Rumors abound that graphics chip maker Nvidia is getting set to enter the x86 processor market. Recall that, according to AMD’s lawyers, the processor market is uncompetitive and being unfairly monopolized by Intel.
Now, if the antitrust lawyers are correct, and the CPU market is uncompetitive and needs government intervention, then there must be some barriers to entry that are keeping other competitors out of the market, allowing Intel to reap outrageous profits. However, if Nvidia can and does enter the processor market and supply an alternative processor product line, where would that leave the antitrust argument?
To answer your question: ‘However, if Nvidia can and does enter the processor market and supply an alternative processor product line, where would that leave the antitrust argument?’
Not sure where it would leave the antitrust argument since it has no relevance to it, but such a development would certainly raise questions as to whether Intel itself is as uniquely great at making CPUs as it constantly claims to be.
From about 2000-2005 AMD CPUs were better than Intel CPUs in almost every way. They were faster, cost less, and generated less heat. Yet somehow, almost all PC manufacturers stuck with exclusively Intel processors, seemingly to the detriment of their customers and to the bottom line. Either Intel was engaging in illegal trade practices to hold onto these customers, or the open free market is not rational. Pick one.
Ohhhh I like fairy tales! My guess is that if nvidia can compete with intel in the future they can also build a time machine to return to 2000 and crush Intel, thus rendering the current legal action moot.
Others have mentioned it, but it won’t hurt to mention it again: The anti-trust case involves Intel’s past practices. Nvidia’s current plans have no bearing on the suit, unless Nvidia plans to offer wireless tachyon time-streaming connectivity with its new chips.
Oooooh, so Intel got caught with its hand in the cookie jar and agreed to lift its illegal and collusive practices and yet some obscure, shop-worn Glibertarian with a two-cent degree from a ten-cent college decides that monopolistic practices in the past are somehow all about the “Free” Markets, and so should be ignored?
Adam Smith is spinning in his grave…
If Intel WAS being anti-competitive, they did a pretty poor job of it - they LOST market share to AMD during the period of the alleged wrongdoing.
Also, as my colleague Ryan Radia points out over at Forbes, outdated antitrust rules prohibited PC manufacturers from being able to boycott Intel. Check out his article: http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/06/intel-amd-andrew-cuomo-new-york-opinions-contributors-ryan-radia.html