, are estimates fictitious designed by late 1990’s MDR owner, the Bill Ziff Davis Publishing Company, purely to lead and pump the stock price?
Micro Design Resource estimates of Intel production are widely accepted as accurate. Given the best price projection and economic tools Intel Inside traders can calculate change in Intel revenue and margin, by microprocessor product line, and from the outcome play the stock on quarterly financial outcomes up to two years into the future. I have no doubt all major trading houses knew of the Quanda, including Robertson Stephens, and were running this software simulation on Intel Xeon servers performing similar exchange calculations and financial simulations.
Noteworthy the Quanda is also how Media Sales Agents calculated their future revenue flows from Intel Network. Retrospectively, the Quanda enables the Media Sales Agent to calculate their Intel Inside charge back flows from Intel Combine up to two years into the future. On this cash flow projection media based their Intel product production plan; the amount of Intel dedicated page space, Dealer PC product reviews and sales coverage.
The Quanda can also be used to estimate advance PC company revenues and margins; specifically Intel Dealers; Dell, Gateway, others by extending the simulations inputs to two additional public signals. Those signals are sales space invested by Ziff Davis, IDG and other publications on PC product coverage and review pages.
Media Sales Agents push computer brand models known to carry the highest value Intel Inside charge backs. Media focuses on skimming these Intel and Dealer values through their focused PC review coverage. Intel product allocation to Dealers can be estimated by the specific weight of PC Company brand models that Media Agents push onto consumers in real time.
Two metrics can be used for determining which Dealer’s computer brand models Media Sales Agents are pushing onto consumers for their Intel ‘tied charge’ kick back. The best metric here shown in PC World analysis, below, is purely the page space allocated to any one Dealer’s PC brand model product reviews. With this method there is no subjectivity associated with Editorial Accolade, the sole determinants being Media Sales Agent cost of page space and kick back revenues on this investment in Intel Dealership.
The second metric is more subjective, harder to prove as a stand alone indicator, potentially much more evil from the standpoint of an affront to journalism. That is when the Media Sales Agent begins skewing Editor’s Choice and similar Product Awards to
SEC, U.S. Senate, Congressional Committees, State Attorney Generals, U.S. Attorneys
Dealer’s brand models. This tactic is relied upon for accelerated sales and major capture of the Intel tied charge back. Note that Media Sales Agents compete with one another for total kick back values associated from anyone Intel production short run. For the purpose of this analysis that charge back value is always 3% (times 2; one half representing Intel kick back, the other is Dealer half representing charge back trigger) calculated against Intel total revenues from anyone production short run.
Method 1 on Media Agent Space Dedicated to Dealer Sales
Following exhibit shows ‘poker.com’ style statistical analysis for publisher computer brand review support revealing Intel dealer channels. That analysis looks upward in the value chain through the monetary exchange lens of media sales agents, through Intel microprocessor broker and computer dealers, directly into Intel.
Statistical Analysis of Intel intra platform product routing by Dealer computer brand model in International Data Group’s PC World Top PC Sales Racket follows.
Note: Post rebated fee year 2008 level market high = 233%; market average = 166%.
Intel PC Dealer 3/2005 - 12/2008 1999-2/2005 1987-1998
A 113.00% 265.00% 0.00%
B 170.00% 111.00% 136.00%
C 187.00% 60.30% 0.00%
D 28.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Compaq 65.00% 364.00% 379.00%
F 195.00% 96.50% 53.10%
Dell 504.00% 1163.00% 2071.50%
H 170.00% 91.70% 0.00%
Gateway 178.00% 765.00% 1024.00%
HP 626.00% 412.00% 113.80%
IBM 170.00% 386.00% 257.00%
Lenovo 382.00% 0.00% 0.00%
M 203.00% 345.00% 220.00%
Micron 108.00% 393.00% 918.00%
O 187.00% 292.00% 98.60%
P 0.00% 200.00% 386.00%
Q 113.00% 118.00% 0.00%
Toshiba 195.00% 234.00% 493.00%
S 113.00% 7.20% 0.00%
Others
Statistical analysis reveals some Intel dealers and publishing agents are cheating their organic probabilities. That is by placing more of certain Intel Inside branded PCs for sale given their known high level of commission values waiting media release from dealer
SEC, U.S. Senate, Congressional Committees, State Attorney Generals, U.S. Attorneys
rebate fee pools accumulating for Intel Insider charge back. The Media Agent’s sales reward is paid for moving computer brand models to consumer from stocks and discharging their effect on the supply system in exchange for the charge back value.
Through this function Media Sales Agent register Intel product movement from Dealer stocks reporting back to Intel for their ‘metered’ sales reward; the commission.
Method 2 on Media Agent Percentage of Total Editor’s Choice Awards
Statistical Analysis of Editor’s Choice skew on intra platform product routing by Dealer computer brand model, April 1987 through August 2008, in the Bill Ziff Davis Cartel, PC Magazine, PC Sales Racket:
Descriptive Statistics Relative Frequency of Winning Editors Choice Across 252 Issues Among 63 Total Winners
Mean 0.02941547
Standard Error 0.007338245
Median 0.003968254
Mode 0.003968254
Standard Deviation 0.058245512
Sample Variance 0.00339254
Kurtosis 17.3494465
Skewness 3.840748914
Range 0.349206349
Minimum (1) 0.003968254
Maximum (Dell) 0.353174603
Sum 1.853174603
Unique Editors Choice Winners in 252 Issues 63
Frequency Editors Choice Wins
252 Issues Among 63 Winners
PC MAGAZINE 1987 - 2008
Classic Probability Frequency Win 252 Issues, 63 Winners
Dell w/89 = 19% 0.353174603 1200.64%
HP w/61 = 13% 0.242063492 822.91%
IBM w35 = 7% 0.138888889 472.16%
Toshiba w/28 = 6% ( incomplete notebook sample) 0.111111111 377.73%
Velocity w/23 = 5% 0.091269841 310.28%
Apple w/22 = 4.7% 0.087301587 296.79%
Gateway w/21 = 4.5% 0.083333333 283.30%
Falcon w/18 = 3.8% 0.071428571 242.83%
Please consider PC Dealer Analysis using Method 1; for PC Magazine; PC Company comparison solely on product review space, allocated to 48 companies across 104 issues. Frequency of product review space placement mean average is 0.02083. Time Period is February 2000 through August 2008.
SEC, U.S. Senate, Congressional Committees, State Attorney Generals, U.S. Attorneys
Space Allocation over mean average of 0.02083 Weight Placements % Total % AMD Stated
Dell 3.3846 16,246.08% 352 15.93% 3.13%
HP 3.1442 15,092.16% 327 14.80% 16.21%
Gateway 2.1057 10,107.36% 219 9.91% 5.02%
Sony 1.4807 7,107.36% 154 6.97% 0.00%
Apple 1.4038 6,738.24% 146 6.61% 0.00%
Toshiba 1.3557 6,507.36% 141 6.38% 0.00%
Lenovo/IBM 1.2019 6,461.28% 125 5.65% 4.80%
Fujitsu 0.7403 3,553.44% 77 3.49% 0.00%
Velocity 0.6923 3,323.04% 72 3.26% 27.78%
Falcon 0.6442 3,092.16% 67 3.03% 22.39%
eMachines 0.5192 2,492.16% 54 2.44% 46.30%
Acer 0.4711 2,261.28% 49 2.22% 12.24%
Alienware 0.3653 1,753.44% 38 1.72% 15.79%
Polywell 0.3365 1,615.20% 35 1.58% 42.86%
Asus 0.3269 1,569.12% 34 1.54% 0.00%
Voodoo 0.2403 1,153.44% 25 1.13% 60.00%
Above, comparing skew on Editors Choice to space allocation reveals Intel Dealing Group, tied by the charge back, to PC Magazine Media Sales Agent channel.
Findings from Decomposition of Intel Economics
Decomposing components of the Intel economics simulation has revealed a number of hidden aspects concerning Intel’s business, the PC Dealing Combination and Media Cartels who are and have been Intel’s primary business partners.
First, Intel's primary business is not the microprocessor or compute platform business. Intel's primary business is selling product routes that PC Companies bid on and
Media Sales Agent’s determine their future case flows on. Obviously this form of racketeering restrains inter brand computer and PC platform, and x86 microprocessor price competition, and is a per se illegal under the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, Title 48 pursuant to GSA procurement including the 1986 anti kick back Act.
The power of Intel to fix the price of the product which it manufacturers with a tied charge back, which broker dealers and agents scramble to benefit from, and to whom all have been and are actual or potential competitors is a powerful inducement to abandon competition. Active and vigorous competition then tends to be impaired, not from any preference of the end buyer for an Intel microprocessor based computer, but from the preference of Intel broker dealers and agents to accrue the benefits of a tied rebate matched by that broker dealer, and charged back to Intel, for payment to media agents on every future computer sale.
This analyst believes on the weight of findings, FTC Docket 9341 First Amended Complaint will add forms of Intel price fixing to government current claims. Precariously,
SEC, U.S. Senate, Congressional Committees, State Attorney Generals, U.S. Attorneys
some individuals within FTC might also now being threatened by Intel Network; to bury the case and its anticipated affirmative outcomes. When Intel Network has a history of
hooligans sent in to remind competitors how to compete, and for this Docket 9341 case, the post FTC employment and Bar potentials of either competing, or not competing with Intel Network.
Second, the Quanda is relied upon by Intel PC Dealers to determine which Intel microprocessor product routes to bid on given Intel searching for highest price taker. Savvy procurement can use the Quanda to simulate the optimum microprocessor routes to
jockey purchases given their revenue, margin potential and Intel retrospective sales rewards including the sales system tying charge back value.
Third, horizontal competitors operating under a Cournet economic assumption rely on the Quanda for determining their Nash equilibrium; which isn't under Intel methods of selling at and less then Average Fixed Cost. Nor does an oligopoly welfare space exist in many Intel microprocessor production short runs.
Fourth, Intel media sales agents including the Bill Ziff Davis Cartel used the model to calculate their revenue and sales commissions from Intel and PC Dealers; retrospectively, up to two years in advance. Media knows values misrepresented in Intel and Dealer financials as Intel Inside marketing expense are 100% recoverable by them; as a sales commission for pushing computers onto consumers for the Intel Inside tied kickback. As they did very successfully for 15 years until the model disintegrated under Intel production constraints and a distribution channel reconfiguration. Approximately 2005/6 Intel Inside tied charge back morphs into the first Dollar discount scheme. First dollar discount values also need to be calculated.
The $22.657 billion Intel Insides tied charge back value from January 1, 1999 through program end in 2006/7 remains fully recoverable by FTC. Intel Inside tied charge back is addressed within Docket 9341 claims, discounts & rebates, for whom this analyst is the FTC documented original source.
By FTC record this analyst is also believed original source concerning some Intel benchmark rigging claims addressed in Docket 9341. Where this analyst was previously responsible for designing patches that worked around some rigged benchmark’s in efforts with PC User Groups across the country; as a Cyrix, NexGen, AMD and IDT Centaur employee or consultant. This includes Docket 9288 field reports concerning Intel run time benchmark rig and PC User group work around.
SEC, U.S. Senate, Congressional Committees, State Attorney Generals, U.S. Attorneys
FTC in Intel Settlement Talks; before July 22?
Please be advised this analyst is opposed to Intel closed door settlement with FTC on or before July 22; transparency being at issue. Commissioners and discovery team know RICO, Sherman Act Section 1 and Section 2 per se violations are documented. This analyst encourages the September hearing proceed accordingly for full disclosure, full remedies, consumer recovery which is a core value of the FTC’s charter.
Advantageously and for hearing efficiency, all Section 2 Rule of Reason claims lacking specific per se condemnation precedent, can be reviewed between the Section 1 and RICO proofs, without fear of FTC 9341 overall case loss. Including waste of Federal financial and manpower resource, further, that FCA has already been won on weight of evidence and is itself capable of recovering a portion, if not all, FTC 9341 litigation costs.
This analyst believes it important that every American know how to spot competition espionage occurring in the work place in real time, how to report in real time, how to resolve in real time and not over 18 year’s time as in my case. In this continuing case of Intel monopoly analysis, meant for FTC and DOJ discovery, leadership, error correction, law augments, inter Nation competition policy evolution, Intel Network, system and structural improvement, RICO and competition remedies and consumer recoveries.
In addition financial recovery of the economic damages for all targets harmed and pushed under by Intel Network, including in the Docket 9288 case obstruction are required under Intel’s DOJ antitrust compliance obligations. That is for Intel and Network executive amnesty and or immunity from maximum antitrust and RICO damages. This would seem to include those associated with FTC Docket 9341.
I’d presume Intel is participating in reversing the frame and fraud associated with Docket 9288 obstruction. Alternatively in the face of a known obstruction in the administration of justice which includes witness tampering, fraudulent construction and white wash, the Docket 9341 clock could be reset to June 11, 1991. June 11, 1991 is the inception of the Intel Insider scheme enabling a complete Intel monopoly consumer recovery.
Pursuant to Docket 9341, I am concerned that $72 billion dollars in monopolization have been calculated. And that the worldwide consumer recoverable from Intel tied charge back, and monopoly price of up to $42 billion, will be left un-recovered or left on the negotiating table in any FTC closed door Docket 9341 settlement.
Our knowing this fact of the consumer recoverable, legitimately, consumers are due their return from Intel and Network members. The history of Intel class actions suggests any privately litigated consumer class action will be blown or settled on disproportionate values too harms. This attorney opinion is supported by historical evaluation, including attorneys who would take the FCA, if not for their knowledge of the history of Intel market rigging, the various corporate political, time trap and litigation hurdles.
SEC, U.S. Senate, Congressional Committees, State Attorney Generals, U.S. Attorneys
Intel Network adverse litigation for year’s has been sand bagged, blown, thrown and settled on minor causes with slim remedies and minor financial recovery in relation to harms. Here our countries history of private antitrust litigation ends until attorneys who would risk toughest corporate, political, legal and judicial hurdles resolves itself. FTC and DOJ can restart that tradition of private antitrust litigation with full Intel Network disclosures, monopoly encompassing remedies and recoveries, where world wide consumer recoveries are due consumers including the Federal government.
Bursting boilers and the Federal Power, Garrison Dam Disaster and the Federal Power, Bar Pilots and the Federal Power, Finance & Securities Disaster and Federal Power, broken oil well valves and the Federal Power, broken regulatory & the Federal Power; fixing broken Intel and the Federal Power, transparently, offers the potential for one of Intel’s greatest legacies. A cornerstone on which willing members of Bar and Bench, and corporate entities, will see and take action regulation seriously. Lacking Bar and Bench free from corporate political network control, I fear broken regulatory will remain. A functional regulatory, Bar & Bench, are required first lines of monopoly and rackets error detection and correction.
Pursuant to FCA, I will be requesting Congress and/or President Obama please assign a Federal attorney for qui tam representation. A case to whom I am recognized Relator and hold the U.S. Attorney recovery reward letter, having been steward for many years before
and following my official Relator status. No legitimate private attorney will take the case in the face of the market rig.
Fifth, finance and investment bankers use Quanda model, with price projection tools, to model Intel revenue and margins; like media retrospectively, to play the stock up to two years in advance.
Sixth, Intel inside individual stock traders can do the same thing as I’ve demonstrated to FTC and U.S. DOJ.
Seventh, the Intel Quanda on mass weight of use, retrospectively, extended Intel’s x86 and PC market rigs to the NASDAQ; including in relation to other exchanges. Think about it, Intel Insider ability too play the stock of Intel and PC Dealers up to two years in advance is an extreme catalyst to rig not only individual stock prices, but the NASDAQ index itself. The Quanda was used to rig markets; Intel had DOJ 1st report responsibility.
Eight, combination and cartel proofs exist throughout Intel economic and system structural proofs. Structural proofs are easily deciphered from their component patterns and prove intent to monopolize per se. No other conduct proofs are required.
Nine, U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission are well aware of the Section 1 per se condemnations, Section 2 per se intent, RICO, Quanda and its reliance by Intel Network as one of their many market rigging tools.
SEC, U.S. Senate, Congressional Committees, State Attorney Generals, U.S. Attorneys
Ten, for FTC there is no risk of Docket 9341 case loss where all Section 2 Rule of Reason claims concerning access to Intel component taper, Intel benchmark rigging, false statements to Federal procurement by Intel, Dealers and Agents concealing fraudulent and monopoly costs assessed on the Federal Government computer payment claims. All can be heard within the bracket; Section 1 structure, Section 2 intent and RICO proofs. Please consider one of multiple proofs below:
In the RICO proof below, find partial classic Intel Xeon Tanner and Xeon Copper mine economic analysis. Playing signaling revealed by the Quanda, savvy PC Dealers were informed to stick with the quasi static equilibrium and back eddy offered by Xeon Tanner, and to avoid being washed over the falls that is Xeon Cascades.
SEC, U.S. Senate, Congressional Committees, State Attorney Generals, U.S. Attorneys
Cascades is the Intel desktop microprocessor Copper mine 256, repackaged as a high performance Xeon server product at monopoly price premium and for dumping onto AMD. Xeon Cascades was not a high performance product and by June 2000 main board suppliers serving the broker system market, had rejected it, causing Intel to cancel its retail boxed version of the Cascade product line. Cascade’s was then left to sell through Intel primary Dealer channels.
Please note that AMD Opteron code names; Sledge Hammer and Claw Hammer, follow in response to Intel Network notice of Tanner signaling and pending Cascade predatory product dumping. Dumping is relied on by Intel a lot. Strategically to stop current competitive product flows in channels or to make it unprofitable for competitors to enter that product category.
In Conclusion
Intel Network case matters are about insuring innovation production short run to short run. Preserving ability to innovate based on examples that demonstrate Intel methods of creative destruction can be very destructive economically, structurally, holistically and socially. Intel Network RICO is proven. Section 1 and Section 2 case proofs wait to be discovered by FTC or sit delivered at FTC and DOJ waiting hearing stage.
I look forward to open Intel hearings for a transparency that will educate every American on forms of domestic economic terrorism caused by illegal monopolization, combinations, cartels, frauds, theft, deceit and the cover ups that have stymied these Intel Network case matters from their complete remedies and resolutions for over a decade.
Freedom to compete in an open environment free from the undermining effects of chaotic forces is our future. A difficult task where our successful completion can become one of democratic capitalism’s greatest triumphs.
Respectfully Submitted
Mike Bruzzone
Camp Marketing
FBI Original Source of Intel Network RICO; 1996
FTC Invited field reporter Docket 9288, 1998-2000
CDOJ and NYDOJ first to report; 1998
CDOJ lettered to work report; Intel Section 1 Framework; 2000 –
SEC Notice; 2007
U.S. Attorney NCD recognized FCA Relator; 2008
FTC voluntary analyst Docket 9341; under Labor Code 3363.5; 2009
October 9, 2008
To: Chairman Kovacic, Commissioners Jones Harbour, Leibowitz, Rosch
Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20580
cc: State Attorney Generals, United States Senate, Congressional Committees
Fm: Mike Bruzzone
6000 Park Avenue
Richmond, California, USA 94805
Re: Math Correction; Recoverable Intel Inside fee per computer is $13.35
Frameworks & filters supporting Intel Corp. case movement to hearing stage.
Chairman Kovacic & Commissioner Harbour, Leibowitz, Rosch:
This correspondence notifies the National Association of Attorney Generals of the math error I made this last May calculating the Intel Inside fee recoverable for consumers. Due to the trans-position of a single decimal place my thesis public summary placed the Intel Inside accrual for Intel x86 microprocessor based ‘intra platform’ desktop computers at $0.70 to $0.97 each. Note that amount is not correct. Correct amounts are displayed be-low and between 1993 and 2006 average $13.35 per Intel microprocessor (MPU) routed by and between Intel contractually enabled horizontal dealing combinations in inter state commerce and inter nation trade.
Intel Inside Rebated-Fee Accruals
Year Annual Coop $ ▲ Coop Yr /Yr % ▲ Coop Annual Sales Rev Coop % Rev** MPU Shipments Yr $Coop/MPU
1993 $325,000,000 $8,872,000,000 0.0366 33,680,000 $9.65
1994 $459,000,000 $134,000,000 29.19% $11,521,000,000 0.0398 44,700,000 $10.27
1995 $654,000,000 $195,000,000 29.82% $16,202,000,000 0.0404 54,870,000 $11.92
1996 $974,000,000 $320,000,000 32.85% $20,847,000,000 0.0467 70,790,000 $13.76
1997 $1,200,000,000 $226,000,000 18.83% $25,070,000,000 0.0479 85,330,000 $14.06
1998 $1,300,000,000 $100,000,000 7.69% $26,273,000,000 0.0495 90,960,000 $14.29
1999 $1,700,000,000 $400,000,000 23.53% $29,389,000,000 0.0578 115,800,000 $14.68
2000 $2,000,000,000 $300,000,000 15.00% $33,726,000,000 0.0593 139,500,000 $14.34
2001 $1,600,000,000 -$400,000,000 -25.00% $26,539,000,000 0.0603 154,300,000 $10.37
2002 $1,700,000,000 $100,000,000 5.88% $26,764,000,000 0.0635 167,500,000 $10.15
2003 $1,800,000,000 $100,000,000 5.56% $30,141,000,000 0.0597 170,000,000 $10.59
2004 $2,100,000,000 $300,000,000 14.29% $34,209,000,000 0.0614 175,000,000 $12.00
2005 $2,600,000,000 $500,000,000 19.23% $38,826,000,000 0.0670 177,000,000 $14.69
2006 $2,300,000,000 -$300,000,000 -13.04% $35,382,000,000 0.0650 180,000,000 $12.78
2007 185,000,000
2008 190,000,000
2009
Total $20,712,000,000 $363,761,000,000 0.0581 2,034,430,000 $13.35***
** Note intent to monopolize as percentage increase over time.
* Adds 2007 Annual Coop to original October 2, 2008 NAAG submission
*** Note: Add microprocessor broker dealer matching contribution recovery value = $26.70 per Intel PC
*** Note: Add microprocessor broker dealer matching contribution recovery value = $25.50 per Intel PC
United States Senate, Congressional Committee Members pg 2
Estimation for State wide consumer recovery multiplies $12.25 for each Intel micropro-cessor sold within a computers central processing unit, within your State, beginning 1993 through to today. To estimate a maximum recovery divide by 2, or one half of all systems sold within your State. To estimate a minimum recovery divide by 4, or ¼ of all systems sold within your State. To refine State recovery utilize the Intel annual rebated-fee accru-als table located above.
This method establishes a consumer recovery range for the Intel Inside transport fee tied to a single Intel microprocessor embedded into the consumer sales price of a single com-puter’s central processing unit (CPU). One microprocessor per CPU equals $12.25; two microprocessors per CPU is $24.50; four microprocessors per CPU = $49.00 and so on. Note that this division should really account for the number of Intel x86 microprocessors (MPU) sold in your State, as some Intel computers contain more than one MPU per CPU. Simple division by the number of Intel based computers (CPU) sold within your State, re-gardless of the number of Intel microprocessors (MPU) they contain, is meant to simplify the consumer recovery estimation.
This Intel Inside commission fee pays PC and other media to sell specific Intel Dealer PC brand models that are tied to the majority of Intel’s commercial microprocessor transport fund. This fund is accrued by Intel intra platform Computer Dealers purchasing Intel x86 microprocessors in excess of their associated computer brand model’s end user sales de-mand; solely to strip & mass the transport incentive. Stripping fees accrued from overage creates the weighted attractor which both ties and enlists the media to sell specific Intel Dealer computer brand models, from which the majority of the transport fund was obtain-ed, regardless of whether or not any specific computer contains the Intel microprocessor rebate from which the fee was massed. That is because, frequently, any specific comput-er’s microprocessor transport charge was in fact skimmed from another Intel microproces-sor purchased by that computer Dealer as overage and resold to another microprocessor broker or PC system integrator sans the fee. This act of Intel intra platform PC Dealers over purchasing to mass the media transport incentive from the total available funds from anyone Intel microprocessor production run is meant to artificially weight and build Dealer transport pools, administered and paid out by Intel, between Intel Computer Dealers tied and routed through their Media Sales Channel counterparts. In this three step distribution structure juxtaposing dealing combinations, Intel Computer Dealers represent a bridge channel entry point and Intel Media Sales outlets represent the channel exit point.
Not all media commission fees massed from anyone Intel microprocessor production run pass through with computer brand model sales associated with that MPU production run. A lag effect occurs as media clears fee pools secured in excess of anyone Computer Deal-er’s end system sales. As an example microprocessor fees stripped from Pentium III over-age in excess of associated dealer PIII computer sales may not be cleared by media until
their Pentium 4 sales push, which now focuses on that same PC Dealer’s Pentium 4 brand models based on the effect from prior products. This lag effect is continuous across Pen-
tium, Pentium II, Pentium III, Pentium 4, Core Duo; & Quad Core system sales? That is
United States Senate, Congressional Committee Members pg 3
why the Intel Inside scheme limits computers containing competitive microprocessors;
substitutes & replacements in real time and in future time. Whether AMD, NexGen, Cyrix, National, IDT/Centaur, Rise, Transmeta, VIA, and in x86 Windows platform replacment market DEC, MIPS, Motorola, and in the enterprise replacement platform markets Sun, IBM and Hewlett Packard. Limiting structure this way restrains competitive innovation’s ability to grow in size in both the hardware platform and operating system markets.
Structurally, establishing the consumer recovery range dividing by 2 and 4, breaks out computers which sold through with the rebate as a traditional cooperative advertising al-lowance, verse all other systems, sold through by media based on the skewed weight of fee pools secured from overage as a transport incentive. Prior correspondences describe this system structure which is the Intel Inside rebate-fee scheme juxtaposing horizontal dealing combinations; based on explicit contract in the service of Intel Corporation. In essence a market allocation scheme in which media throttles specific computer brand model sales to accelerate the clearing of skewed and weighted Dealer fee pools. Strategically this include-es media organizing themselves as domestic cartel’s of coordinated sister publications with interlocking executive directorate, to broaden their skim for the fee.
Using this method for determining consumer recovery; based on Intel financials, produc-tion estimates, knowledge of the Intel Inside fee metric, computer dealer annual sales vis Intel output, this analyst has estimated consumer recovery of the hidden media transport commission fee at between $5 billion & $11 billion worldwide. At topic currently is the nation who will take judicial leadership in recovery & distribution of consumer recovery.
Analysis for movement to hearing stage:
Following, multiple filters and frameworks are explored for moving the Intel case matters to hearing stage. Filters include review of three prior for moving a Sherman Act true pos- itive to hearing; Easterbrook, Calvani filters & monopoly share. In this correspondence the analyst will expand on monopoly share using 9th Circuit filter considering Intel in input and output markets. Examination will conclude with MCI test, no economic sense & profit sacrifice test, Areeda-Turner below cost price test on Pentium III shrink data set, predator price test, elasticity example, efficient components price & general universal test.
Intel Rebate-Fee Scheme is Section 1 Contract, Combination, Conspiracy to Restrain:
First and foremost Intel competition violations are Sherman Act Section 1 per se condem-nations of law. Subsequently no other tests are required as Intel anticompetitive conduct, systems, structure and environmental factors; such as the transport fee scheme, existence of multiple horizontal dealing combinations and cartels, can be assessed through Section 1 rule of reason on existing case precedence. Over nine competition cases support that the Intel Inside commission fee is, and always has been, illegal.
Section 1 multilateral industry analysis does in fact prove Section 2 unilateral claims. For example, Intel intent to monopolize can be seen in percent increase of the Intel Inside re-
United States Senate, Congressional Committee Members pg 4
bated-fees accrued to horizontal Dealers between 1993 & 2006. Note that increases in the
Intel Inside master fund are on the books monies. There are in addition off the book’s al-legations.
Noteworthy is that this Intel investigation began in 1992 with conduct sightings including knowledge of the Intel Inside scheme; by 1995 seen through repeating pattern in the work
field, in 1996 moved to FBI report and assessment of why the intent, in 1996, 1997, 1998 attracted opposition which built through 2005, in 1999 identified structural attributes first by case precedence, confirmed by systems structures and validated by industrial manage-ment and economics. Since 1999 this case brief has been constantly refined by this anal-yst. I anticipate exponential discoveries from this foundation analysis given government investigative and analytic resource’s much greater than my own.
Section 2 analysis:
Inherently, then, assessment of the Intel case matters through Section 2 methods is dup-licative if not after the fact. However it seemed like a fun exercise and supports this an-alyst’s work identifying what I have described as a matrix combination. An x:y matrix of interconnected cells; a racket, in which Intel x86 intra platform computers are routed ver-tically in inter state commerce and inter nation trade. With the vertical route formations formed by first establishing the cross tying of horizontal dealing combinations. In other words multilateral conduct is required to lead the many unilateral routing effects. These effects between Intel enabled multilateral channel entry and exit points, made it possible to sandwich together 27 adjacent laterals of x86 computer industry, channel and market structure to form the matrix combination. A matrix of cells which limit, guard and accel-erate Intel values moving down channels within the horizontal field effects of many ver-tical bridges established by multilateral entry and exit points. In this sandwich formation security dealers, for one, are caught in the middle of the juxtaposing combination’s trans-port effects.
Frameworks & Filters for movement to hearing stage:
Note the following lenses weighing forward movement to hearing include this analyst’s evolutionary refinements.
Calvani Filter:
1) Is the restraint inherently suspect yes
restrict competition yes
raises price by percent of fee
decreases output increases throughput of
Intel output tied to fee
2) Is there a plausible efficiency justification;
enhanced competition no
reducing cost no
stimulates Intel surplus sell thru w/charge yes
United States Senate, Congressional Committee Members pg 5
Easterbrook Filter:
1) Does defendant hold market power 81.47% x86 CPU market share.
majority of the value stream
2) Does defendant have an incentive; yes
to behave in an anticompetitive way yes
are sanctions necessary to correct yes
conduct remedies yes
structure remedies yes
environment remedies yes
criminal remedies yes
remedies understood in advance of hearing yes
potential methods of over sight regulation yes
3) Competitors use different;
production methods yes and no
distribution methods yes and no
4) Output reduced by challenged parties through time
5) Sales of challenged parties restrained yes
6) Identity of plaintiff; rival the same horizontal competitors
vertical rivals
Inputs Market Power:
1) PC x86 microprocessors Intel 81.47% x86 mkt share
2) industry vertical components taper Intel x86 CPU, embedded memories, chip set, graphics processor, main board, storage sub systems.
3) horizontal dealing combination lateral of MPU resellers
4) supply schedule bottleneck yes
has Intel provided justification for bottleneck no
5) likeness to see (supply schedule) leap frog competition no
likeness to see platform innovation leads demonstrated leadership
by Intel competitors & rivals
6) IP theft of competitive innovations by Intel yes
7) Intel durable monopoly power in inputs market yes
United States Senate, Congressional Committee Members pg 6
Outputs Market Power:
1) PC x86 microprocessors Intel 81.47% x86 mkt share
majority Dealer share
2) vertical distribution routes yes
3) horizontal dealing combinations lateral of PC Dealers trans- porting product tied through 2nd lateral of media sales outlets.
4) bottleneck in commercial channels of distribution yes
has Intel provided justification for bottleneck no
5) Intel durable monopoly power in outputs market yes
Ninth Circuit Filter:
1) relevant market monopoly share yes; 81.47% x86 mkt share
2) significant barriers to entry yes
4) limiting behavior in the relevant market(s) yes
3) barriers preventing competitors from
increasing short run production capacity yes
5) entrant/competitor production capacity to take
business away from incumbent monopolist no
6) entrant/competitor ability to take business
away from incumbent monopolist short run
to short run for long run gain not demonstrated
dysfunctional oligopoly
MCI Test:
1) Intel as a monopolist
Market share 81.47% x86 MPU mkt share
Durable monopolist inputs/output markets yes
Abusive monopolist 9th Circuit Court filter yes
2a) Can others duplicate essential facilities:
input market component taper AMD has near duplicated
output market transport bridge no; Section 1 illegal
United States Senate, Congressional Committee Members pg 7
MCI Test:
2b)Co-op program possible w/legal pass thru yes
for horizontal competitors 18.53% insufficient capacity
competitors defray Intel fee cost w/lower CPU price yes, has been done
competitor parity rebating Intel fee in low CPU price no; lowers competitor total revenue, reduces natural trickle down revenue levels to channels, lacks MPU tie to media layer.
3) Monopolist Combine denies access Network access for Intel
CPUs charged with MPU transport effect before all other natural values.
4) Is the facility available to competitors
component taper within inputs market yes, possibly
distribution bridge within outputs market no
5) Intel engineering reasons for essential facilities;
input market platform component taper platform definition
platform leadership
bundling @ price < rival cost
output market Dealer transport bridge no engineering justification
for these horizontal buttresses
No Economics Sense Test:
Fee as input efficiency justification -
As a banking strategy charging Intel microprocessors with the transport effect causes Intel surplus production to be transferred by Dealers, through channels & into brokerage, forming a bank of Intel microprocessor surplus for resell in excess of what Dealers could have sold through to consumers in their associated computer brand models. Through this distribution arrangement Intel allocated Dealers filter to pool the Intel Inside media trans-port fee for them selves before passing microprocessor overage to others sans the media transport fee incentive. Intel leveled this playing field in 1997, however, the adjustment never made up for massive pools established by primary Intel allocated dealers. This ad-justment adds Intel tertiary computer resellers to the Intel Inside scheme, despite their in-direct status and lack of purchase power. The adjustment coincidently raised barriers for
Intel’s horizontal x86 competitors in a distribution segment that had been traditionally free from Intel’s non-organic ‘extra economic’ restraints.
United States Senate, Congressional Committee Members pg 8
For Intel charging microprocessors with the transport effect in a dominant position causes Intel production to be sold through allocated Computer Dealers by media first & all other x86 microprocessor production to be sold through Dealers second. This leveled model in-creased that effective switching hurdle. An x86 microprocessor competitive parity posi-tion is not available or possible given the illegal nature and extent of the charged effect.
By Intel charging microprocessors with the transport effect media throttles Intel micro-processors to release the charge more quickly. Thus publishers limit page support of x86 microprocessor competitor products to that diminutive player’s restrained market share.
By charging microprocessors with the transport effect, Intel encourages media to displace diminutive Dealer market share and to gravitate their computer sales revenue to Computer Dealers whose product brand models represent ever larger growing transport fee pools.
This transfer act was central to Intel Network’s market allocation scheme misappropriating 2nd tier computer company sales revenues towards first tier, and then whittling down this horizontal combination to its key Dealing agents. There is little that is natural about how x86 computer company market shares played out between 1993 & 2001 and then on out through 2006. Before 2006 market share winners were primarily defined by Intel plus media imposed structure. That is gaming of structure by corporate + media combination.
Fee as output efficiency justification -
None; in light of natural end market demanders for Intel’s well regarded microprocessors no transport fee was required for these products to naturally find their way into consumer market end computer sales. Untying fees from Intel deadweight brings into balance Intel allocative and productive efficiency maximizing total economic welfare. So doing would have preserved the x86 microprocessor industry oligopoly welfare spaces for competition on the merits in the interest of Nation, society, consumers and democratic capitalism.
Does the dominant firm’s conduct have an
actual tendency to eliminate or reduce competition? yes
Does the conduct provide an economic benefit to the
dominant firm only because of the tendency? yes; move Intel deadweight
Are costs imposed on the dominant firms competitors
by doing so? yes
Are dominant firms profits sacrificed? yes; percent of transport fee
Profit Sacrifice Test:
Outputs market - The Intel Inside fee and cost to administer the scheme place an illegal cost on Intel stockholders exceeding $21 billion subsequently decreasing profit.
United States Senate, Congressional Committee Members pg 9
Profit Sacrifice Test:
Inputs market - Undoubtedly the basis for debate, Intel desktop microprocessor short run production peaks typically indicate a marginal revenue sacrifice.
Does the dominant firm’s conduct have an actual
tendency to eliminate or reduce competition? yes
Did the dominant firm’s conduct require it to forego
profit in the short term? yes
Would the profit sacrifice be irrational if the conduct
had no tendency to eliminate or reduce competition? tbd, inputs market yes, outputs market
Areeda-Turner Below Cost, Profit Sacrifice & Predatory Price Test:
This analyst has reviewed the economics of eight consecutive Intel desktop microproces-sor short runs. They include Pentium P5, Pentium P54c, Pentium 54cs, Pentium w/MMX, Pentium II, Pentium II shrink, Pentium III & Pentium III shrink. Data is at hand for Intel mobile, mobile value and server microprocessor product category analysis. Pentium 4 da-ta is available. The data set, and its misuse, is prima fascia evidence pointing to the mar-ket allocation rig. Pentium III desktop shrink production data is shown on the next page.
The Areeda-Turner test presumes predatory pricing if and when cost is below marginal cost, or if that cannot be determined, below average variable cost. As primarily a second degree price discriminator, Intel’s marginal cost is the cost to produce one added unit of output. Conversely, Intel’s marginal revenue potential is the sum earned by selling one added unit of output at price.
Economic analysis suggests Intel will sell below average total cost too within the boun-dary area of average variable cost down to the cost of manufacturing one unit. Typically
at end of run Intel will square the supply schedule at a monopoly competitive or equilib-
rium price for two to three quarters, after which, Intel will continue to sell the same ob-
solted product taking economic profit over an accounting profit. This is akin to taking a well aspirated V8 engine and clogging up the exhaust pipes. In essence, Intel floods the channel. Intel relies on this dumping strategy, short run to short run, stalling all compet-itors now awash in Intel microprocessor surplus at or near Intel cost. This Intel strategy disables all competitors in the long run.
Coincidently, Intel will introduce a new microprocessor offering roughly equivalent per-formance to the obsolete product, at the same time, at an increased price. This new pro-duct’s performance will see incremental performance improvements and increasing quan-tities, sometimes increases from the introductory price, before accelerating its supply out-put at ever lower prices.
United States Senate, Congressional Committee Members pg 10
Pentium IIl 500 MHz – 1.13 GHz; Commercial End of Run Production
Period qtr/yr Price/Unit ▲Price % ▲ $ Qty per
Period % ▲ in Cum Qty Period Revenue ▲Revenue É
1 q4 99 $530.56 9,044,000 $4,798,384,640 $4,798,384,640
2 q1 00 $457.22 $73.34 13.82% 18,335,000 74.71% $8,383,128,700 $3,584,744,060 14.67
3 q2 00 $389.38 $67.84 14.84% 21,648,000 79.07% $8,429,298,240 $46,169,540 5.33
4 q3 00 $387.78 $1.60 0.41% 21,840,000 44.55% $8,469,115,200 $39,816,960 108.4
5 q4 00 $239.95 $147.83 38.12% 19,615,000 27.68% $4,706,619,250 $3,762,495,950 0.73
6 q1 01 $194.43 $45.52 18.97% 18,242,000 20.16% $3,546,792,060 $1,159,827,190 1.06
7 q2 01 $174.08 $20.35 10.46% 14,907,000 13.71% $2,595,010,560 $951,781,500 1.31
8 q3 01 $165.95 $8.13 4.67% 9,233,000 7.47% $1,532,216,350 $1,062,794,210 1.6
9 q4 01 $148.00 $17.95 10.82% 2,998,000 2.26% $443,704,000 $1,088,512,350 0.21
10 q1 02 $143.00 $5.00 3.38% 502,000 0.37% $71,786,000 $371,918,000 0.11
Weighted $315.16 Average $ 136,364,000 $42,976,055,000 Mean 14.8
For complete PIII shrink data set spreadsheet see your State Attorney General.
Behold the illusive Intel Roller Coaster; PIII marginal revenue quarter to quarter (follow arrows 1, 2, 3 - 10). The analyst could have shown traditional examples of monopoliza-tion, however, offers this example for considering cost price analysis.
Pentium IIl 500 MHz – 1.13 GHz; Marginal Revenue Quarter to Quarter
United States Senate, Congressional Committee Members pg 11
Note concentration supply condition and no squaring of schedule for clearing. Pentium 4 is introduced at PIII shrink period four; between S4 = MC and MR = D4 at $722 average price. At MR = D4 PIII shrink average price is $325 and through four additional quarters of inelastic production drops through Average Total Cost to approximately Fixed Cost.
All products including at cost product, is charged with the Intel Inside commission fee, although at ever lower percentage value’s based on ever lower microprocessor prices.
Marginal revenue analysis suggests Intel is dumping Pentium III at an average price of $457 on AMD Athlon just following Intel’s Pentium 4 introduction at an increase in av-erage price of $722; ranging from a low of $625 to a high $819 in period.
This suggests a Pentium III predatory price move toward end of commercial production run. Note long run marginal cost is an anomaly in this P6xx analysis. That is because In-tel’s processor long run marginal cost 1 primarily represents Intel’s monopoly price for Static Random Access Memory embedded into each microprocessor. Similar to 386 plat-forms, this incredibly expensive embedded memory suggests the Nx586 platform strategy separating L2 onto main board superior for stimulating premium memory market growth segment; driven by consumer application performance needs.
Below find PIII Shrink elasticity; note artificial elasticity spike quarter three and quasi (in)elastic quarters four through nine during periods of at cost price dumping. Elasticity spikes typically represent the pendulum swing between Intel allocated dealers reselling overage through to secondary channels. In this example Intel floods the market with PIII product period to period. This stalls, to stops, all x86 microprocessor channel flow’s ex-cept for Intel’s and other highest margin products.
Pentium IIl 500 MHz – 1.13 GHz Price Elasticity Commercial End Run
United States Senate, Congressional Committee Members pg 12
Below find PIII shrink total vs. marginal revenue; note flat margin across elasticity peak. Highest margin quarters represent monopoly price followed by monopoly equilibrium or a monopoly competitive price. Quarters six through 10 represent inelastic product dump-ing.
Pentium IIl 500 MHz – 1.13 GHz; Qtly Revenue over Change in Revenue
Pentium lll 500 MHz – 1.13 GHz; Quarterly Production in 100,000s of Units
Pentium III shrink output per quarter; note production wave form of a concentration sup-ply condition.
United States Senate, Congressional Committee Members pg 13
Efficient components price standard:
States that dominant firm conduct should be unlawful if it would be likely to exclude a rival that is at least as efficient as the dominant firm. The question then is what about the less efficient firms? Firms pursing component innovation in open (desktop) and embed-ded (notebook) x86 platform markets.
In Intel case matters the question is really one of bundling and perhaps tying component ingredients of the Intel industrial taper; microprocessor, chip set, graphic controller, main board and more recently the question of Solid State storage sub systems.
For this analyst within industry as a market communicator, x86 product evangelist, Intel market strategist, some input violations were easier to see from their repeating patterns at market level than others. For example, the Intel Neptune mother board bundle. This Intel bundle included Pentium microprocessor, chip set, motherboard, Intel subsidized memor-ies. In 1995 I investigated why Nx586 platform sales obstacle in the North East region. That obstacle was in fact an industry wide obstacle where Intel’s Neptune mother board bundle was offered by Intel at a low price to supply the same components at or below ri-val cost; all tied to the Intel Inside fee scheme. There are newer input examples & others would be more aware.
General universal test:
Beyond the question of component bundles, back to key considerations for moving Intel case matters to hearing stage for input and output market monopolization:
1) Input market practices tend to eliminate competition? yes
2) Dealers tend to focus more on the monopoly supplier? yes
Supplier practices tend to deny competitive access? yes
3) Output market practices tend to eliminate competition? yes
Practices raise costs, make competitors less effective? yes
4) Intel network effects tend to eliminate competition? yes
5) Contract for horizontal combination? yes
6) Cartels as subsets of combination? yes
7) Economic justification for input & output practices are
reasons enough to outweigh anticompetitive effects? no
Respectfully Submitted,
Mike Bruzzone
Intel Case Technical Analysis since 1996
Assessment and Models of
Technical Business Systems,
seen through Field, Primary
& Secondary Research.
Mike Bruzzone
Managing Director
Camp Marketing Consultancy
Partial list of primary research, undertaken and completed by lettered invitation on behalf of the Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Competition followed by Office of the California State Attorney General.
May 10, 1998 Bureau of Competition invitation to input; F.T.C. vs. Intel; Docket 9288.
Lettered to work report, March 21, 2000; Office of California State Attorney General.
Assessment and models of technical business system - competitive strategy, system’s framework, operational clockworks defined through field, primary and secondary research, as seen through the lenses of ten academic disciplines: the law, economics, industrial management best practice, cyber-netics, general system’s theory, value theory, system psychology, network dynamics, analysis of responsible science in technocracy 1926 – 2002, communication’s science.
Partial Primary Research:
Economic analysis across 21 consecutive Intel microprocessor production short runs.
Assessment of Intel P5, P6 production; wave front analysis, surplus reverberation & concentration patterns.
Intel Pentium (P5) economic analysis; 1993 – 2002.
Intel Pentium (P6) economic analysis; 1996 – 2002.
Intel Pentium 4 economic analysis; 2001 – 2004.
x86 microprocessor and graphics processing unit design share research 1990 - 2008.
Assessment of Intel intra-platform horizontal component/matrices consolidation; 1993 – 2009.
Assessment of Editor Choice Awards effecting consolidation of Intel Inside dealer combination.
Assessment of Intel Inside page space allocation as weight of rebated fee pools.
Identification of Intel intra platform microprocessor broker dealers by Intel Inside space allocation.
Assessment of industrial de-structuring inside and outside the rungs of periodic and point attractors.
Complete System’s Structure Map; industry taper, channel attractors, value ties, mkt mechanics over structure.
Legal case studies and economic overlays over Intel system’s structure and supply chain map; 1993-2000.
Filters for moving Intel case to hearing stage; Easterbrook, Calvani, monopoly share, 9th Circuit filter considering Intel in input and output markets, MCI test, no economic sense & profit sacrifice test, Areeda-Turner below cost price test, predator price test, elasticity analysis, efficient components price standard, general universal test.
Including 1,000,000 words of written analysis through 128 months of reporting to the U.S. Senate & National Association of Attorney Generals.
Partial syllabus of secondary research sources:
Allen, Gary
None dare call it conspiracy
Ashton, T.S.
The Industrial Revolution
Ayers, Clarence E.
The Industrial Way of Life
Baron, Hank
Crisis in the Early Italian Renaissance
Bagdikian, Ben
Media Monopoly
Baumgartel, Howard
The Concept of Role
Bavelas, Alex
Group Dynamics and Inter-group Relations
Beene, Kenneth D.
An Approach to Problems of Inter-religious Conflict
Case Methods in the Training of Administrators
Deliberate Changing as the Facilitation of Growth
Democratic Ethics and Human Engineering
Operational Research
Beer, Stafford
Decision and Control
Bennis, Warren G.
A Theory of Group Development
A Typology of Change Process
Group Observation
Interpersonal Communication
Leadership Theory and Administrative Behavior
Blake, Robert R.
Psychology and the Crisis of Statesmanship
Boulding, Kenneth E.
Beyond Economics
Brandenburger, Adam M.
Co-opetition
Bradshaw, Leland P.
The Teaching-Learning Transaction
Brealy, Richard
Corporate Finance
Breshnahan, Timothy
Competition in the New Computing Industry
Brooks, Harvey
Technology Assessment in Retrospect
Bronowski, J.
Technology and Culture in Evolution
Brynner, Gary
Worker Alienation
Buckminister, R. Fuller
Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth
Burke, John G.
Bursting Boilers and the Federal Power
Burt, Dobler, Starling
World Class Supply Management
Campbell, Robert
Fisherman’s Guide; systems approach to creativity in organization
Cartwright, Dorwin
Achieving Change in People
Group Dynamics and the Individual
Power; a Neglected Variable in Social Psychology
Chin, Robert
Human Relations: A “New” Discipline or an Integrative Force?
Problems and Prospects of Applied Research
The Utility of Systems Models and Developmental Models of Practitioners
Cipolla, Carlo, M.
Clocks and Culture
Clark, Wilson
Intermediate Technology
Commoner, Barry
Are We Really in Control
Counts, George
The Impact of Technological Change
Covey, Stephen R.
Seven Habits of Highly Effective People
Cringeley, Robert J.
Accidental Empires
D’Aveni, Richard A.
Hyper-Competition
Dahrendorf, Ralf
Toward a Theory of Social Conflict
Daniels, George H.
Technological Change and Social Change
Davidow, William
Marketing High Technology
The Virtual Corporation
Davis, Kingsley
The Migrations of Human Populations
de Solla Price, Derek J.
Little Science, Big Science
Dixit, Avinash K.
Thinking Strategically
Douhet, Giulio
The Command of the Air
Drucker, Peter F.
Applied Science and Technology
Management
The First Technological Revolution and Its Lessons
The Futility and Dangers of Technology Assessment
The New Society
Du Bois, Cora
The Public Health Worker as an Agent of Socio-cultural Change
Dubos, Rene
The New Environmental Attitude
Durant, William and Ariel
The Age of Louis XIV
The Age of Reason Begins
The Renaissance
Ellul, Jacques
The Technological Order
Einstein, Albert
Letter to President Roosevelt
Engles, Friedrich
Freedom through Socialism
Fairbain, William
The Engineering Profession
The Invention of the Riveting Machine
Ferguson, Charles H.
Computer Wars
Ferguson, Eugene S.
Nonverbal Thought in Technology
Ferkiss, Victor C.
Bureaucracy
Fine, Charles
Clockspeed
Florman, Samual
In Praise of Technology
Foster, Richard
Innovation
Frank, Lawrence K.
Fragmentation in the Helping Professions
Frank, Thomas
One Market Under God
Gates, Bill
The Road Ahead
Galbraith, John
The New Industrial State
The Economics of Innocent Fraud
Geidon, Siergfried
Engineering the Household
Geiger, George
Values and Social Science
Geisst, Charles
Monopolies in America
General Advisory Committee to the Atomic Energy Commission
Report on the “Super”
Getzels, Jacob W.
Administration as a Social Process
Gimpel, Jean
Environmental Pollution in the Middle Ages
Glacken, Clarence J.
Nature and Culture in Western Thought
Gleck, James
Chaos, making a new science
Glidewell, John C.
The Entry Problem in Consulting
Goleman, Daniel
Working with Emotional Intelligence
Gracian, Baltasar
The Art of Worldly Wisdom
Greenwood, Ernest
The Practice of Science and the Science of Practice
Greider, William
Who Will Tell the People, the Betrayal of American Democracy
Gouldner, Alvin W.
Engineering and Clinical Approaches to Consulting
Organizational Analysis
Theoretical Requirements of the Applied Social Sciences
Gruen, William
The Moral Dimension of Science
Grove, Andrew S.
High Output Management
Only the Paranoid Survive
Guest, Robert H.
Scientific Management and Assembly Line
Gunderson, Robert Gray
Group Dynamics, Hope or Hoax?
Hammer, Michael
Reengineering Revolution
Heilbroner, Robert L.
Do Machines Make History
Henderson, Carter
The Frugality Problem
Henderson, Hazel
Paradigms in Progress, Life Beyond Economics
Hibbard, Walter R.
Mineral Resources; challenge or threat?
Horwitz, Murray
The Conceptual Status of Group Dynamics
Hostetler, John A.
Amish Society
Jaques, Elliott
Technocracy or Collaboration?
Jenkins, David H.
Force Field Analysis Applied to a School Situation
Group Self-evaluation
Jensen, Gale
A Model for Analyzing Small Group Properties Pertinent to Planned Change
Jensen, Neal F.
The Food-People Problem
Jewkes, John
The Sources of Invention
Jolly, Vijay K.
Commercializing New Technologies
Kaplan, Jerry
Start Up
Kawasaki, Guy
Selling the Dream
Kelman, Herbet C.
Process of Opinion Change
Keniston, Kenneth
Technology and Human Nature
Kelman, Herbert C.
Group Dynamics, Neither Hope or Hoax
Kestin, Hesh
21st Century Management
Kuhn, Thomas S.
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Jackson, Tim
Inside Intel
Jager, Rama Dev
In the Company of Giants; conversations with the visionaries of the digital world
Lakoff, Sanford A.
Knowledge, Power and Social Purpose
Laszlo, Ervin
The Systems View of the World
Lao-tzu
Tao Te Ching
Leary, Timothy
The Theory and Measurement Methodology of Interpersonal Communication
Lerner, Max
The Discovery of the “Irrational”: Personal and Collective
Levit, Grace
Learning through Role Playing
Levitt, Theodore
Marketing Imagination
Levinger, George
Kurt Lewin’s Approach to Conflict and Its Resolution
Levison, Conrad Jay
Guerrilla Marketing Attack
Guerrilla Marketing
Lewin, Kurt
Principles of re-education
Quasi-Stationary Social Equilibria and the Problem of Permanent Change
Lilenthral, David E.
Democracy at the Grass Roots
Lippitt, Gordon L.
What Do We Know About Leadership?
Lippitt, Ronald
Dimensions of the Consultant’s Job
Value-Judgement Problems of the Social Scientist in Action Research
Loomis, Charles P.
Tentative Types of Directed Social Change Involving System Linkage
Lynch, Dudley
Strategy of the Dolphin
Machiavelli, Nicole
The Prince
Mann, Floyd C.
Studying and Creating Change
Manniheim, Karl
Freedom Under Planning
From Trial and Error to Planning
Roots of the Crisis of Evaluation
Marlowe, Donald E.
Public Interest, First Priority in Engineering Design?
Marrow, Alfred J.
Changing a Stereotype in Industry
Martin, James
The Great Transition
Mathis, Robert
Human Resources Management
McChesney, Robert W.
Rich Media, Poor Democracy
McGregor, Douglas M.
The Human Side of Enterprise
McKenna, Regis
Relationship Marketing
McLuhan, Marshall
Automation
Meier, Hugo A.
Technology and Democracy, 1800 - 1860
Merton, Robert K.
Social Scientists and Research Policy
Miles, Mathews
The Training Group
Moe, Edward O.
The Nature of Community
Morison, Elting E.
A Case Study of Innovation
Moore, Barrington
Sociological Theory and Contemporary Politics
Moore, Geoffrey A.
Crossing the Chasm
Inside the Tornado
Moore, James F.
Death of Competition
Morgan, Arthur E.
The Garrison Dam Disaster
Morgan, Thomas, D.
Modern Antitrust Law and its Origins
Morici, Peter
Antitrust in the Global Trading System; reconciling U.S, Japanese and EU Approaches
Mumford, Lewis
The All Seeing Eye
The Technique of Total Control
Murphy, Arthur E.
The Efficacy of Reason
Nadar, Ralph
Unsafe at Any Speed
National Training Laboratories
Some Dimensions of Group Growth
Nelkin, Dorothy
The Technological Imperative versus Public Interest
Nordlinger, Eric
On the Autonomy of Democratic State
Ogburn, William F.
Technology as Environment
Ostrander, Shelia
Psychic Discoveries behind the Iron Curtain
Pages, Max
The Socio-therapy of the Enterprise
Parson, Talcott
The Problem of the Theory of Change
Pascale, Richard T.
The Art of Japanese Management
Peter, Paul J.
Marketing Management
Pigors, Paul and Faith
The Incident Process
Porter, Michael
Competitive Advantage
Competitive Strategy
On Competition
Pursell, Carroll M.
The Government and Industrial Technology
Ramo, Simon
The Systems Approach
Ravitz, Jerome R.
Social Problems of Industrialized Science
Riesman, David
The Researcher and His Audiences: Introduction to Crestwood Heights
Rogers, Carl
A Process Conception of Psychotherapy
Rogers, T.J.
No Excuses Management
Rosenberg, Nathan
Economic Growth, Technology, and Society
Technology and Resource Endowment
Roszak, Throdore
The Citadel of Expertise
Sakharov, Andrei D.
Nuclear Weapons Development
Salvatore, Dominick
Managerial Economics in a Global Economy
Sanders, Irwin T.
Approaches to Social Change
Sanders, W.J
Is the Semiconductor Industry Mature?
Samuelson, P
Economics
Schein, Edgar H.
Interpersonal Communication, Group Solidarity and Social Influence
Schmookler, Jacob
Economic Sources of Inventive Activity
Schutz, William C.
Interpersonal Underworld
Schumpeter, Joseph
Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy
Schwartz Cowan, Ruth
The “Industrial Revolution” in the Home
Schwartz, Morris S.
Intervention and Change on a Mental Hospital Ward
Seashore, Charles
The Consultant-Trainer Role
Semrad, Elvin V.
The Use of Group Processes in Teaching Group Dynamics
Senge, Peter M.
The Fifth Discipline
Shalin, Leonard
Art & Physics; parallel visions in space, time and light
Sheppard, Herbert A.
The T-Group as Training on In Observant Participation
Shrode, William
Organization and Management
Siler, Todd
Think like a Genius
Simon, Herbert A.
What Computers Mean for Man and Society
Slater, Phillip E.
Displacement in Groups
Spiegel, John P.
The Resolution of Role Conflict within the Family
Stanley, William O.
The Collapse of Automatic Adjustment
Stein, Maurice
The Eclipse of Community
Strachey, John
The Nature of Capitalist Crisis
Strauss, Anslem L.
Transformations of Identity
Sullivan, Harry S.
Multi-disciplined Coordination of Interpersonal Data
Tabb, William
Economic Governance in the Age of Globalization
Terry, Earle Melvin
Advanced Laboratory Practice in Electricity and Magnetism
Thelen, Herbert
The Growth of a Group
Thompson, Arthur, A.
Crafting & Executing Strategy
Thompson, James D.
Organizational Management of Conflict
Treacy, Michael
The Discipline of Market Leaders
Tzu, Sun
Art of War
Varian, Hal R.
Intermediate Microeconomics
Veblen, Thorstein
The Role of the Engineers
Wager, J. Alan
Growth versus the Quality of Life
Wallace, James C.
Freedom and Direction
Ward, Barbara
The Rich Nations and the Poor Nations
Watzlawick, Paul
The Invented Reality
Weiner, Charles
How the Transistor Emerged
Winner, Langdon
Technology as Legislation
Wik, Reynold M.
The Government and Agricultural Technology
White, Lynn
Dynamo and Virgin Reconsidered
The Act of Invention
The Taming of Mammon - Frontiers in the Knowledge of the Study of Man
Wright, Quincy
Technology and Warfare
Yergin, Daniel
Commanding Heights
York, Herbert F.
Strategic Reconnaissance
Zaheer, S. Husain
India’s Need for Advanced Sciences and Technology
Zander, Alvin
Resistance to Change – Its Analysis and Prevention
MIKE BRUZZONE – PROJECT CAPABILITY - 415/250-4652 - Campmkting@aol.com
Kai-zen management method, practitioner of Benkyou, gets the job done.
Specializing in operational research, market relations, segment management, product, market plan, program & team building, competitive strategy.
2010 11th year intervening lobbyist FTC Docket 9288, 9341 U.S. vs. Intel; case analysis & investigative reports for U.S. Senate, Congress, National Association of Attorney Generals, Nation’s governance publications, technology industry, business and financial press.
Attend multiple conferences & symposiums annually.
2008 Recognized as Relator by U.S. District Attorney Northern California; Intel Corp. False Claims Act Recovery.
2004-07 Global Management Masters Program; Dominican University of California.
2003 Camp Marketing Brief celebrates 5th year; industry competition policy analysis for government.
2001 For FTC & CDOJ Intel Corp. strategy, x86/PC system’s analysis through lens of ten disciplines; law, economics, industrial management, cybernetics, general system’s, value theory, system psychology, network dynamics, analysis of responsible science in technocracy:1926-02, communications science.
2000 Convergence PC start-up; internal audit, device product, market strategy.
Intel x86 production, marginal revenue analysis; 1993-99, client requesting anonymity.
CDOJ lettered to work report by Assistant State Attorney General; define Intel Section 1 case Framework.
1999 Channel assignment monitoring K6 CPU price support ahead of AMD Athlon CPU introduction.
Fifty five page overview on Intel competitive strategy for FTC, U.S. vs. Intel; docket 9288.
Consultant to VP Marketing at Tyan Computer; plan to move PR in-house.
1998 IDT/Centaur WinChip market evangelist and Intel competitive strategist to VP Marketing and CEO.
Consultation to Federal Trade Commission on Alpha, AMD, ARM, Intel.
1997 IDT/Centaur WinChip C6 launch; market segment, communication strategy and tactical planning.
PC paradigm transition & Intel camp migration for VP Corporate Marketing at Adaptec.
64-bit CPU analysis assessing viability of Alpha architecture for CEO, EVP Samsung Electronics; matrix audit triangulates on Alpha viability down 10 levels of supply chain and across 400 inputs.
1996 Participant in NexGen/AMD Merger; Marketing Director, PC User Group Evangelism.
Developed and managed media placement for NexGen “Pick our Brains” advertising campaign. Toured for field reporting within tens of domestic regional PC markets
1995 Market turn-around positioning NexGen for merger with AMD; Nx586 platform commercialization.
1994-95 Coordination of ARM licensees into one of the first "hot groups" of eight competitors.
MPEG Now segment strategy to get rid of Intel Indeo for C-Cube Microsystems.
Nx586 segment entry strategy, IPO competitive counter and CPU launch plan.
1993 Vice President Hill & Knowlton Public Relations.
1992-93 Director Marketing Communications & PR for Cyrix.
Introduced first non-Intel CPU Upgrade; Cx386 to 486.
Launch and roll out; Cx87SLC, Cx486SLC, 486DLC, 486S.
Cyrix communication management 9 months under IPO quiet period in duopoly market.
Developed and managed media placement for Cyrix Intel-ligent Alternative ad campaign
Managed development and lead media negotiations for Cyrix Instead advertising campaign.
Secured 5 edit awards for Cyrix processors, > 50% awareness, 5% x86 notebook share.
1991-92 Introduced first non-Intel 486 pin-out processor: Cyrix 486S
Introduced first non-Intel 486: Cyrix 486SLC and Cyrix 486DLC.
Introduced first non-Intel embedded math co-processor: Cyrix 87SLC.
1991 Director Corporate Communications for PC OEM Arche Technologies.
Introduced 486 PC family, first PC Standard Symmetrical Multiprocessor.
Secured numerous product awards; Cadalyst, Byte, PC World.
1990 Introduced 386 PC family, promoted fastest 386-33 system in class; Legacy 386-33.
1989 Managed promotion of RJR Nabisco's Salem ProSail Series, San Francisco Event.
1988 Managed Nike sponsorship of US Admirals Cup Team.
1987 Director of Corporate Communications Orchid Technology; IPO.
Introduced first PS/2 memory card; Ramquest
Established first marketing alliance; Autodesk.
Rolled out first 2.5D graphics card: Orchid Turbo PGA.
1981 Graduate of San Jose State University; BA in advertising.
Dominican University; Masters in Business Management
Hobbies: Sailboat Racing, Mountain Biking.
* * * * *
Journalism Oversight for Democracy Prerequisite; revision 3
Mike Bruzzone, Camp Marketing
campmkting@aol.com
Introduction:
“The specialization of science is an inevitable accompaniment of progress; yet it is full of dangers, and it is cruelly wasteful, since so much that is beautiful and enlightening is cut off from most of the world. Thus it is proper to the role of the scientist that he may not merely find new truth and communicate it to his fellows, but that he teach, that he try to bring the most honest and intelligible account of new knowledge to all who will try to learn . . . it is here in teaching of men who by profession must themselves be both teachers and taught, that the narrowness of scientific life can best be moderated, and that the analogies, insights, and harmonies of scientific discovery can find their way into the wider life of man”.
Robert Oppenhemier,
Prospects in the Arts & Sciences, 1955
In relation to Federal Trade Commission June 8th Docket 9288 complaint, the settlement proposal addresses three issues which in the opinion of this analyst are insufficient. That Intel cannot cut off customers, stifle competition, and impede innovation in relation to intellectual property disputes. Incident’s where Intel shuts out rivals, changes the structure of organic competition, steals the intellectual property of competitors and then offers to license on Intel terms after.
Disputes raised by enterprises who are horizontally and vertical compliments, as well as competitors to Intel. Independent enterprises with know how and technology enablement capability beyond Intel franchise. These are more than just companies working on extensions of Intel reference designs or system integration and distribution houses. They are established contributors to domestic economic renewal that maintain ground up technology enablement expertise. Know how driving development of competitive semiconductor, microprocessor and compute platform architectures in relation to Intel’s own.
Unique and differentiated approaches to computing; Alpha, Clipper, Power PC, Sparc, Nx586, Nx686, AMD, Cyrix, Rise, IDT Centaur and Transmeta alternative x86 offerings. Offering a broad foundation for subordinate economic potentials to attach, that are unique system block, logic and system implementation’s supporting these co-development initiatives. All minor in volume compared to Intel architecture yet capable of seeding innovation, too drive new business structure, including new levels of product utility and economic benefit for computer user’s world wide.
Thus competitive threat’s capable of upsetting Intel status quo. Where inventive corporations with the potential of displacing parts of the Intel monopoly derived surplus barrier are intellectual targets to be leveled. To be targeted and stripped of their incentives, inventive and competitive potentials, know how, manpower, financial resources and branding ability.
Disrupt bread and butter ‘Intel architecture’ PC sales for companies with enablement expertise on the one hand, and their ability to fund alternate computing approaches whether replacements or substitutes to Intel architecture, can be compromised on the other. I trust this dispels a myth perpetrated by some academics, press and analysts. That the few domestic microprocessor and compute platform companies remaining with ground up system design and development capabilities are in fact Intel competitors.
Alternative processor and computer company’s then are a threat too Intel Network. Options for these inventive companies then are simple. Bow to Intel and be assimilated. Walk a thin blue line. Defend against proactive and premeditated obliteration. Carry along a larger constituent club.
“One of the most challenging, and tantalizing propositions of what may be called the larger economics, is that the success of economic institutions depends to a large extent on the nature of the whole culture in which they are embedded, and not solely on the nature of these institutions themselves”.
Religious Foundations of Economic Progress
President and fellows of Harvard College, 1952
Situation Analysis:
Underworld characters with local political and law protection are infiltrating legally established businesses and snatching working controls in various semiconductor design fabricators, compute systems design producers, media, venture, banking and financial institutions.
Such characters it is held have a made a bundle in the underworld; threatening executives, rigging markets, product distribution operations, concealing abuses through network manipulations, fraud, media propagandist controls and covert security operations. Pyramiding their illicit gains into the labyrinthine of the enterprise they have endangered legitimate corporate, State and Federal governance, worldwide regulatory, law enforcement and Nation’s controls.
The Intel Corporation case matters are a green field for evolving constitutional, federal & state, competition, civil, labor & world human rights laws & legislation.
Mike Bruzzone
Camp Marketing
Various dangers loom from these industrial, financial, channel and political infestations. Where their confidence men and woman loot legitimate corporations, sabotage product development, manufacturing, and manipulate governance within institutions from the inside and outside. They can rig situation assessment, tamper with executive decision making, dissuade from competing, will make examples out of resistors, mislead and tamper with law enforcement, jurists, Judges, manipulate elected leaders to defraud the public and Nations.
To better procure political support their network manipulations portray business operations as nirvanas of best practice. These misrepresentations enable a form of mass corruption that preys on legitimate businessmen especially those who would challenge them. They have turned happy, honest corporations into devils dens leading in the consequent demoralization of an orderly society.
I cannot over emphasize the danger that can lie in the muscling into legitimate industries by hoodlums, there is too much evidence before us of racketeers and industrial spies teamed to gain control over legitimate technical, product, investment and media concerns. Positioned by their propagandists as leading executives they utilize all the old mob tricks – extortion, strong arming, threats, pay offs, sabotage and constructions. Efforts covering their crime ring’s criminal advantage over legitimate competition, democratic methods of capital accumulation for reinvestment and economic renewal. This break down has endangered all legitimate enterprise institutions in performing system regulatory and governance functions across all democratic societies.
“Participation as an ideology in American society seems to be of growing importance just when technical complexity threatens to limit effective political choice. The actual scope of citizen influence on technological development depends on many of the usual factors that affect any political decisions: leadership, community, organization, access to the media, the visibility and urgency of the issue.
Information can be mustered to support either side of a debate, and power hinges on the ability to manipulate knowledge and control uncertainty. Technical expertise, therefore, is a crucial political resource in politics and technology. And the key questions focus on the relationship between policy makers and their experts, on the ways in which decisions about innovation deal with uncertainty concerning social costs, and on the dilemma of democracy in this increasingly complex and professional policy arena”.
Dorothy Nelkin
Technological Imperative vs. Public Interests, 1976
This August 2000 edition of the Art & Science of Camp Marketing Brief hopes to trigger reflection on social, civil, industrial and political issues associated with U.S. vs. Intel: FTC Docket 9288 and now 9341. For eighteen years this analyst has recorded and reported on organized crime infiltration molding the state of competition in the x86 microprocessor, PC platform and media markets. Detail’s associated with discovery and recording criminal infiltrations into Cyrix, NexGen, ARM, AMD, PC distribution and media channels. Where organized crime intent was meant to dismantle competitors, too monopolize the x86 and PC platform markets, to loot competition, competitive enterprises and Nations.
Now at the level of inter nation dialogue moving toward Intel Network remedies. Responsible frameworks for monopolist and rackets error detection and correction, within Intel, cluster and channels, for the provisional administration of a remedial framework assuring regulatory compliance and monopoly oversight control.
From anyone who can add value. These crimes are not unknown to many of the observing witnesses reading these communications. Many who are capable of bringing specific knowledge to the situation assessment for a complete and total democracies’ solution.
Contribute by reporting publicly through your mass media outlet or write:
Attn: Secretary
Federal Trade Commission
Docket 9341 Public Comment
600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20580
On Enterprise Networks -
We are about to discover where between truth and justice, the four corners of misfeasance, malfeasance, fraud and accomplice competition rebounds on legitimate address of all subsets of the Intel Corporation competition case matters. These are enterprise remedies for participation, industrial stability, economic efficiency, competitive and employment potentials, revenue and profit contributions.
On this subject as field reporters we have options. Silence, or that worse option, the mimicking repeater of the certified Intel Blogger, alternatively, the all encompassing business report, investigative report or opinion piece.
This innovator in a tough environment for innovation chose investigative reports. Reporting that supports the journalism tradition of corporate political oversight, as a best practice, for protecting freedom in any democracy; chose yours.
On FTC Docket 9341 settlement proposal we’ve heard from Intel Network and herd. Now act for society on journalism as one foundation for our democratic freedoms.
“A free press can and should be an accountable press. The received wisdom of press freedom assumes that freedoms and rights can be free standing. In fact, there are no rights without counter part obligations and duties.” Onora O’neill, Doctor of Philosophy, Cambridge University
Where journalism as a democratic protection can introduce the need for legitimate corporate governance institutions; rackets error detection, support courage to admit organized crime infiltration, timely correction, for monopoly and organized network crime prevention. Where Intel DOJ antitrust compliance obligations have always required Intel employees to be the first to report and remedy. That is not to attack those who are first to report. Or too deny and then too attack. More so we cannot negate this inherent report responsibility from citizens residing in a civil society. Responsibility to report where ever competition espionage endangers enterprise, municipality, State, Nation, life and liberty, industry, competition, truly a free press and our freedom to compete in a functioning democracy.
Every American needs to be familiar with the indicators of competition espionage occurring within the enterprise and how to report it for remedy in real time. Intel Network and associated x86 and PC market failures are our foremost teachers.
“The ingenuity and the perseverance of industrial management in the pursuit of economic ends have changed many scientific and technological dreams into commonplace realities. It is now becoming clear that the application of these same talents to the human side of enterprise will not only enhance substantially these materialistic achievements but will bring us one step closer to the good society. Shall we get on with the job”.
The Human Side of Enterprise
Douglas M. McGregor, 1957
Where knowledge based solutions that free critical industries from mob controls can deliver everyone a return to the well regarded principles of democratic capitalism. Where investments and capital accumulations are naturally grown and sustained on an enterprise’s good business decisions, and not on the decisions of a criminal network in an Intel police state.
Universally accepted methods of level industry supporting open participation from all contributors, based on organic models, where all are naturally enabled to pursue their full potentials and none criminally limited.
Please pursue the journalist oversight cycle, over and over again, until technocracy gets this right.
“As originator and prime mover over the mass-production revolution, this country has risen to world leadership and become the greatest power. So far this leadership has been confined to the realm of technology. We have not developed the social and political institutions to go with this technology. But precisely because mass production technology is a corrosive acid which no pre-industrial culture or social order can resist, the world requires a working model of the political and social institutions for an industrial age. Without such a model to imitate and learn from, the mass production revolution can only produce decades of war, chaos, despair and destruction. If the model is not furnished by the West, if it is not a model of a free industrial society the model will be that of a slave industrial society.
If this country fails to serve as a working model, it if does not succeed in developing at home a functioning and free industrial society, our very technological leadership will bring catastrophe to the world and to our selves. It will lead to the acceptance, on a worldwide bases, of institutions and beliefs unacceptable and deeply hostile to the basic beliefs and institutions of the American tradition and to the tradition of the West. In such a world, the United States could not maintain its own institutions and perhaps not even its independence. No amount of military strength, no success of anti-Communist diplomacy, no Marshall Plan, could in the long run prevent this. These, however, necessary and beneficial, are stopgaps and futile in the end unless they are followed up by the assertion of world-leadership which only the successful development of a Constitution for a Free Industrial Society can provide.”
Peter Drucker, The New Society, 1950
I suggest the structure of scientific revolution associated with Intel Network monopoly represents one of the worst case scenarios of what can go wrong when any government allows protection of an industry by a sub-society of its participants. In this case engineers under the influence of professional managers who are the members of a cross enterprise, cross profession network crime ring. Who through the extended period of their proactive chaos dismantled multiple enterprises and industries cloaked behind the back drop of a worldwide business and economic realignment.
Beginning 1991 escalating even today corporate influence networks have proven themselves untrustworthy; for governance and oversight, including as government educational resources. In this worst case Intel example where a monopoly for two decades is granted total control, and unfettered freedoms, to pursue whatever course it chooses to achieve its desired level of industry, economic and trade law protectionism. Intel x86 microprocessor and the disintegrated cells of the intra-platform PC market was the worst possible choice for a monopoly experiment of this type.
“The government’s need for science has frequently stimulated it to new organizational experiments. The basic problem has been that, much as the government needs science, science has, by and large, offered its services only on its own terms. Those terms have been support without control, or in other terms, power without responsibility”.
Carrol W. Pursell Jr.
Science & Government Agencies, 1966
Today the value of production continues too consolidate toward the few capable of its mass production. Where a history of monopoly abuses by organized crime continues in industries where technocrats utilize the mysteries of their business specialty to gain control from active governance, democratic forms of competition and system regulation.
Yes, action regulation and governance do help. Too prevent cross enterprise organized crime infiltration, and to insure the means to deliberate on issues of correction and control, methods and results of actions which in fact touch upon all of us; in every industry, across all civil society.
“The political world is today defined through its relation to the technological society. Traditionally, politics formed a part of a larger social whole; at present the converse is the case”
Jacques Ellul, Sociologist
The Technical Order, 1962
While this analyst feels the Intel Combination achieved its objective of domestic PC protectionism, the network franchise did so for its own vested interest unobservant of law. Where there has been a war against the capital, economic, civil and human rights of many regardless of these harms still being masked over by Intel invented reality.
Intel intra platform PC vertical by horizontal sales system wiped out a massive number of domestic inventors through methods positioned as beneficial to U.S. economic growth. When, in fact, Intel Network through artificial system accelerations to rig and monopolize markets drove an international political bumble whose effects are now known. By you and me and officials within industry and government, across multiple nations, on which Wintel and America will continue too be judged.
A systematic reconfiguration of industry and channels by organized network crime undermining economic rights and democratic foundation’s across many countries. Crimes masked by organized network crime. A crime ring that today is scattered across and buried into multiple corporation and media enterprises. The result of two decade’s of delay in error correcting Intel Network from our overcoming the deceptions and misrepresentations that comprise the Intel lie.
Students of democratic societies recognize that when large organizations wield concentrations of economic power, political power is not far behind .The unnamed fear behind this realization is of a drift toward fascism, where the power of large organizations supplants the role of the individual in society.”
Charles Geis,
Monopolies in America, Oxford Press
On Intel -
As astonishing as it might seem, there is nothing unique or complicated about the way in which Intel monopolized the x86 microprocessor and PC platform markets. The methods are as old as guild control of commodities, secured through majority ownership of production facilities, some sharing of production data, ability to manufacturer in excess of demand, to control surplus ownership, its value distribution, and in these technologic times to accelerate distribution system structure and to conceal that acceleration in combination with mass media.
Through every kind of terrain, the signposts are there along the roadside. Sometimes they point out the hazard’s, other times the general direction, the turns or forks in the road. It is in the congested valleys of the industrialized West that they are often obscured along detours or diversions cluttered with neon lights and billboard advertising. The system sign posts are still there, but they have to be carefully sought out”.
Robert Campbell,
Management Consultant - Mobil Corp.
Where some media enterprise participated in propagating espionage’s forcing computers onto consumers for a fee, while hiding behind our first amendment right. This aspect being hideously noteworthy; relied on for microprocessor and intra-platform monopoly maintenance, product routing, industrial concentration, to steal the revenues of one company and to divert those revenues to other favored concerns. Too artfully cover the simplicity of these anti-competitive and criminal acts. To create the counterintuitive illusion of an Intel Nation success out of fundamentally much less.
After earning stewardship over a natural x86 monopoly, and shortly following the SBC 386-16 MHz development cluster, Intel’s intent to monopolize through anti-competitive means in violation of law was clear. As of October 1989, and with volume production of the 386-33 class platform, Intel had established a channel surplus of graded 386 CPU product; effective as a monopoly price support, and had demonstrated the utilization of legal rigs, retroactive restraints, production capacity and allocation to suppress other x86 microprocessor design fabricators from competitive market entry and channel growth.
“A near monopolistic company may be especially privileged, by insisting on longer (production) runs without incurring the loss of large stocks. This can be done by the simple expedient of holding the customers to ransom and making them accommodate the necessary stocks. It is fortunate for the national economy that few companies are in a position to get away with this, for it ties up unnecessary amounts of capital”.
Dr. Stanford Beer, Industrial Scientist, Decision & Control, 1966
Channels, as the 486 platform transition occurred, now filled with aging strata of prior Intel CPU class and speed grades. Class and speed grades that as the Intel monopoly matured would be dumped onto competitors as a method for their elimination. Speed grades ideally sold by channels on a first-in-first-out basis for capital recovery. So that new product, both Intel and competitive substitutes and replacements, could be purchased and enter some channels. Substitute x86 microprocessor and microprocessor platform replacements offering utility value to consumers including a lower price. However a price that traditionally delivered lower margin to channels. The stage was now set for the combination of Intel’s PC development with channel bottleneck monopolies into the Intel Power Complex.
Intel is an anomaly in our domestic technology industry. While other semiconductor and inter platform PC design/manufacturers produce from a forecast of customer demand supporting process economic migration, Intel over produces to monopolize process, utilizing its production might combined with intra industry financial incentives to block others from competing and entering the x86 and PC platform’s market.
There is nothing new or complex about these methods of monopolization addressed in antitrust and commercial case law precedent. The next time an Intel representative proclaims Intel is not a monopoly you can inform them you know differently. As a result of Camp Marketing Briefs and from some of your own observations and experiences, you know the truth. Publish on it.
On Media -
Through a ten month IPO quite period when your primary competitor is Intel, and during the second quarter of 1993 in the midst of all out war with Ziff Davis, two Cyrix employees appealed to the publisher of PC World to explain why this was happening. Why was Cyrix being attacked by another industry and specifically Ziff Davis? This soon to be president of IDG stared into space for a moment and said one thing, “they are a profit maximizer”.
What we know now is the greater foundation on which this strategy was driven. Intel is not just a profit maximizing monopoly. Intel is a sales maximizing monopolist. Capable of driving marginal revenue gains from a predetermined production plan that can deliver multiple periods of monopoly profit across anyone production short run. Monopoly profit required to offset the cost of a pressed lithographic acceleration required to maintain Intel’s process, x86 microprocessor, and intra platform PC monopolies.
Where media could plan ahead of Intel cash intake based on the Intel production plan. Knowing full well they could plan, model, and shape their own revenue growth within this Intel planned economy. Including concentration of satellite sales toward their own tied sales channels. Based on agreed upon contracts, rebates and discounts, with Intel, that protect leading channels and built upon their market shares. By media misappropriating and redirecting competitors share. Where the use of many illegal restraints lead to the systematic elimination of Intel horizontal competitor’s, and the lateral concentration of Intel PC dealers, given known parameters and programs including those which PC Media was directly involved.
Program’s for which Ziff Davis played a crucial role. Where the Ziff Davis sales force rolled out and initially managed the Intel Inside program. A first move for Intel and Ziff Davis that forced other PC media too participate in the pursuit of these immense and illegal Intel Inside ad pools, or financially be left out of this game. A program that would eventual spread to the entire media layer, across multiple categories; PC print, business print, local newspaper, broadcast, web, and leaves us with the democratic mess, and the affront on journalism we have today. Including journalism’s continued democratic error to remain mum on this subject.
Over the last 15 years how many journalists have thought about walking into the Publisher’s office and asking why?
Corporate plus media combination in a tied sales system has been incredibly destructive. The ability of media operating in vertical by horizontal sales agreement with Intel; a bottleneck monopoly, to misappropriate the sales revenues of one PC company for redirecting those revenues to another PC Company is an espionage. Under commercial code in similar situations we know it’s a racket. This commercial fraud sales loop hole needs to be closed permanently; including by augments to RICO and antitrust law.
“The megatronic system or power is the source of our troubles. Rampant technology results from the decisions of anonymous technocrats - scientists, engineers, attorneys, corporation and publishing and advertising executives. They compose the ‘system’ which attempts to gain complete power and to extend its authority into all areas of human life. We must resort to cultural inventions to rid ourselves of their system”.
Lewis Mumford, Sociologist,
The Technique of Total Control, 1970
By 1995 continuing through this decade in combination with Intel and primary OEMs, media would be instrumental in the use of system’s structures to deposition the marginal utility value of substitute products and platform replacement’s, while agreeing to fix Intel PC platform pricing by CPU, core logic and platform class in cooperation with some Intel Dealers.
PC World and other’s participated in, while Ziff Davis lead many of these Intel programs. Including too actively shift manufacturer share, and revenues, to specific Intel Combination OEMs who are media’s major advertisers; insuring media’s own revenue gains. Racketeering, Section 1 vertical by horizontal combination and Section 2 intent to monopolize are noted.
Recognizing the sole hold out Byte Magazine, who like all dissenters is blacklisted and put out of business by Intel Network.
In this closed distribution system, Ziff Davis and media communications in general, through various environmental interactions persuaded industry, often through extortion, to adopt too mob practices and controls. Alternate x86 senior executives could have averted this situation on at least three occasions in the 1992 through 1993 timeframe. Intel and media executives, on the other hand, could have prevented it from happening all together. This is Intel Networks foremost crime.
Guiding levels of dialogue on technology concern:
From Technology and Change Boyd & Fraser 1979
Courses by Newspaper - National Endowment for the Humanities
1) Immediate or urgent problems such as unchecked technological advance related to our physical environment; quality of air and water, endangerment of species, climatic changes.
The exploitation of consumers, hazardous working conditions, the use and misuse of computers, nuclear reactors and radioactive waste.
2) Tracking down the sources of immediate and urgent problems which are spawned by technological advance.
To determine responsibility or to pinpoint deficiencies in the structure of the economy, political, legal or societal institutions or customs, which permitted the problems to arise in the first place.
3) Philosophical and ethical considerations having to do with the very nature of technology and what effects its development on human beings.
FTC Docket 9288 and 9341 touch all three areas concerning technology change considering anticipated implementation of Intel Network environment and democracies remedies.
On domestic microprocessor, other semiconductor and computing platform management –
Coming events cast their shadows in the present. As we study those shadows through 18 years of Intel Network monopolization it is possible to observe the forces and trends shaping the future of microprocessor, semiconductor and compute platforms development. Force’s that affect the stability of industry and nations and will continue to shape management styles of technical concerns into the ensuing decade.
Where executive prerequisite of legitimate governance and corporate fiduciary responsibility over network system’s and practices has never been as great. A management responsibility for insuring open innovation across industries based on organically sustainable growth models.
Responsibility that supports the scope of participant’s for industry stability, profitable expansion over sales concentration, for organizational excellence, customer and stockholder value from these firms offering the potential for technical excellence into a new millennium. Leadership best practices based on a return to democratic principles, democratic rights supporting the freedom of any individual to invent, enable, produce, and market free from criminal effect.
The microprocessor, segment, platform, channel or partner manager of the future has and will continue to encounter accelerating growth in the size and complexity of organizational systems, technical coalitions and camps. Whether emancipated members of the former Intel Power Complex, traditional competitors set free, among channel’s including media, for a re-emergence of independent inventors and platform design and manufacturing clusters.
Where technical development and marketing has been moving away from the formal authoritarian and hierarchical management style’s of a monopoly computing concern. Mired in industrial and channel dogma, bound to their x86 surplus racket, where vertical by horizontal ties among Intel PC and Media Dealers were disguised as legitimate value streams for a very long time. Where corporate gangs have demonstrated control over certain development, industry production and end markets for their own aim and that of their channel puppet masters. Debilitating to every Nation calculated on the costs to society from Intel Dealership. With antitrust and RICO multipliers = $528,000,000,000.
As industry transforms one would hope movement away from this frightening trend, reversed and redirected toward more informal, equitable and fluid ways of bargaining, brokerage, advice and consent, service to customers, stockholders and employees. Service based on a return to management best practice and principle given a renewed emphasis on equitable values. Industry values free from integrative mob attitude forced onto others. The application of intellectual property rights of owners, freedom to develop and compete independently including in cluster, fair bargaining, corporate and government support of these rights including antitrust law, the practice of management ethics and employee rights. Too reverse all harms and recover from an era where lack of ethics has lead to lacking management if management at all.
“As soon as the problem of freedom as opposed to laissez-faire - is seen to consist in the creation of free zones within the planned structure, the whole question becomes more detailed. Instead of the unified and abstract conception, concrete issues arise. The various historical interpretations of freedom, freedom of movement, freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom from caprice and tolerance are all special obligations which must be met by the new society. - Karl Mannheim, Freedom Under Planning, 1941
Evidence of the increasing complexity of organization is observable in the growth and influence of the Intel Power Complex, the formation of transnational camps, investment and bank holding companies, distribution cartels including corporations in combination with media to manipulate industry, consumers and government.
Where corruption in and around Intel forced corruption onto other’s as a method to compete. Among corporate entities who dominate much of the global production and growing at such a rate to eclipse the potential of new entrants. Entities no less than individuals, whom exert great influence on the world’s affairs and have grown in economic size beyond all but the wealthiest Nation’s, and have demonstrated an eclipse in the power of democratic government, justice and law.
Catalysts for economic and social upheaval that has and can continue to rival the impact of any prior revolution. Delivering opportunities for industry, management and system reforms that can in fact be revolutionary. For technical governance institutions to demonstrate that semiconductor, and compute platform companies, are once again in control of their valley’s namesake and all around the world.
Where their network marketing, distribution, HR, sales and communication princes and princesses are as obsolete as their racket’s and practices. Industry and society at a critical juncture where action regulation can support reform sending a signal of emancipation, or where no action signals business as usual under environmental mob controls.
The environmental factors and forces at work, such as changing human and management values, along with rapid technological advances, the growing size and complexity of organizational patterns have blurred the traditional lines of morality, what are in the best values of the corporation and for stockholders, what is in the best interest of the private and public sectors. And have changed the very foundation of management itself. Where the application of intellectual activity and service too mankind has degraded under the Intel x86 microprocessor and intra platform monopoly status quo.
“Once technology risks have been assigned, the safeguards evaluated, the costs calculated, one is then prepared to worry about distribution. Who will enjoy how much of the benefit? Who will bear the burden on the uncertainty or the price tag of the costs? Here is where normal politics - pressure groups, social and economic power, private and public interests, bargaining and so forth - enters.
We expect that those most aware, best supplied, and most active will manage to steer a larger proportion of the advantages of technological productivity their way while avoiding most of the disadvantages. But for those who have raised technology as a political problem under this conception, reforms are needed in the distribution process. Even persons who have no quarrel with the inequities of wealth and privilege in a liberal society now step forth with the most trenchant criticisms of the ways in which technological “impacts” are distributed through the social system. A certain radicalism is smuggled in through the back door. The humble ideal of those who see things in this light is that risks and costs from a particular innovation should be able to account for the consequences beforehand. They should also shoulder the major brunt of the costs of undesirable side effects. This in turn should eliminate some of the problems of gross irresponsibility in technological innovations and application in previous times.
Since equalization and responsibility are to be induced through a new set of laws, regulations, penalties and encouragement's, the attention of this approach also aims at a better understanding of the facts of practical political decision making.
Obviously the ‘implementing’ systems have a great deal to do with the eventual outcome. My question is, however, in what technological context do such systems themselves operate and what imperatives do they feel obliged to obey?”
Langdon Winner, Political Scientist
Technology as Legislation - Autonomous Technology, 1977
The future executives of microprocessor, semiconductor and platform enablers must gravitate toward the concept that they are responsible for their activities, people in general, the advancement of industry, customer, stockholder and employee values, to do away with criminal activity, expecting a renewed focus on institutional governance over their business affairs to maintain justice, law, civil rights, democracy and democratic capitalism.
A technical environment regulated for supporting independent contribution, invention, development, manufacture, law abiding marketing, sales and communications. Supporting constituent and consumer freedom of choice; where you don’t have to cheat to compete, made possible through adherence and maintenance of liberty by legitimate institutional governance which must become a real Intel value.
No business or governmental organization, whatever its formal relationship, will be able to escape these industry, customer, stockholder, social, public and citizen responsibilities. All levels of management will be faced with the major responsibility of merging human values with the potential from technological advance to preserve human capital, the creation of goods and services for improved lifestyles, in the interest of everyone, where economic potentials based on democratic principles sustain liberty.
Today’s professional managers must modify their managerial styles and methods in manning the transition toward the era of public managers who are both economically and socially oriented. Operating in the best interest of their customers, employees, society and operating in the service of stockholders free from mob effect.
Managers can develop from a hired man status for private corporation shareholders into business institutional leaders who will manage the enterprise for the best balanced interests of society, to preserve and maintain the private enterprise system, individual participation, industry sustainable growth models, for technical invention and enablement. These concepts are essential for technology growth and management into the future.
“We still think and talk of the basic problems of an industrial society as problems that can be solved by changing the ‘system’, that is the superstructure of political organization. Yet the real problems lie within the enterprise. It is not the solution of the problems of the ‘system’ that will set the structure of the enterprise. On the contrary, it is the solution of the problems of the enterprise that will shape the system under which we shall live” - Peter Drucker
In Conclusion –
The ramification of U.S. v Intel; FTC Docket 9288 and 9341 cross all levels of technology concern reflecting on the path and impact of technology, its use and misuse in human society. Noteworthy these Section 5 actions identify substantial economic and per se violations of law and pass all judicial filter’s prompting immediate movement to hearing including criminal proceedings.
For FTC Intel settlement step, no doubt under cartel amnesty of some sort, Intel chief executives owe each of us, all society, a complete, honest and rationale explanation of what has happened their from their vantage. A civil necessity for our understanding how to recognize and remedy competition espionage occurring in the workplace in real time, and not over 18 years time.
Lacking this citizen requirement and to do otherwise over the next decade provides an open invitation for organized crime use of system mechanic’s to rig the internet, command quantum improvements in semiconductors, computing, nano electro mechanical and molecular, chemical, genetic and bio technologic resources.
The social, economic and political degeneration associated with the growth of the Intel Power Complex was known and implications understood prior to 1979, subsequent growth and control over government by the Intel Business System. Technocrats, media, academia and analysts used this prior understanding to craft system’s structures deployed by a constituent monopoly, and specifically the media, to manipulate and deceive our society. Too persuade us differently. Too hide this truth. The painting of an illusion to defuse what in fact sociologists, historians, economists, political scientists and some members of the technical elite already knew was occurring; that organized network crime can significantly damage society. Research, write and publish.
“From a scientific standpoint, what counts is knowledge not talk . . . if we want to continue to talk metaphorically about things called answers, then we still do better to speak about finding the answer, than making it . . .”
Gabriel Stolzenberg,
Inquiry into the Foundation of Mathematics
No comments:
Post a Comment