Commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission In the Matter of Intel Corporation FTC Docket 9341

"" August 21, 2010; revision 3.12, Nation Interest Publications

To: Commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission
In the Matter of Intel Corporation FTC Docket 9341

c/o: Office of the Secretary
Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20580

cc: Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation, the U.S. Senate
Congressional subCommittee on Commerce, Trade, Consumer Protection
State Attorney Generals

Christine Varney, DOJ Antitrust
Michael Hertz, DOJ Criminal Fraud
Joyce Branda, DOJ Civil Fraud
Director Robert Mueller, FBI
Honorable Eric Holder, DOJ
Vice President Joseph Biden

Fm: Mike Bruzzone
Camp Marketing Consultancy

Re: FTC Docket 9341 Comment on Proposed Settlement

- Intel consumer & industrial monopoly recoverable grows to $88 billion
- $42 billion subset due consumer return; $43.827 billion industrial monopolization.
- RICO proofs of 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.

Secretary Federal Trade Commission for Commissioners, Senators, Congressmen, State Attorney Generals, Antitrust Chief Varney, Mr. Hertz & Ms. Branda, FBI Director Mueller, Honorable U.S. Attorney General Holder, Vice President 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.

Additionally Docket 9341 Intel production analysis across 23 consecutive short runs suggests minimum $3.489 billion in MicroSoft operating systems monopolization. Industrial recoverable is associated with tying OS horizontally by OEM license to Intel x86 surplus microprocessors sold at a price less than Intel cost to produce.

With over two decades of computer related expertise, twelve years x86 microprocessor and PC products marketing employment experience, through 130 months providing Federal Trade Commission, Federal agencies, Senate and Congress, State and Federal Attorneys this research assessment documenting Intel market harms and costs imposed on consumers, industry, enterprises, individuals, society, States and Nations, my vantage on Docket 9341 proposed settlement agreement before public comment.

That entering into Bureau of Competition Docket 9341 proposed consent agreement with Intel Corporation would enable continued monopolization and non address of standing violations of Federal Law including antitrust, commerce and trade, racketeering, penal and securities law by the Federal Trade Commission.

Any ruling away from complete documentation of Docket 9341 case facts, in open proceedings, would deny the United States, American People, elected representatives in Congress and Senate the knowledge reference to act on the complete set of case facts.

Facts and data assembled through 130 months of research between the lines of Docket 9288, and now 9341, I trust verified by FTC in discovery and waiting to be documented through proceedings yet to be delivered.

That is for a complete Intel situation analysis crucial for democracies’ definition of anti trust law augments, including new Federal and State competition, commercial, civil and civil rights laws.

The Intel Corporation case matters are a green field for evolving constitutional, federal & state, competition, civil, labor & world human rights laws & legislation.

This opportunity for evolution of man and human potential cannot be brushed aside.

Lacking complete record, competition and commerce and trade law evolution into the new millennium will be blocked here at Docket 9341.

A misguided political twist too steer Congress and Senate away from whole assessment for whole remedies. Too overlook a closed technical guild’s truly anticompetitive by law channel control and tying mechanisms.

With Docket 9341 remedies overlooked two decades of dire system’s effects on competition and society are clear. Continued Intel abuses if the matter’s most urgent components are left unaddressed by FTC consent agreement as proposed.

And it’s not like Bureau of Competition has to go back to the drawing board for detailing a complete assessment for all encompassing remedial framework.

That capable of regulating one of technocracies greatest system failures; artificially accelerating and network directing industrial economies, enterprise values, the multiple lateral exclusions, vertical by horizontal structural restraints, financial and legal frauds, industrial inefficiencies, propagandist communication controls and covert security operations that by law must be examined to fully correct the core of these Intel case matters.

A precedent setting case that crosses many traditional antitrust and commerce case matters. Where the knowledge of past antitrust cases is relied on by a constituent franchise to construct anticompetitive systems, in structure, on which Intel’s integrated monopoly is sustained even now.

Further scuttling the full record of Docket 9341 case facts, through incomplete proceeding transcript, would deny cross profession FTC monitors complete case assessment for Intel system and structural ongoing audits under their charge. The key concern being how will any thoroughly audit for what they do not know about?

The nature of Intel Network artificially accelerated system structural manipulations, real time future time effects of technically novel market rigging systems, including notoriously destructive Intel Inside tied charge back deserve full Docket 9341 disclosure for Congressional and Senate law consideration. Only from full disclosure can Congress and Senate consider augments and new law legislation from the realities that are Intel Networked masked for much to long.

Break through or break down. For Commissioner’s vote to brush over Bureau of Competition gapping holes, within a Docket 9341 negotiated settlement, would indicate a continued social system, law and democracy breakdown.

Vote no on Intel enculturation of democratic State.

Vote no on continued movement toward the dark side of corporate cooperation.

Vote no on Federal Trade Commission corporate legal services.

What the Regulatory Commission is may need a word of explanation even for American readers: First devised in the 1880s to regulate railroads and grain terminals, the function of the regulatory agency is to make private enterprise function in the public interest under conditions of “natural” monopoly where competition cannot effectively do the job.

These agencies, by and large, have three functions: to maintain as far as feasible competition in the service area; to protect the public interest against exploitation by “natural” monopolies through control of prices and service standards; and to limit the earnings of “natural’ monopolies whether railroads, airlines, power companies or broadcasters, to a “fair return” geared to the cost of capital.

The “regulatory agency” thus presents an attempt to find a “third way” between the uncontrolled private monopoly and - equally uncontrolled – government monopoly.

Peter Drucker, Management, Harvard Press 1973

Noteworthy, Docket 9341 like Docket 9288 fails to specifically disclose and fully error correct real time future time margin ties that are the diamagnetic attractors of Intel structure. Driven on Intel artificial acceleration of production start’s which continually moves this current time future time effect which is the Intel channel distribution bridge.

A worm hole constantly morphing and folding onto itself when Intel current time attractors lead into future time enabling Intel Network too fix their future. Reliance on a two element value tie that is just one of many discoveries central to the Sherman Act Section 1 core of Docket 9341 which proves Section 2 intent to monopolize per se. Demonstrating along with other anti competitive restraints Intel’s monopolization of many relevant markets from one microprocessor production short run too the next.

This leading attractor is an Intel and Media first. Two margin charges tied for their leading after effects. Classic antitrust restraints from sales agency that when combined with limiting mechanisms from other sciences morphs into something unique. Where market share allocation tied too a leading attractor today, offers 1st Tier Dealers a leading market share advantage into their Intel franchise future.

Where Microsoft riding this Intel PC Media tie, tied too Intel below cost surplus dumping destroys most of the Nation’s independent software industry. And between the three, and beyond ARM which follows in time, wipes out an entire generation of domestic microprocessor design developers and design manufacturers.

Whether to persuade or from incompleteness to steer Docket 9341 conclusion away from Sherman Act core facts, assures continued non regulation of these destructive current time future time practices by legal void. Invented by Intel for all too see, and now copy, a setting up of society for continued damages.

A network tragedy of secret scheme’s that jump organic time on the weight of skimmed product and surplus value ties that destabilize enterprises and industries. Occurring within the chaos of a planned industry concentration where the sales revenues of one company, can be network directed by Media to another company, on Intel Dealer system mechanics. Mechanics that have enabled a criminal gang to take system’s control, to loot enterprises, industry, consumers, society, Nation’s, capitalism and democracy, democracy and capitalism.

Known causes of Federal Action on Intel 9341 discovery and research assessment:

Sherman Act Section 1 Contract for horizontal combination as a restraint.
Sherman Act Section 1 Conspiracy to conceal contract & combination.
Sherman Act Section 2 Intent to monopolize and predatory conduct.


Clayton Act Part 2 Certainly channel discrimination & sabotage of facilities.
Clayton Act Part 3 Limiting by product routing; barricaded essential facility.
Clayton Act Part 4 Attacking competitor employees who refuse to participate.
Clayton Act Part 5 Unfair and deceptive practices.

Clayton Act Section 13c Payment/acceptance commission compensation to route.
Clayton Act Section 13d Payment for services or facilities for processing a sale.
Clayton Act Section 13e Furnishing services or facilities for processing/handling.
Clayton Act Section 14 Pressed into agreement not to use competitor’s goods.

USC 1961 RICO - 222 Cross enterprise, cross professional network crime.

USC 1341 US Mail Fraud Consumer Route Fee paid on PCs mailed across State lines.
USC 1956 Laundering Intel bribes paid to PC Companies recorded as revenues.
Corporate Procedure 1714.9 Attorney & Client conspiracy.

Penal Code 182 Crimes against public justice.

Known consumer and industrial financial recoveries calculated for 9341 discovery:

On analysis of Intel financials for misrepresented costs and economic analysis across 23 Intel production short run’s; calculated on MDR Quanda by quarterly Intel production estimate, multiplied by Intel stated price.

$44.173 billion consumer cost of harms on Intel intent to monopolize.
$43.827 billion industrial monopolization harms on Intel intent to monopolize.

Economic calculations represent a partial four year subset of the 10 year Intel total production set within Docket 9341 review period; 1/1/99 to current.

Executive Review

Proposed consent agreement should be partially accepted for plaintiff relief and partially denied for antitrust omissions. Chartered to act under the laws of the Unites States Bureau of Competition Docket 9341 negotiated settlement proposal in current form is insufficient on antitrust environmental circumstances of fact, discovery, law precedent and Commission fiduciary responsibilities.

Sent back to the negotiating table where the future of democratic capitalism and civil society are truly at stake. We cannot overlook all the major Intel Network System crimes or the fiduciary and governance breakdowns.

Including seven of the most hideous system crime categories;

1) Vertical by horizontal tying.
2) Intel multiple laterals of combination.

3) Intel tied charge through channel’s metering devices.
4) Intel Corporate plus Media tied sales attraction.

5) Network political & jurist multipoint and consumer manipulations.
6) Intel Insider Quanda stock and market rigging systems.
7) Microsoft OS horizontally tied by OEM license to Intel below cost product.

These seven categories of Intel systems deliver debilitating tendencies. System, social, and financial consequence’s on competition, enterprise, industry, regulatory, law enforcement and protection, political body, Nation’s stability, financial markets and capital creation potential. And continue to perpetuate hurdles in the way of system remedies from over 18 years of not owing up to many Intel and Microsoft antitrust violations, and concealing PC Media system crimes that have destroyed industries, competition and legitimate governance functions.

Accordingly back too the negotiating table for some Intel admittance. Docket 9341 should proceed accordingly too FTC hearing stage focused on Sherman Act Section 1 and Section 2 per se condemnations of law known under the Section 5 umbrella which is Docket 9341. On these tracks address should continue forward on:

FTC Focus -

1) Competitor limiting by vertical restraints for multiple laterals of combination.
2) Limited by horizontal contract in combinations including conspiracy to conceal.
3) In combinations cartel routing & price fixing raising consumer PC price by 6%.
4) In combinations monopoly price impact on consumers from media manipulation.
5) Validate recovery for consumer monopoly price, routing & price fixing harms.

Finally, for Docket 9341 in hearing too verify the criminal components of these competition case matters in proceeding transcript for Department of Justice timely follow on complaint;

DOJ Focus -

1) Recovering consumer monopoly price, product routing and price fixing harms.
2) Prosecuting competition, commercial frauds and racketeering that are criminal
components of the FTC Docket 9341 competition case violation’s themselves.

SEC Focus –

1) Documenting Intel Accounting Fraud & with DOJ prosecuting Stock Market Rig.

Analyst Background: Invited by Bureau of Competition lead attorney to input as field reporter for Docket 9288 May 1998, now inputting to FTC Docket 9341 case team on Commissioner referral to case team under Department of Labor Code 3363.5#, this analyst is the FTC’s longest time Intel case expert.

Bringing industry, direct witness, Docket 9288 and 9341 case work too the examination of Intel Network practices.

This expert finds Bureau of Competition Docket 9341 settlement proposal artfully crafted and diplomatically presented. But does not address standing violations of law, consumer recoveries from Intel competitive harms, market rigging, and remains ineffective on non address of the foundation causes of Intel monopoly which continue regardless.

This analyst finds Docket 9341 settlement proposal;

1) Artfully crafted too address and patch current industry competitor claims which I support and will address within my profession and case expertise herein.

2) Diplomatically presented too guard Commissioners and Commission employees from Intel Network retaliation including future employment blacklist, however, ineffective for guarding constitutional, employment, civil and human rights of witnesses who are case contributor’s such as myself.

Including continued blacklist, Intel, Intel Attorney and Security Operation’s retaliation in a constructed fraud meant to obstruct justice, abuse court and Officers. Too conceal Intel Network crime including many forms of direct and indirect retaliation against this Federal Reporter covered up, white washed or misrepresented for a very long time.

Which is what can happen to investigative reporters when a criminal clan buried into corporate enterprise, media, Bar, for two decades, take over critical decision and control functions within industry and State to loot it. Too protect and conceal their Network, to protect and conceal their looting, to protect and conceal their looters.

No less than a citizen responsibility to report in this war zone and very scary looking back. Perhaps as scary looking ahead. Yet essential to reverse an eleven year sting from the encounters, interactions and the counter intelligence retrieval now part of this record. So why a continued corporate political fraud meant to conceal Intel antitrust violations, RICO, industrial espionages, market, law, criminal fraud, civil fraud and jurist rigs?

Everyone has known about this Intel Network problem for a long, long time

3) Does not address Intel monopoly consumer harms, or financial recoveries calculated from those known causes which are core too the Commission’s charter.

4) Similar to this analyst’s Docket 9288 public comment a decade ago, that Docket 9341 settlement proposal will be ineffective for curbing Intel monopoly momentum & enabling the growing of industry competitor market share against an Intel illegally achieved process fabrication monopoly.

Which is a current time infrastructure barrier now exponentially expanding which Docket 9341 remedy barely touches’. And whose remedy actually changes the dynamic of competition to some degree.

Specifically, Docket 9341 settlement proposal does nothing to address the history of Intel’s monopoly derived surplus barrier, how and why it got that way, its cost on consumers, industry, society and Nation, as a result of Intel defending that monopoly grown and sustained industrial surplus barrier from legitimate competition on the merits and where as proposed there are very limited 9341 remedial solutions.

On antitrust 3x estimate of Intel total harms committed against economies, industries, enterprises, competition, consumers, society and Nation’s = $264,000,000,000.

And on that classic business school inquiry what is Microsoft OS monopoly take on cost on society to produce? Estimate Microsoft OS attach to Intel 1999 through 2002 < AFC Units of 72,697,900 quantity multiplied by $50 OS price estimate less $2 manufacturing cost = $3.489 Billion industry recoverable.

Docket 9288 infiltrated by Intel confidence men who were witnesses for the FTC ten years ago, did not resolve the Intel matter on diminutive causes concealing the major ones. How are diminutive remedies proposed in the current 9341 consent agreement any different for resolving the major ones today?

On specifics of the proposed settlement from analysis of proposed consent order:

Through first days writing on what proposed consent agreement includes for consumer and plaintiff’s in the way of Intel competition controls, it became obvious comparing FTC Analysis of Proposed Consent Order, with the Order itself, that the really fascinating paths address what the Proposed Order does not address and cannot control. There’s a lot left out.

First, consumers are harmed by Intel conduct, resulting in monopoly price impact and the illegal transport tax clandestinely charged to consumer PC purchases between 1993 and 2006.

Nothing in Docket 9341 aims to recover for consumer harms or prevent consumer sales manipulation by Intel Networked including Media co-conspirators into the future.

Intel Network methods of monopoly and surplus market tying charges, for product routing and consumer manipulation, have stymied nascent innovations from growth, and established innovations from commercialization.

Between Intel 286 too 386 microprocessor market transition and today, 22 years, the breadth of industry contributions for consumer microprocessor and PC product choices have been reduced.

Many have been exposed to some of the innovations quashed by Intel Network. Where ever Intel margin values are threatened Intel Network will quash competition, democracy and legitimate justice.

Bureau of Competition states, “The Proposed Consent Order will bring immediate relief in the relevant markets and puts Intel under the Commissions order.” Where those implementing the system have a great deal too do with that outcome. By leaving out many Docket 9341 findings which enable only the limited incomplete outcome proposed.

Plaintiff Industry Relief

Certainly the order as proposed brings current time relief to nine industry competitors. However does nothing for recovering any of the long time consumer harms. Does not remedy any of the anticompetitive conduct left unaddressed.

And even some that is addressed provides no remedy including Part IV 3 B which place competitors into less than sales parity with Intel. First, on the antitrust causes omitted from Docket 9341 action unaddressed by the commercial fraud ‘sales’ remedies alone. Second, on Intel manufacturing cost advantage from a monopoly built business infrastructure.

In this expert’s opinion the proposed order is too plaintiff industrially limited to bring whole forms of relief. And does not protect society and consumers including in the relevant markets which are many more than the complaint addresses.

The x86 microprocessor market and intra platform PC component’s markets, Microsoft horizontally tied Windows platform and the affects on independent inter platform computing markets all need to be considered. All these markets are contained, limited and under stress by Intel’s process fabrication, x86 microprocessor and intra platform monopolies which continue regardless of the consent agreement.

Ironically, in this up front summary so please continue, proposed consent agreement does not regulate against any of the commercial forms of sales relief proposed if all competitors chose too adopt them. So where has the proposed consent agreement actually guarded competition, consumers, added to or evolved industry antitrust science or competition regulation? That answer is no where.

Docket 9341 proposed consent patches up certain current time industrial competitor harms on Intel conduct which this analyst supports. The order does not address or resolve the systematic dismantling of enterprises, industries, markets, society and Nation’s economic potentials by Intel. Or Intel combination and cartel subset’s in a cross enterprise, cross profession organized crime ring.

With some of the most notorious examples including Intel Network direction of production values, predatory product dumping, multiple laterals of combination including corporate plus media combination in a tied sales system, and the market rigging Quanda left unaddressed. Proposed consent agreement leaves total set of causes out and complete remedies incomplete.

The order “seeks to undo the effects of Intel’s past restraints on industry competition by enhancing the ability of AMD, Nvidia, VIA and others to compete effectively with Intel;

1) To make it easier for AMD, NVidia and VIA to use third party foundries to manufacturer products for them.

2) To give AMD, NVidia and VIA flexibility to secure modifications to change of control provisions in their Licensing Agreements with Intel.

3) To extend VIA a 5 year Intel intellectual property license.

4) To provide 6 year assurance to plaintiffs of complimentary and peripheral products that they will be able to connect their devices to Intel CPUs.

5) For FTC to manage intellectual property infringement claims, commercial distribution frauds and contract disputes for up to 10 years.

On remedies Bureau of Competition states “these provisions compel Intel to make certain offers; they do not compel a third party to accept them.

The goal is to require Intel to open the door to renewed competition, not to force a third party to take any particular action”. So remedies are all on a negotiated basis among the industry parties with FTC administrative oversight.

Plaintiff and industrially limited, proposed consent agreement does not address and therefore does not undo the effects of two decades of Intel monopoly restraints on industry, society, consumers including the Federal and State governments. That is throughout the Docket 9341 review period which is January 1, 1999 through too now.

For Bureau of Competition to even suggest that the very narrow limits of Docket 9341 industrial focus addresses, and could “undo the monopoly effects” of Intel sustained restraints, the now multi segmented product category hurdles, surplus barrier and fabrication monopoly which are the result of two decade’s of multiple laterals of vertically tied horizontal dealing combinations, is absurd.

With all the Section 1, industry, channel, racketeering and cartel proofs is even more so.

For industry plaintiff Part III of the order does patch over some real time claims including foundry immunity from Intel patent suit over products and technology cross license questions and disagreements; between Intel and plaintiffs only and their chip stage manufacturing foundries. No foundry wants to be sued for contract fabrication of a customer’s products that might infringe another firm’s patents, lacking appropriate license provisions, which this remedy is designed to address.

Consequently proposed consent agreement’s big winners, in fact, are not consumers or the independent plaintiffs themselves but their independent foundry partners who now get a clean opportunity to displace the Intel monopoly derived surplus barrier.

Those are TSMC and UMC in Taiwan, Global Foundries in Germany and Taiwan, SMIC in China, IBM in Vermont and New York, and Samsung in South Korea and Texas.

Beyond prototype or short run fabrication operations, there is currently no merchant leading edge commercial logic lithography process located in the United States beyond Intel facilities. IBM is primarily a short run captive operation. Global Foundries has been constructing an advanced commercial facility in State of New York to go on line in 2012.

There is other worldwide leading edge logic process availability but none tuned for x86 microprocessor fabrication. Samsung, like IBM and Global Foundries a common process platform alliance member, would likely entertain the contribution of a high margin microprocessor to their product fabrication line up. There is leading process lithography for memory and legacy analog fabrication located in the United States.

Looking forward there are no Intel conditions within Docket 9341 addressing Intel’s reintegration of a fabrication industry into the United States which the Intel monopoly is responsible for destroying. Holding municipalities to ransom Intel continues threat to move offshore.

No remedy in Docket 9341 addresses the greater than $43.827 billion in industrial monopolization stolen from competitive enterprises, by Intel, for their recovery and competitive reinvestment in semiconductor fabrication back into domestic economy.

Proposed consent agreement continues Under Part II A through D to enable connection of plaintiffs peripheral components to Intel central processing units; through the PCIe standard, which in period will become obsolete for keeping up with processor memory bus throughput requirement; in processor, to coprocessor or accelerator.

Thus limiting future time competitive connection primarily too input output subsystems like storage. Everyone will need to design and implement their own AMD Hypertransport® HTX and Intel Quick Path® like processor direct bus implementations or license them.

Under this provision Intel continues to block competitive access to the North Bridge microprocessor to main memory control subsystem. That is to push competition away from an Intel control block using the second control subsystem, South Bridge, as an Intel negotiating chip. South Bridge is the peripheral input and output connection into the microprocessor main memory core sub system.

Intel reason for push away is simple, competitive access to the North Bridge sub system enables microprocessor substitute competition directly at the microprocessor socket level. And graphics component sub system replacement competition at the microprocessor system bus level.

In other words any microprocessor company can compete for substitution within that PC main board socket, with Intel, when the PC main board is designed to fit all x86 instruction set compliant microprocessors. And any graphics subsystem can compete for replacing Intel graphic options when the microprocessor system bus is openly accessible.

At the microprocessor level the good of socket substitution is truly an open market commodity PC. The bad is margin commoditization for main boards and the class of microprocessors generally designed for them. Typically lower priced given the multi competitor effects and scale economy of basically one main board designed to fit all.

Especially true when Intel dumps these class of microprocessors on competitors at or below cost. No wonder ARM constituency is aimed to win world PC for the masses.

Given this Intel North Bridge IP block, since 1998 mainstream x86 microprocessors have moved away from substitutes; referred to in industry as ‘socket stealers’, to incorporate their own patent protected North Bridge main memory to microprocessor control system.

NexGen initially and then AMD with Hyper Transport lead in this ‘replacement platform’ evolution away from the open Socket 7 PC standard. And today all AMD x86 instruction set compliant processors require a main board specifically designed for them which is the HyperTransport bus open licensee able which can talk through PCI lanes from microprocessor to graphics subsystem.

Product Segment Aggregate x86 Compliant Microprocessor Market Share

2Q 09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10


Intel 78.9 81.1 80.5 81.0 80.7
AMD 20.6 18.7 19.4 18.8 19.0
VIA 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3

Source: International Data Corporation, August 2010

The pro for HyperTransport open system specification is widely accepted performance. Con is HyperTransport main board production economies are tied to AMD approximate microprocessor share of 20% in relation to Intel’s 80% share.

From a producer’s standpoint main boards for Intel microprocessors have much greater manufacturing scale economies on cost for price. This pegs Nvidia head to head with AMD unless an Intel compatible board products license opens up that 80% of the market.

There are pros and cons for platform replacements. The pro is no socket stealing PC commoditization, although, the nature of this type of competition is most competitive and very consumer friendly from a price standpoint. The con is all industrial sales margins are reduced unless an informal price floor is observed.

The consumer may also realize fewer evolutionary enhancements to the PC’s system bus compared to optimized variants of the HT standard or Intel Quick Path option that can offer higher sales margin potentials from their individual enterprise optimizations. Although, Socket 7 PC delivered the same sort of competitive system bus frequency improvements by Cyrix, AMD and IDT Centaur which Intel always lagged.

Truly to open the PC platform market industrially speaking, FTC would authorize x86 microprocessor competition universally at the microprocessor socket level. And graphics competition universally at the microprocessor system bus level.

Under Part III consent agreement extends VIA current license to attach to Intel microprocessors, through PCIe, for 5 years. And provides third party immunity from Intel patent infringement suit for 30 days during any other enterprise’s initial acquisition talks with VIA and then up to one year following acquisition.

For VIA lacking access to Intel North Bridge license and tied to its own 0.03% market share, means Socket 370 or another system bus option or be pigeon holed within its own microprocessor share tied to its own main board production. Access too PCI connect to Intel processor main memory system offers VIA and Nvidia a five year development Window to somewhere else.

Regardless a very real barrier remains and that is VIA competing with its own customer base, with its own processor plus main board design, against Intel and compatible board designs that are 99.7% more. For Nvidia the hurdle is being placed outside of Intel platform graphic’s co-development by Intel.

One of the real interesting questions is do VIA and Nvidia merge? Nvidia lacks minimally a validated x86 microprocessor design. VIA has the compatibility suite and the embedded x86 microprocessor portfolio where Centaur could produce more sophisticated designs, but VIA lacks the high performance graphic’s components.

Sounds like a complimentary relationship when two MPU and APU teams compete. And is FTC being played to play match maker? A creative but socially costly Bar divergence from Docket 9341 core antitrust claim’s by some members refocusing the case from consumers, law and society considerations, to their own business considerations? If this is a corporate attorney divergence too confuse from core Sherman Act claims society is about to lose.

Plaintiffs do have cause. And if denied Intel platform license access Nvidia essentially ends up in the same boat as VIA, competing with AMD ATI graphics subsidiary on 20% of all AMD compatible PC main boards. Or against Intel on PCI track or Quick Path license; if a license is obtainable, and only if an Intel based PC BIOS recognizes the Nvidia graphics option, and Intel hands over system control on OEM pre-configuration or user specification at system set up. Nothing in the proposed consent agreement addresses this long time industry concern.

For AMD, VIA and Nvidia consent proposal further addresses Intel reconfiguration of product platform licensing field, and platform access for complimentary component computer product planning.

Under Parts V and VI Intel must provide plaintiffs a real 5 year product platform plan similar to other Intel compliments. Plaintiffs receive a negotiation position with Intel on the effects of those plans and Intel reconfiguration of the plan including knowledge of x86 instruction set extensions. All which impact competitor investment, access and continued computer industry participation. Negotiation stale mates apparently go back to the FTC for the next decade. So will the FTC be hiring more engineers who are contract attorneys? And is this truly the FTC’s mission?

Considering Parts V and VI further in this revision 3, as a market analyst my prior public comment versions focused on business manager perspective reviewing the proposed settlement agreement. With this version I’d like to propose what concern engineers.

That is not the Intel road map which is published; now also to competitive compliments under the proposed order. The issue which concerns engineers is advance standard body provisions that drive Intel platform road maps, which Intel has always been instrumental in defining. This includes computer performance benchmarks. Most urgently with many hardware standards now maturing, in the face of Intel vertical integration, the consent proposal does nothing to address Intel manipulation of future computer platform development standards that benefit Intel Network above all others.

Intel monopolization must always be stopped at their starting blocks and proposed agreement no where takes this into account. Including through its’ standards omissions.

Rigged Benchmarks

On deceptive practices, under Part VII, consent agreement requires Intel within 90 days, to inform market at large that its own application program compilers are optimized for Intel microprocessor architectures, and not for competitive microprocessor architectures.

Nothing in the agreement requires Intel or a third party software tool developers to rewrite Intel compilers too recognize both Intel and competitor’s unique architectural implementations, and to enable them ‘turned on’ when software applications are run using these compiled applications. Which include computer system benchmarks for establishing real time processor sub system and central processing unit performance capabilities validation.

Nor does the proposal require third party software developers including Media benchmark and software application operations, to pass along this required Intel disclosure. And does nothing to assure that Media and other influencers will rig their own benchmark suites too favor Intel microprocessors and misreport the performance of competitive processors. Which under the proposal might occur even more on both sides of the debate leaving consumer’s even more in the middle for determining what computer product solutions actual do for them.

Bureau of Competition states “the proposed Consent Order is designed to protect the ability of customers and existing and future Intel competitors to engage in mutually beneficial trade.” Here Docket 9288 and next 130 months of case research incorporated into Docket 9341 really comes into play. This analyst finds the proposed consent agreement incomplete.

Beneficial Trade

Under Part IV A & B, proposal addresses activities effecting commerce including licensing, development, production, manufacture, marketing, promotion, purchase or sale, and certain Intel pricing and bidding practices. Where this expert specializes in market(ing) restraints, economic and communications controls within CDOJ defined Section 1 strategy of per se condemnation, this comment will focus on market and commerce aspects of proposed Intel Docket 9341 consent agreement.

Proposed consent agreement states “respondents shall not invite, enter into, implement, continue, enforce, or attempt to enter into, implement, continue or enforce, any condition, policy, practice, agreement, contract, understanding, or any other requirement that conditions any benefit to a PC OEM or PC end user”.

Sounds all encompassing, however, reviewing provisions within the proposed consent agreement fails to address many Intel practices. Those are the classic antitrust practices that enable Intel too condition a benefit to purchases, to exclude competitors, to artificially maintain or raise consumer PC prices.

Conditional benefits that are addressed in proposal prevent;

a) Intel offering value rewards in exchange for exclusive PC OEM, partner and channel commitments on purchase requirements.

b) Intel bribes to PC OEMs for stalling out and/or discontinuing their competitive microprocessor based PC product introductions and platform developments.

c) Payoff’s to PC OEMs for blocking, countering, removing competitor component and product line tapers into what are primarily an OEM Intel PC product line up.

d) Withholding PC OEM incentive values when competitive components are incorporated in PC platform including branded to compliment Intel components in that platform.

e) To prevent Intel from focused targeting to eliminate a competitive component stronghold earned on competitor’s product technical merits.

f) To prevent Intel from selling any product or bundle of products below cost.

g) Limits Intel to 10 PC OEM relationships over next 10 years where only new product development investment can be tied exclusively to Intel component purchases.

h) Limits Intel to single bid focus and prevents conditioning any one bid on volume purchase using the leading attractor of progressive discounts on future purchases.

i) Forbids the progressive retroactive discount and sales reward; 1st Dollar and Loyalty Payments, for PC OEM kickback on unit, segment, product category, platform milestone attainments after the initial sale.

j) Forbids allocation of free units on milestone attainment; unless competitor is engaged in the exact same practice in anyone specific sales negotiation. With the sole exception of Intel 10% reward on no more than 10 maximum units; buy 10 get 1 free on the standard Intel VAR Boxed program.

k) Proposal here forward mandates Intel to a volume price discount schedule for real time orders at specific volume breaks.

Noteworthy, under Section IV B 3, any of the above conditional limits placed on Intel, are nullified, if Intel believes any of these forms of conditional benefits are being offered by a rival component supplier. And if every supplier chooses to utilize these restraints all can use them regardless of the terms of the proposed consent agreement. Proposed consent agreement does little to regulate industry ‘restraint free’ competition over the long term despite FTC placing Intel under up to 10 years of oversight administration.

Further proposed consent agreement addresses only upfront bribes and after the milestone forms of sales rebates and lump sum loyalty rewards. Under Section IV B 1, in fact, “Intel is not prohibited from conditioning benefits on sales terms not expressly prohibited by the order.” Only Dealer rewards that are retroactive after the milestone progressive rebates or discounts, or the upfront bribes and kickbacks designed too exclude competition in the here and now are included. On this kickback finding, by the way, GSA False Claims Act recovery is proven in part.

Docket 9341, similar to Docket 9288, again negates direct address on those forms of rebates with current and future time lag effects. Those supporting closed loop vertical value stream maintenance, program catalysts for multiple laterals of combination, the dual value rebated fee scheme, tied product channel throughput registering mechanisms including destructive Intel Inside tied charge back and preferred Dealer product bridging. All these forms of anticompetitive schemes raise rival costs and limit consumer choice. And their competitive address is deleted from Docket 9341 review and remedies. Proposal addresses commercial fraud but none of the long term antitrust causes of action.

In fact the proposal negates to address any of the causes or competition problems from Intel Dealership and Media Sales Agency throughout the entire period of Docket 9341 review. Except that under Part IV B 3c consent proposal does limit PC OEM Intel margin reward claims within one year of the purchase.

This addresses some of the real time future time effects, but none of the known limiting restraints, their causes and debilitating affects on competition and consumers. Docket 9341 avoids, in facts steers away from all of Intel Network’s standing Clayton Act, and Sherman Act Section One and Two per se condemnations of law. For a fiduciary oversight so obvious this analyst must ask why?

Nothing in the proposed consent agreement specifically prevents Intel implementation of real time future time ties within a one year period. That period is not in calendar, but a rolling period, that can then cross Intel product introductions leaving the springboard for margin values earned on last product generation to launch any number of next generation products. This has always been a traditional limiter associated with Intel Inside rebated fee tied charge back.

So nothing in the proposed consent agreement would prevent reemergence of the notoriously destructive Intel Inside vertical by horizontal sales tying and metering systems, their real time future time competitor concentration effects, network’s consumer manipulation techniques, costs and harms.

The real eye opener is that Docket 9341 proposed consent agreement addresses the commercial channel frauds, but none of the last decade’s traditional anticompetitive conduct under the Sherman Act or Clayton Act. And appears too skip entirely over anticompetitive conduct per se condemned by the Sherman and Clayton Act.

While upfront bribes and kickbacks are certainly a fraud, there is no Section 2 case precedent specifically condemning an 80% market share monopolist from buying the remaining 20% of a competitive duopolist’s market share with channel loyalty rewards, bribes and kickbacks. Since there has been no hearing on this specific Section 2 subject the task is left unaddressed and not complete. So why not address it in antitrust hearing?

On the other hand there is substantial precedent that vertical by horizontal combinations are per se illegal under Section 1. Including Intel novel forms of value tie’s associated with antitrust case precedent on sales agency. Intel Network matters show many of the vertical system restraints on lateral structure that transform laterals into an Intel horizontal dealing combination. Intel vertical by horizontal matrix of integrated Dealer’s cells who stream their Intel intra platform solutions to market in field effects.

Here’s where competition and commerce law can really evolve on these many Intel firsts. Firsts which are the gray areas of condemned marketing and sales practices from over one hundred years of competition case precedent. Which is why as a marketing practitioner antitrust law is interesting to me. It’s all about the gray areas of going to market. About when enterprise’s cross the competitive line of going to market or going in too racketeering together.

Beyond the presumed 9341 umbrella of intent to monopolize there has been no hearing. Absolutely zip of this proposed order addresses specific Sherman and Clayton Act condemnation’s which are many despite FTC claim of resolving on exclusive limits. And that too me is an astonishing statement on why Bureau of Competition, including Department of Justice, need to join up and go back to the negotiating table with Intel. Not necessarily to rework what has been agreed. But too extend on the agreement to the known situation’s whole remedies.

No where in Docket 9341 proposed consent agreement are consumer price fixing or the combined multi laterals of Intel Dealership and Media Sales Agency addressed. With the exception; Part IV B 8, where Intel may negotiate exclusive component sales where there has been extraordinary development assistance; minimum $50 million, for Intel new product segments only, and to no more than 2 customers per year over 10 years.

Thus the provision actually establishes the foundation for an entirely reborn form of Intel platform dealing group. And disregards Intel’s current and ongoing storage subsystem licensing and contract main board manufacturing deal’s which include exclusive provisions.

Like any conspiracy the scheme only requires 2 unique players operating in a vertical or horizontal relationship. Intel Dealers operating in horizontal combination have traditionally been a minimum of 3 PC OEM channel entry points tied to their respective Media Sales Agent channel exit points. Intel product volume passing across this channel bridge is what widens the Dealing Group to more participants operating across tied market laterals in accelerated Intel time. So in 24 months is Intel combination back in business?

From 1987 through 2008 docket 9341 research shows a minimum of 3 PC OEMs vertically conditioned by Intel into a horizontal combination tied vertically again to their lateral of Intel Sales Agent channels, including a media cartel, operating in combination with Intel and channel entry points. All are Intel Dealers.

Nothing in Docket 9341 addresses these facts. In fact, like Docket 9288, Intel Network again seems to be covering this up in Docket 9341 and that is the atrocity of enterprise network corruption.

Docket 9341 proposed consent agreement leaves Section 1 and 2 including per se violations unaddressed. Subsequently sufficient reason for Commissioner’s to deny consent proposal under Anti Trust Act § 5 in the consent proposal’s current form

Under Part IV B 3 consent proposal goes on to address conditional benefits Intel can provide relative to competitor product sales offerings.

a) Intel may offer benefits similar to competitor benefits on the same type and quantity of products competitor is offering that customer is wanting.

b) The sole differentiator being that Intel may offer no exclusivity clauses for purchase regardless of whether or not competitor’s product sales offer include exclusivity provision.

c) Intel cannot offer sales benefits attached to purchase for more than one year. No
provision is made for within year, rolling calendar, or across product generations.

d) Intel may condition bid on purchase for a minimum number of units only.

Under Part IV B 4, nothing in order prevents Intel from winning all of a customer’s business so long as the Intel offer meets the customer’s exact bid specification including volume with any discount break(s) spelled out in contract up front.

Sans the payola restraints outlawed in Part IV A, the Part IV B restrictions change very little the terms of Intel salesmanship vis-à-vis competitors. In fact moots the longest time and most relied upon competitor advantage.

That is selling customers the marginal utility value of a product that performs 5 to 10 % less than Intel product for 20 to 30% less than Intel price. Because under the terms of the proposed consent agreement Intel can now match that competitive price and benefit package without competitive question; unless there is a below cost question. And will competition again price below cost to complete?

Ironically the proposed consent agreement places competitors into less than a parity sales condition with Intel. Intel Network has placed competitors into Parity before where the P-Rating benchmark system is a foremost example. Intel Judo placing competitors in parity with Intel Network destroys competition in the marketplace. In this particular sales instance limiting competitive product sale’s differentiation to solely a technically superior performing product, or combination of products, for the same as the Intel price.

This appears quite rational of course. And is exactly what a remedy should address, that Intel cannot limit competitive sales of technically superior products with conditional sales benefits that impact competitive sales price performance. Yet, for this one concession in relation to all proposed concessions provided to Intel more than flattens the sales field in Intel’s favor. Essentially reversing a lot of what industry has learned about selling against Intel. And that is because Intel monopolization means Intel can always sell at a lower price and still be above the enterprise’s fixed cost to produce.

Intel price can always be used to eliminate most competitive product performance differentiators; especially when Intel offers a lower price regardless of competitor performance on any bundle of benefits.

On sales parity the supply chain has always chosen Intel on availability of supply, main board economies of production, brand recognition produced by Intel Inside, and Intel Inside tied charge back’s ability to throttle tied products down sales channels in network directed field effects.

On parity performance and a lower price Intel will always win the supply relationship.

On parity performance and equal price Intel will most always win the supply relationship.

On competitor superior performance and parity price against Intel anticompetitive restraints that are a real time future time tie, not remedied in Docket 9341, Intel Network has always won the supply relationship. It’s hard to beat Intel product routing in accelerated field effects. Especially when anticompetitive, extra economic costs on society and consumers are being hidden; masked in a network crime manipulation.

Intel manufacturing scale economies built up into the monopoly over 20 years of illegal market competition and sales practices cannot be eclipsed by any Intel competitor. In any one sales negotiation, Intel price can always be less than any of the plaintiffs and still above Intel’s average fixed cost; on a three month rolling basis as the proposal defines.

Leaving competitor’s only capable of competing on superior product performance that are their technical merit’s for the same Intel sales package price. Which is what plaintiffs seem too want. That a competitor who offers a technically superior product against Intel on performance merits; applications processing throughput, processor speed, low power, effective package/footprint, bundles and price, suffered from Intel exclusionary price schemes benefiting commercial channels of product integration and distribution. Where Intel commercial frauds exclude competitive products from competing on their technical merit’s within platform integration and distribution channels.

On superior competitor performance at Intel parity price, competitor may win the supply relationship. Dependent on if the PC OEM or IDM sees some long term, sustainable product category or segment performance and margin benefit from competitive component specification.

This is where the question of supply and allocation traditionally comes into play. For competitor survival against Intel this mean’s never spreading supply among the customer base too thin. Enterprise sustainability against Intel is always secured from the mass of the component company’s supporting constituency. Constituents including customers that are either above being bought by Intel or cannot be bought off by Intel.

The proposed consent agreements ‘parity sales’ clause is not a remedy where Intel price can always be less on monopoly scale, yet more then fixed cost. Or, where the truly destructive anticompetitive schemes not addressed in Docket 9341 are used by Intel lacking condemnation and control under the proposed consent agreement.

Plaintiffs have given up a lot in relation to solving some license, contract and sales disputes with Intel. That is by being placed into what can be less than sales parity. Including vulnerability too all the traditional antitrust schemes not addressed and not remedied within proposed consent agreement. So the question remains have enterprises, industries, consumers, States and Nations actually been protected by proposed consent agreement? This analyst believes partially, but not completely if FTC somehow voids their Congressional reason for competitive existence.

Conclusion

Has Bureau of Competition been misguided by some Intel influencers; within the B

ar? Some supposed witnesses or experts meant to reverse the obvious? Similar to Docket 9288 and Paul vs. Intel consumer class action, has Intel Network steered Docket 9341 remedies away from the major industry and consumer recoverable to the minor industrial foreseeable? Redirecting the antitrust case into a commercial frauds minor divergence? A way to address some fact’s while leaving many antitrust facts out.

And if Bureau of Competition needs help, join in. It’s well known that Intel Network will surround a group with influencers to get their way. Cognizance of Intel network manipulation techniques is always a learning hurdle for newbie’s to Intel Nation and Intel law. And that is to recover our Nation’s Law for everyone.

Recognizing the long time network market rig presents a professional hurdle for attorneys, and if for Bureau of Competition attorneys then let’s address that hurdle. By DOJ, Federal and State’s Attorneys joining in with FTC for competitive mass over Intel Networked.

With Bureau of Competition address on plaintiff’s fraud and contract disputes, FTC should move Docket 9341 to 1st amended complaint. Preparing for DOJ too enter the matter anticipating movement to hearing stage and criminal prosecution. For a RICO case why would there every have been any other way?

There is too much evidence now across the Weiss Lurie Stockholder Class Action, Paul Class Action, AMD vs. Intel and FTC Docket 9341 and 9288 that Intel Network has been influencing decisions to rig their way.

That can include the type of bar, jurist and witness manipulation known by this plaintiff personally. Cooperative, or under threat, or out of ignorance I do not know. But the repeating patterns from two decades of Intel Network influences continue to support this analysis.

Weiss Lurie could have entered into evidence Intel BOD documents indicating awareness of antitrust violations. Paul class action was aware of Intel Inside tied charge back including prior 14 months where this knowledge was again overlooked.

And negated too certify the Federal Government as class member despite Judge Farnam major IT participant requirement. AMD holds system structure, economic and RICO proofs but did not present them in their recent litigation with Intel.

Mismanaged, blown or thrown? How about insufficient mass and limited reference for competing against Intel Networked? Or has Intel worked everyone over?

So to recognize the needed Federal and State assistance too address the core of Docket 9341 Sherman, Clayton Act and RICO violations. That is Federal and State Attorney’s paralleling FTC. To take on portions of the case matter for discovery implementing toward complete set of remedies including righting the criminal harms and recovery of consumer antitrust financial harms.

For reasons stated herein Docket 9341 consent proposal should be accepted in part for plaintiffs sales remedies, but denied by Commissioners; sent back for further consumer harm and antitrust documentation and implementing on the antitrust remedies.

In current form proposed consent agreement on case facts omits harms leaving incomplete and non existent remedies which promote Intel market monopolization, system rigs, criminal concealment and consumer harms in violation of Section 5 of the Antitrust Act, the Sherman and Clayton Acts.

FTC, DOJ and States are responsible to resolve Intel Network crime. Sufficient Nations’ mass too forever resolve these Intel case matters for society, democracy and open market capitalism. Too remedy the debilitating states of Intel Nation. Too transform Intel into a responsible corporate citizen. A two page list of attachments follows.

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

Exhibits in Attachment -

Bruzzone Project Capability & Resume

FTC Syllabus of Intel primary and secondary case research;
Assessment and Models of Technical Business Systems

To SEC, Senate, Congress, State AGs, States Attorneys. FTC, FBI. DOJ, White House
Intel Corporation Competition Case Update of July 4, 2010

Journalism Oversight for Democracy Prerequisite; August 2010 (follows in this word doc)

To States Attorneys, State AGs, Senate, Congress, FTC, FBI. DOJ, White House
Intel Corporation Competition Case Update of September 30, 2009

To State AGs, Senate, Congress, ACLU, FTC, DOJ, FBI. CIA. HLS, White House
Intel Corporation Competition Case Update of March 11, 2009

To FTC Commissioners, Senate, Congress, State AGs, FTC
Intel Competition Case Update of October 15, 2008

To NAAG, Senate, FBI, CIA, FTC, SEC, Congress
Intel Corporation Competition Case Update for Media Version; November 1, 2007

FTC acknowledgement Bruzzone’s Intel Antitrust Notice; January 1, 2007.

To Senate, Department of Justice, State AGs, CIA, HLS, ACLU, Joint Chiefs, BOD Semiconductor Industry Association, Competition Case Update of November 1, 2001

To National Association of Attorney Generals; February 27, 2001
For FTC; Intel Discovery, Invention, Adaptation, Application, Connection; August 2000

For FTC; Antitrust compliance of anticompetitive activity; August 2000
CDOJ lettered to Intel case work report by Chief Assistant AG; March 21, 2000

To Department of Justice Notice November 11, 1999 and February 1, 2000

FTC acknowledgement Bruzzone Docket 9288 Public Comment; May 19, 1999

For FTC; Docket 9288 Remedy Intel System anticompetitive practices; April 1, 1999

To FTC Morgan / Bresnahan expert proofs; August 23, 1999

For FTC Intel Structural Manipulation, Component Jugular, Integrated / Disintegrated, Porter expert proof; March 12, 1999

To CDOJ on system structure identification of Intel horizontal dealer combination; March 9, 1999

For FTC Network effect is like a magnet; March 5, 1999

CDOJ acknowledgement Bruzzone report of Intel competition violations, 12/1/1998

Intel BOD acknowledgement; cease and desist anticompetitive conduct and Federal Reporter Tampering, Barrett Receipt Confirmed; 9/9/1998. Intel Confidential Document Subject to Protective Order #12050DOC00076.

Intel BOD acknowledgement; cease and desist anticompetitive conduct and Federal Reporter Tampering, Moore Receipt Confirmed; 9/1/1998. Intel Confidential Document Subject to Protective Order #12050DOC00078.

FTC acknowledgement Bruzzone correspondence to Messrs. Pitofksy, Lin; 9/22/1998
NYDOJ acknowledgement Bruzzone report of Intel competition violations; 8/17/1998
One of two in time period.

Intel contract for Bruzzone too provide Intel description of anticompetitive conduct experienced in field; 8/8/1997.

Intel production noting “Intel Capital has home bugged” 9/7/? Intel Confidential Subject to Protective Order

Bruzzone 1st FBI report; Intel anticompetitive practices, espionage, retaliation 10/11/96

Bruzzone AMD Internal marketing document Intel Inside market barrier; May 20, 1996.
Intel Confidential Document Subject to Protective Order #12052DOC00549, 550, 551.""

Why is the FTC Protecting Intel Corp.?

More Information at www.CEOpaulOtellini.com

posted here by
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Have a Tip?
Crystal@CrystalCox.com