Is Intel Too Big?

With all of the evidence supporting the fact that Intel has used and abused its outright monopoly status of the CPU industry... is it time that Monopoly laws act and break Intel apart (as has occurred in the past with Bell/AT&T)?

I am of the opinion that yes, Intel should be broken apart.

Thoughts?

Voted yes here since what has occured was lawfully rightful. Justice came to it's rights with this issue.

I said it long ago, but the chances of it happening? Must be almost nil. The EU threatened M$ with it once before and that didn't happen.

I'm not even sure myself if it would be the right thing to do. What intel really needs is extreme transparency - not a penny should be spent in that company without a form being filled out telling us where it's going.

I would imagine breaking it up would create more overhead and jobs.

How would this break-up be done?

Company 1: Mobile\Desktop
Company 2: Server CPU
Company 3: Everything else, chipsets, IGPS, etc...

I voted no, just because I think it would be better to monitor them and try to get AMD back to strength. Split ups are messy, and more numbers does not necessarily equal fair business, only regulation can do that. There are lots of cable/phone/etc. companies now, but thanks to the govt. turning a blind eye, rather than one big monopoly, we just have 500 little local monopolies (here in the USA, that is).

While this is possible you also have to look at what happened to the home phone market since ther whole Bell/AT&T thing and since I work for Verizons landline side, the government coming in and pushing stuff around is not always in the best of interests for the consumers.

Phones now have insane amount in taxes, a $54.99 plan with Verizon normally has $12-$15 in taxes added on top. Same for any company that does a landline phone. In the end the consumer gets shafted with a landline and normally only gets a landline for a security system. If they don't need it they go VOIP or cell.

I am not too sure breaking them up would be the best for everyone in the end. AMD is pretty much Intel status with what they offer, minus the NAND Flash RAM and SSDs. I would like to see two total CPU/chipset/GPU companies as opposed to one.

I am thinking more of the consumer. Everytime the government steps in to handle something they tend to mess it up.

And even though people hate it, its a free market thus the government should not step in and do that.

Enforce laws, great I am all for that. But start trying to control the market and it disturbs our freedom to be prosperous.

It used to be, the airwaves were free.
Well, the gov. did sell them.
Now, we have Obama and our VP vs the internet, same will happen.
Same as the digital scenario, and yes, theres always the option to reopen non digital, and sell that as well.
I say fire them all, start over, find better uses of the tax monies thare their already, but were drifting here.
Intels impact only becomes worse as they grow and are successful which is hardly a term for a free market, right?
So, what do we do then, if their own success eventually strangles the free market

My predictions are, if new materials are found, Intel may find themselves somewhat limited as o their useage, thereby allowing other players into a "new" market, or, a breakup or close oversight

I am willing to tackle this assertion that the "market" or "capitalism" is what makes the USA "great" or "prosperous". I am not going to use ideology to prove my point either... but rather history but first I have to ask a very important question (quite rhetorical though).

Does Capitalism or the "Free" Market make the USA wealthy and prosperous?

Indonesia is capitalist - Huge poverty and child labor there
India is capitalist
Russia
and almost every single third world nation including the African nations yet they're all poor.

So why is it that the United States of America seems to be prosperous (as in having a greater distribution of the wealth)?

Simple... it's because of the labor movement. Capitalism did not give rise to the middle class or your freedom to be prosperous but rather labor movements fighting against Capitalism did.

If you look at American history around the late 1800s and early 1900s you will undoubtedly notice the high levels of child labor, unsafe workplaces, underpaid workers and abusive employers. Where was the government during those times? Well during those times the government practiced something known as "Laissez-Faire" Capitalism. The government did not step in but rather let the markets dictate the outcomes and the outcome was a two class system comprised of the Have's and the Have Not's.

People, understandably, began to rebel and unite for a common cause (Unionize). Labor strikes were rampant. The Capitalists paid off police officers and goons to kill labor union leaders and beat down women and children who participated in the protests. At some point in time the Have Not's overwhelmingly outnumbered the Have's and were united (rather than being Apathetic). It is at this point in time that they elected one of their own... Franklin D. Roosevelt. This is when government changed and began to do things FOR the people and work FOR the people rather than sit by and allow murder (the market) to run it's course.

Franklin D. Roosevelt would even send the national guard to protect protesters from paid off police officers and goons allowing them their 1st Amendment rights.

It was the rights acquired using these means coupled with MANY jobs during the war which gave rise to the middle class (through good paying jobs and an abundance of jobs through the manufacturing sector). The middle class thrived until the 80s when Ronald Reagan decided to give the Capitalists a HUGE bargaining chip (the ability to operate overseas take advantage of the same sweat shop conditions and cheap labor they used to have American workers work under and simply dump their products into the American markets).

And you wonder why the middle class is squeezed tight? The Average family income has not risen since the mid 1980s yet the cost of living has risen (exactly the time when Ronald Reagan opened up the borders). People look at their paychecks.. see taxes and blame the government when what they ought to be doing is wondering why they're still being paid the same thing they were 20 years ago even though productivity of the average American worker has risen substantially since then.

So you claim that government can't do anything right? I say hog wash. I say that when Government colludes with Capitalists then you have a point.. but so long as Government is by the people for the people it works quite well for the people (many folks call this distribution of wealth and apply a negative connotation to it without even realizing that the middle class is a product of this practice).

So again.. the laws on the books do stipulate that monopolies are to be broken up because monopolies hinder competition in the markets. Therefore by your own assertion Intel ought to be broken up... but please don't forget your history.

+1 split Intel, although I'm kind of torn. If this means it will slow the progression of the CPU... ugh.

"At some point in time the Have Not's overwhelmingly outnumbered the Have's and were united (rather than being Apathetic). It is at this point in time that they elected one of their own... Franklin D. Roosevelt. This is when government changed and began to do things FOR the people and work FOR the people rather than sit by and allow murder (the market) to run it's course. "
I would say, this is what makes the US great, right there, as it explains who we are.
We are the people that left Europe, not happy with the socialized norm at best, including our faiths, bot a 2 tiered economy as well.
We are the risk takers, not knowing what lay beyond the sea, but to leave home and family for better things.
We are the same people that have allowed huge migrations of people, legal or otherwise, to make the same journey we have, to achieve the same freedoms we have.
Its no wonder we deplore Intels actions, its un american, and leads back to all the things we left behind.
The EU doesnt have courts the way we do, and its not over for Intel here in the states.
They will be tried by their peers, and lending to that as to their innocense is folly til theyre found innocent here in the courts.
Leading to a states wealth, one way or another shows apathetic behavior towards our system, our beliefs, and towards justice overall.
And why? Because Intel is so great? People like them? People liked MJ and OJ too, and alot of those people cry out for their innocense as well, but, thats not what the people see or believe, and not what OJ recieved for justice in his civil trial either, so its no wonder Intel opted out of their civil trial, and lays down word to its employees the civil trial would have gone well, as the Intel employees need a psyche boost, and need a call from on high all is good.
But they settled, and bashing our governments findings even before theyve been done lends to bias and or apathy.
The fat lady hasnt sung yet on Intel, and since we havnt heard her, lets not assume how the tune will go, especially when weve all heard this song before

...a little food for thought: How about Neither?

What if we entertained the possibility of treating (Intel) like a Public Utility - like the power company, or regional petroleum refiners, or your cable and telephone company - and subjected them to government regulation? The examples mentioned all have (local, at the very least, if not national) monopolies, in capital intensive industries, all with significant barriers to new entrants... Of course, AMD would have to operate under the same ruleset.

Granted, semiconductors have not traditionally been treated as such. But.. What if?

That would be us further diving into a Socialist based economy where the government controls everything.

Then every branch of the governemnt would tax the products and prices would be say $200 + $30 in tax.

Did you know that cable TV gets taxed by the department of transportation in some states? Not sure what they have to do with TV service but they tax it. Thats what we would see.

<laugh> Yup! And don't forget the Government taxes the profits on the other end, as well. (Combined state/federal average in the US is on the order of 30% - Down from a high of almost 40%, according to The Almighty Google. With the current US administration, I would expect this figure to climb again, and briskly.)