Novermber 8, 2010; Nations Interest Publication release 3.2, now with fifteen monopoly examples and
Intel Corporation source Attorney on DOJ and FTC antitrust compliance obligations
To: FTC Inspector General
Senate & Congress
State Attorney Generals
United States Attorneys
Director Robert Mueller, FBI
Honorable Eric Holder, DOJ
Vice President Joseph Biden
Fm: Mike Bruzzone
6025 McBryde Avenue
Richmond, CA 94805
Re: Intel Corporation Competition Case Update
- FTC Investigator Notice of Fiduciary Failure in Docket 9341
- Added pointers calculating 9341 consumer monopoly overcharge
- Lettered Relator Seeks Attorney; FCA, 31 USC 3279, recovery of monopoly &
fraudulent cost imposed on Federal Government‟s Intel based PC purchases.
“If the preoccupation of its official is to be no longer the promotion of justice and equal
opportunity but is to be barter in the markets that is not liberalism, it is degeneration”.
President Herbert Hoover
FTC Inspector General, Senate, Congress, State Attorney Generals, U.S. Attorneys,
FTC & SEC Commissioners, Director Mueller, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder,
DOJ Antitrust, DOJ Cartel Divisions and Vice President Joseph Biden:
On non address of up to $48.735 billion1 consumer recoverable and no antitrust remedies
associated with FTC v Intel Corporation Docket 9341 consent order, please find analyst
comment on reorganizing Federal Trade Commission toward financial self sufficiency,
pros and cons of Section 5 for competitive case investigation, summation of Intel Inside
tied charge back, fifteen Intel microprocessor production examples on which 9341 Intel
consumer recovery estimates are calculated.
Consumer Monopoly Overcharge
Similar to prior Intel production examples 9341 consumer recovery pointers document
monopoly overcharge in Docket 9288 and 9341 review periods. Herein fifteen examples
1995 through 2003 are meant to show economic cause why Intel Network manipulation
Version 3 refined Docket 9341 consumer recovery subset of $88 billion for FTC on 10/29/10
of FTC vs. Intel Docket 9288. That cause is Intel intent to monopolize markets for the
next decade actively concealed in real time at that time by an inter nation Cartel. A cartel
composed of Intel, PC Dealers, Media Sales Agents, investment banking, security
operatives, corporate political relations and network confidence agents embedded by Intel,
Media Sales Agents, and likely foreign Nation‟s interest, into domestic x86 competitors
to steal from and dismantle competition.
A network of extended relation‟s who long time conceal Intel vertical by horizontal
matrix of integrated dealing cells streaming intra platform computers to end buyers in
system field effects. Where Federal authority in position to resolve systematic economic
crime, have not, raising the question of blocker or detractor? Nothing in Docket 9341
consent order addresses these facts, continued Nations, society harms and consumer
financial recoveries form this history of anticompetitive system‟s conduct, racketeering,
industrial and economic espionages. An environment understood by industry players for
nearly two decades. And many in government authority who seem to sit on the side
lines? In fact the extent of those in DC with knowledge of the high level espionage and
enterprise network corruption case investigations is really quite extensive.
“If such combinations be not destroyed all the advantages which would naturally come to
the public operating under the general laws of competition, will be lost, and the entire
commerce of an immense territory will be at the mercy of a single holding company.”
Justice Harlan Stone
All aspects of Intel monopolization beyond commercial fraud remain deleted from
Docket 9341 consent order as accepted by FTC Commissioner‟s on November 1.
Resulting in this third Federal example of Intel Corporation dodging competition,
racketeering and espionage violations pursuant to three investigative tracks that also
validate Federal agency failures to regulate competition, racketeering, cross enterprise,
cross profession network crime including in progress economic espionages; DOJ v Intel
1991 – 1993, FTC v Intel Docket 9288 1998 – 2001, FTC v Intel Docket 9341 2009-2010.
How is one to explain the result of this continuous compounded series of misfeasance and
failures in oversight control across Intel case matters for nearly two decades?
On two of three Intel case anomalies this analyst suggests the Federal Trade Commission
should be reconfigured for financial self sufficiency. Up to $48.735 billion and antitrust
remedies is a lot of funding to leave off the table.
Too earn its keep can FTC be reconfigured to lead virtual competition case actions? Like
any private plaintiff attorney partnership paid for monitoring, regulation, investigation,
leading case work for competitive recovery from the very corporations the agency is
suppose to regulate under Sherman and Clayton Acts. Too modernize an agency held
captive by the political agenda of corporate legal guild in relation to employment and
professional placements beyond the agency itself. Including where corporate political
and institutional influences are often responsible for making and sustaining employment
placements in those agency‟s in question.
Obviously not a fault of the institution or its Congressional Charter but of society and the
personal boundaries of individual actor‟s responsible for implementing and overseeing
that charter. And where there are questions of oversight control perhaps State Attorney
Generals should be included as added check under FTC Congressional charter? Certainly
more desirable than this False Claim‟s Act Relator. Where, perhaps, State Attorney
Generals should be able to initiate and oversee cases within FTC for spot control across
Who‟s been minding shop in DC? Where Intel case matters are concerned why are the
continued symptoms of regulatory, oversight, corporate law enforcement and attorney
fiduciary dysfunction so pronounced and for so long?
In the face of Intel Network again demonstrating administration of corporate and attorney
fraternal ties that are greater than the Federal Power itself, making FTC financially self
sufficient is designed to increase competitive effectiveness, to cut corporate ties, earn its
keep under Charter on the very recoveries FTC is supposed to be delivering. No different
from Relator under False Claims Act. Why shouldn‟t FTC be rewarded operating returns
on antitrust and commerce case recoveries?
In doing so like any partnership offer an incentive to federal employees on that return,
under the Federal Power, which would surely keep FTC focused on the high value cases.
With of course some ratio of funding for all other types of matters that require attention.
Delivering on the administrative front a lean organization in step with its ability to self
sustain organically. To counter corporate guild control it just might take a separate
stronger independent public partnership.
On FTC case review under Section 5 of Antitrust Act
Having participated in two Section 5 investigations of Intel competitive practices;
Dockets 9288 directly with FTC investigating attorney Mr. Lin, 9341 through attorney
team liaisons Ms. Espeldon, Ms. Kransky and Mr. Cox, this analyst‟s stated view has
been that Section 5 offers an all encompassing umbrella to research, discover, validate
Intel Network program and practices that harm competition and consumers. Providing
broad vantage to detect and calculate the costs of Sherman and Clayton Act violations on
enterprises, industries, consumers, society and Nations.
For 9341 perhaps Section 5 should not be considered an unusual first approach to
research and validate antitrust claims and harms. Two decades of Intel Network
concealing and misrepresenting harms and costs on competition and consumers requires a
broad approach to systematically filter from superset too subset for stringent structural
proofs. Pointers and proofs decomposed from a monopoly broth relied on to conceal and
divert from active system, structure and economic findings, error detection and correction
through three Federal investigations, that is Intel Network monopolization for much too
Favorably Section 5 has revealed a springboard too evolve Section 2 case precedent
concerning industry competitive effects claimed to cause competitor harms that may also
be competition and consumer harms. Where Section 5 investigation has filled a gap in
antitrust enforcement revealing a Section 1 path too hear on industry competitive claims.
Claims that are industry causes within system, structure and economic proofs of
competition and consumer harms under Sherman, Clayton Acts, commerce and
racketeering laws. This path to remedy industry claims through Section 1 affirmative
findings offers a bracket too review and evolve Section 2 case precedent for industry
Long time industry claims are worth judicial review within the bracket of established
antitrust, commerce and racketeering case precedent. On this strategy the total case
cannot be lost; only won. Where it‟s more important than ever for Commission too
actively exercise its full Congressional authority under Section 5 judicial hearing. Two
decades of Intel Network concealing espionage that is intended to monopolize multiple
industries and markets through corporate political multipoint manipulation of Federal,
State, and inter nation authority by organized network crime cannot be left unresolved.
Anyone in DC who continues along non address of antitrust, criminal and commercial
frauds should be questioned. And if incapable of doing this job for fear of what Intel
Network will do to you and your family as done to mine find someone capable to do that
job. Mr. Holder, Mr. Mueller, Ms. Varney please place individuals into these positions
who will do the job. No more varnishing over eighteen years of a compounding
The FTC has shown itself hampered in monitoring, regulating, remedying Intel corporate
crime network. The U.S. DOJ through its inaction is suspect of similar. The FBI
informed of Intel marketing Media Agent spy ring over a decade ago and there are still no
arrests? While these known individuals have buried themselves deeper into strategic
influence positions within technology industry, media and society. One has to ask why
and what‟s the next step toward reorganizing Federal law enforcement and regulatory
agencies for competition espionage and cartel case effectiveness for industry, public and
Everyone close to these case matters knows the real Intel; society damaging enabler of
cross enterprise, cross profession organized network crime. Demonstrating debilitating
affects on society Intel Corporate Political Network must be reformed to achieve any
rational level of enterprise, industry and competition reform. Docket 9341 consent order
fails to state any antitrust remedies. This analyst believes Docket 9341 consent order will
be ineffective on sole address of industry commercial frauds and futile to administer from
antitrust conduct left unaddressed. Apparently not to be monitored under the order?
Under 9341 consent order, provision for Intel internal monitors of the order‟s provisional
frameworks has been established by the FTC. However, ironically, the very act of
compliance monitors identifying out of bounds anti competitive practices, and pressing
Intel for correction, can be reversed too Intel‟s advantage under the order. Typical of
Intel style a provision within the order enables compliance monitor‟s to be dismissed by
Intel for monitoring anticompetitive compliance beyond the order itself. This loop hole
in compliance monitoring is significant and places monitors under Intel control. And
other than for compliance monitors who are Intel Network placements presents a loosing
proposition for any credible monitor. Citing antitrust compliance boundaries Intel
remains unable to comprehend the basis of market barriers of there own network creation.
Intel Corp. Compliance Position according to Intel source Attorney December 22, 2010
1) Boundaries of antitrust compliance obligations do not require Intel Antitrust
Compliance Committee to address outside the organization itself, a) monitoring
internal external relations associated with contract negotiations or sales
agreements, b) addressing outside parties notice of current or ongoing antitrust
and criminal violations to Intel‟s attention.
2) Antitrust compliance obligation does not require policing for internal crime,
including error correcting subgroup crime within organization to conceal antitrust,
ongoing and lingering criminal violations.
3) Antitrust compliance obligation does not require focus on externalities as the
catalyst for fraud and concealment of fraud to propagate antitrust and criminal
4) Antitrust compliance obligation does not require policing the Intel legal
department, or any department, for operation of sub groups engaged in network
5) Antitrust compliance obligation does not require addressing claims of parties
afflicted by Intel commercial frauds, antitrust violations including where Intel
employee and contractor obstructions are designed to mask antitrust and other
crime violations by internal and external co-relations.
Where Intel presents a lot of excuse‟s not to regulate for antitrust compliance. And that
is because Intel cannot demonstrate management consent to regulate anticompetitive
conduct or organized network crime within and proximate to that enterprise.
Academic Attorney Position on FTC v Intel Docket 9341
Some academic attorneys suggest fault in FTC Section 5 to convene an investigation to
find proofs of unfair methods of industry competition and deceptive practices that may
not fit judicial interpretation within the range of established consumer antitrust cases. I
acknowledge the criticism and FTC should have better prepared their complaint. And
stated so before the complaint was filed. That is to state specific Clayton Act and
Sherman Act violations harming consumers under Anti Trust Section 5 authority in the
face of Judiciary up front. At the time a Section 1 focus. Were I suggest FTC key
mistake following blindly parallel actions which contain built in faults ahead of 9341
research opening up the 9288 affirmative discovery paths. All the while FTC remained
surrounded within the traditional confines of an Intel invented reality of no foul driven by
Intel long time network manipulation intended to keep it that way.
Noteworthy Docket 9341, similar to Docket 9288 Section 5 investigation again deflects
from channel causes that are antitrust true positives, to industrial causes that may or may
not fit judicial interpretation as competition and consumer antitrust harms. Plaintiff
causes repositioned by media to deflect from Intel Dealer and Media Sales Agent tied
channel monopolization known too harm competition and consumers. Including tactics
per se condemned by the Sherman and Clayton Acts that is price fixed product routing
and structured market rigging, deflected toward the litigation trap of whether industrial
harms harm consumers. Where case focus is deflected in this fashion, directed away
from known antitrust violations toward industry harms that might fit as competition and
consumer harms, Section 5 questions are raised.
This analyst would like to propose a corporate political concern with FTC reliance on
Section 5. A transparency concern that Section 5 is being used to mask competition
espionage and the crime syndicates responsible for concealing them. And discovery rules
which grant Intel advance notice on what evidence to destroy or alter. And while there
are multiple discovery cross checks to determine if Intel has destroyed or altered
evidence, wouldn‟t it be more effective to obtain a warrant on pointers and proofs, raid
Intel, PC Dealers and Media Sales Agents, capture suspect and supporting documents and
subsequently conceal discovery focus until the refined complaint is filed and criminal
prosecution paths determined.
For a RICO case confronting the largest most financially destructive inter nation cartel in
the history of modern business why would there be any other way? Perhaps this is not
the FTC‟s fault in poking around with their Section 5 action but indicative of drag within
the U.S. DOJ Antitrust and Cartel divisions not stepping up to the plaintiffs desk sooner?
And FBI, where a problem in the San Francisco Bureau has been known for over a
decade where Washington including the Director himself has always been copied on the
complete case investigation as it progressed. Continued inaction in the case is a telling
indicator of continued dysfunctional governance.
Network manipulation of FTC Section 5 inquiry has twice now confused and
misinformed academics, attorneys, influencing observers, Congress and Senate affecting
working views from information withheld. Has stymied DOJ, FTC, industry plaintiff
case outcomes and how many others? By Intel Network deflecting commercial harm of
their tied Dealer channel toward industry claims of harm that may or may not fit judicial
interpretation of competition and consumer harms. The history of Intel investigation
under 9341 & 9288 Section 5 has made government appear ineffective.
On 9341 repeated result of 9288; encompassing voids in overall remedies, Section 5
method again falls short by failing to tell the whole story. Similar to 9288 system,
structure and economic violations that prove intent to monopolize have been left out of
9341 consent order. In doing so refocus on industry competitor conduct has caused
confusion that Intel competitor harms may not be competitive antitrust and consumer
harms. Obviously the most efficient way to address any litigation is facts on focused
claims. I suggest ambiguity the downfall of Section 5 method in relation to a laser beam
focus to hear Sherman and Clayton Act violations from the start. Supporting secondary
focus on industry commercial frauds that are competitor harms for their determination by
the court as competition and consumer harms.
This upfront approach of discovery raid followed by complaint and criminal prosecution
addresses criticism for FTC action out of the pubic and judicial oversight where a new
layer of FTC law may now be added under established law. Perhaps too establish a layer
of guild law under Federal competition law? Or reaffirm Intel law above the Federal
Power and Nation‟s law? FTC, DOJ, U.S. Attorneys and State Attorney Generals
supporting judicial review to determine whether competitor harms are also competition
and consumer harms would undo these concerns. With Section 1 focus removes the
question of chasing down Intel on false positives. And makes FTC and DOJ leader‟s in
supporting virtual private law satellites by detailing known discovery paths to affirmative
antitrust true positives, opposed to negatives, supporting plaintiff actions including
For Docket 9288 and 9341 the core violation has always been contract, combination and
conspiracy in an enterprise network fraud to conceal the Sherman Act Section 1 violation.
A long time antitrust violation established on case precedent validated by established
Clayton Act and RICO cases. This Section 1 violation has always been intended by Intel
Combination and Cartel practice to monopolize markets maximizing their combined
system economic benefit. Too limit and steal from competitors and manipulate
consumers. And has always been cost too consumers including hidden transport tax for
product routing affixed to primary Dealer‟s Intel intra platform PC end sales price. An
illegal transport fee enabled by Intel and Dealers, taxed too consumers in PC end sales
price, where 100% of this route fee is collected by Media Sales Agents many
who are codefendant propagandists concealing their own involvement in these continuous
enterprise network crimes.
In this Section 5 process failure Intel Network deflection from consumer to industry
causes of action has been experienced by all of us. There can be no more reversing the
obvious even as cover for FBI and DOJ investigative intervention. Its time to bring this
racketeering case into the public light so all citizens can be instructed how to report and
remedy competition espionage occurring in the domestic work place in real time and not
over eighteen years time.
Regardless of FTC intention or bumble Section 5 false start has been a blessing in its
success to reveal yet another Intel Network manipulation of federal regulatory and law
enforcement. Including Intel Network media misrepresenting 9341 proposed consent
agreement, as the final FTC settlement, prior to Commissioner‟s November 1st
acceptance. Limiting awareness of public comment opportunity? Resulting in
Commission acceptance I can not agree with on lacking remedies. However discovery
and remedies that still support the consumer case, State by State if necessary, on exact
causes of action freed from its industrial divergence. Now focused on consumer harms
from monopoly price overcharge and Section 1 contract, combination and conspiracy too
conceal Cartel price fixed product routing raising consumer PC price average 6%.
Section 5 ambiguities presenting a vague case disconnected from its complete set of facts
has in fact benefited follow on case work from FTC exposure in a first round of Intel
Network Judo. And will the FTC or Department of Justice now respond with Federal
Jujitsu and Karate? Will State Attorney Generals? Will private actions? For FTC 9341
refilled under Economic Espionage Act of 1996 31 USC § 1832 within the wrapper of
Sherman, Clayton Act and RICO findings an easily won round two toward recovering
$48.735 billion stolen by Intel Network from consumers. And for industry plaintiffs to
prove their commercial claims and recover financial harms under Section 2 assuring
remedies that yield no undesirable concessions to Intel Network.
Having participated in a technical assistant capacity for both Docket 9288 and 9341, I
agree with academic attorneys today who‟ve chastised FTC hunting for antitrust causes
of action that might fit under the Section 5 umbrella. What a waste of time Section 5 has
been in relation to focused address on specific structure and system causes that are
Section 1 and Clayton Act per se condemnation‟s of law that are proofs of Section 2
intent to monopolize and economic theft.
“The enforcement of free competition is the least business can expect”.
President Franklin Roosevelt
Intel Inside Tied Charge Back in Summary
Building on prior analysis reflecting on Intel Inside tied charge back the system metric
can be summed up thus. That Intel Dealing Cartel combined cross enterprise cross
market too venture back its own Cartel channel development in advance of the Intel
microprocessor supply ramp. Where Intel and PC Dealers paid for their media channel‟s
expansion plan from Intel rebate fee credits earned in advance on every future computer
sale from a predetermined production plan. Presenting the basis of the laundering
violation; USC 1956, well before Docket 9341 identified Intel off the book kickbacks to
Dell and how many others recorded as PC sales revenue.
A cartel venture which combines a minimum of six separate markets; x86
microprocessors, PC component platforms, Windows Operating System & Applications,
PC design producers, investment banking and the media. With their push through system
enabled between Intel Dealer Entry and Media Channel Exit Points from November 1991
through approximately 2006. After which push through system is more tightly coupled
by Intel to individual PC Dealers on redesigned tying mechanisms that Docket 9341 and
EUCC record as bribes and kickbacks.
Where Intel in combination with primary PC Dealer‟s and Media Sales Agents agreed to
redirect revenues from Intel and PC Dealers stockholder‟s, disguised as legitimate sales
costs, too pay for the combination‟s Media Sales Agent channel build out from 1993
through Pentium 4 exponential growth. A period of commercial set up by the Combined
Cartel where Media Sales Agent‟s promote Intel microprocessors routed in Dealer‟s
computers to end buyers tied to their own media revenue generation ahead of the Intel
A supply ramp detailed two year‟s in advance on Micro Design Resource Intel forecast
(now suspect as the actual Intel supply schedule by this analyst) under the ownership of
the Ziff Davis Soft Bank Companies (1995 – 2000) headquartered in New York, New
York and Tokyo, Japan. Followed in 2000 MDR purchase by Cahners Publishing from
ZD Market Intelligence merged into Cahner‟s Instat Market Research Group. In period
ZDNet computer titles are purchased from SoftBank by CNET through final peak of Intel
Inside tied charge back program.
CAMP MARKETING CONSULTANCY
Many Intel market rigging systems
Intent to Monopolize Proof
mimic electronic system structures.
Dealing Combination & Cartel Proof
Intel Inside Tied Charge Back
of PC Demand.
B H BACK
I O A I
C C A
R K E Charge Match
I O E
T C D S
E E U CE
S A P
L S L P G R
O E L E di
R I N S
E T a
Intel Inside Dealer
2 ACCRUAL 1 Dealer AD Dealer
Accrual CHARGE 3
INSERTION Charge Match
4 KICK BACK TRIGGER
Inventory Metering Clearing
Mike Bruzzone, Camp Marketing Consultancy, 415/250-4652 FTC 1999 & 12/23/09
In addition to Ziff Davis prominent Media Sales Agents include IDG PC World, CMP
Windows Magazine, other technical and mass media; ZDTV? Sales agency that would
last through the cartel‟s implosion in 2005/6 on hard copy publishing reconfiguration
toward Internet dissemination compounded by Intel process hurdle to race
microprocessor frequency past 3.8 GHz. A period where Intel artificial press of process
lithography to maintain its fabrication monopoly morphs from tied charge back to first
dollar and loyalty rewards which are clearly the outcome of a continuous racket.
“The essential subordinate status of social justice as a goal of rational political discontent is
illustrated by the principle that any group will find it eventually unprofitable to redistribute
income toward itself at the cost even of the smallest decline in the rate of economic
development. For any group which succeeds in such a redistribution there will be some year
in the future beyond which it will be worse off in an absolute sense because it effected the
initial redistribution in its favor”. Richard Brandt, Social Justice in Social Dynamics, 1961
Twenty year ironies of Intel domestic PC protectionism are three fold. First, the cost
impact on society exposed to artificial accelerants, systematic growth and concentration
of the Dealing group. Second, a combined cartel that did not deliver domestic PC
protectionism but the system means for domestic economic theft. Third, with Toshiba
and NEC limited to secondary status in the PC dealing group, Soft Bank purchase of Ziff
Davis and then teamed with CNET (CNET up to 10% Intel owned in period) positioned
both media companies, along with International Data Group‟s PC World, to capture
majority of Intel Inside margin rewards through the tied charge back program.
The cartel did not protect domestic industry but acted as the catalyst for inter nation
organized attachment. Soft Bank who purchased Ziff Davis in 1995 knew exactly the
benefits of Meizaru Kieretsu (hidden cartel) operating within the Intel Zaibatsu (vertical
monopoly business conglomerate). Is this what Intel monopoly was meant to protect?
And in respect to Soft Bank, why not, Intel Combine is an American Cartel.
Cross enterprise cross directorate because this sort of business combination can‟t be
coordinated singularly and requires mutual cooperation and direction. Although the
network responsible for cartel operation‟s including executives of Ziff Davis and other
media responsible for enterprise infiltration to fill Cartel key man positions, in PC
companies and Intel competitors, did attempt to keep the cartel‟s coordination a secret.
From publisher‟s top executives and regional ad reps who coordinated the placement‟s to
advertising and public relation agency personnel who policed the Intel sales system while
acting as informant transfer bridges (along with some journalists) from Intel competitors
back into Intel. The competitive rape of enterprises, industry and country for Intel tied
charge back ad space sales, space commissions, publisher and agency directed client
assignments and sustained employment that are network rewards of cartel membership.
A secret scheme reported by this analyst to his employers Cyrix, NexGen, ARM and
AMD beginning 1991 through 1996 caused by Agent solicitations. On employer inaction
and Intel Network retaliation, followed by first reports to FBI in the summer and fall
1996. Which was not the beginning of a legal system failure, but the beginning of an
escalation in legal failures that has always plagued Intel case matter‟s right up through
9341 result and the writing of this briefing today.
Intel monopoly profits are once again at their traditional inflated high. And that is
because corporate fiduciary responsibilities, governance, regulatory and some in the Bar;
no doubt specializing in serving white collar crime to sustain their attorney employments,
have kept democracy stuck in Intel failure mode within the Intel lie that is a panacea of
best practices meant to conceal criminal practice.
With Intel Network thumbing their noses and beating their chest‟s in a victory over the
FTC masking organized network crime. Where Intel CFO Smith on News Hour October
13 is positioned in front of posters that are microprocessor die photos resembling in gold
hue the commercial bastions of Wall Street that are lower Manhattan office towers. Intel
clinging too this constituency for support offers one indicator that all is not well in Intel
Land. Followed by increasing the stock dividend as if this token of stockholder
appreciation could resolve so many year‟s of Intel enterprise network crime and corporate
Intel Network is responsible for a lot of looting and laundering; $42 billion2 by Intel and
Dealer financial records on Intel Inside explicit contract and tacit administration of the
tying system. Taken from Intel and Dealer stockholders, advanced to media, intended to
limit participation and monopolize their combined supply and distribution system. These
stolen funds sit waiting for consumer recovery within Intel, PC Dealer and some Media
enterprises. Also I would think partner profit from INTC QUANDA players made within
their investment banking operations. Using a secret tool, riding on other people‟s money,
and suspect as never crediting gains back to client‟s accounts?
For Docket 9341 Intel system structures prove intent to monopolize. Economic analysis
points to monopoly consumer overcharge and Intel industrial price below cost. Intel
explicit contractual agreements and their tacit provisions prove consumer price fixing of
approximately 6%. All conduct proofs including commercial channel frauds are
secondary in support. There is no risk of antitrust false positive associated with these
pointers to affirmative proofs; systems intent, consumer monopoly overcharge, industrial
below cost, PC price fixing for holding the cartel and its tied distribution structure in
place even now.
Added production examples on which 9341 consumer recovery is calculated.
Analysts June 4th brief estimates up to $88 billion in Intel consumer and industrial
monopolization available for judicial recovery. Current consumer recovery estimate is
approximately $48.735 billion. June 4th brief revision 2 and latter offers these three
1) P3 code name Katmai 512 Desktop Performance pointer to consumer monopoly
overcharge of $300,990,000 and $764,517,480 in Intel Inside charge back values.
2) P3 code name Copper Mine 128 Value Mobile pointer to industrial monopolization;
$2,780,853,050 revenue less than average fixed cost, $351,211,950 less than variable
cost suspect below marginal cost end of run, and $187,923,900 in charge back values.
3) Cartel signaling embedded in P3 Xeon Tanner and P3 Cascades product dumping
Pentium 3 Katmai 512 Performance Desktop, P3 Copper Mine 128 (Celeron) Value
Mobile and P3 Xeon Tanner Cascades are shown again below in their updated average
weighted price versions. New to revision 3.2 and 3.1 find Pentium Pro P6 Workstation,
Server and Desktop followed by Pentium ll Klamath 256, Pentium ll Deschutes 512 plus
Pentium 4 Northwood 512 Performance Desktop and Pll Mendocino 128 (Celeron) Value
Desktop. Included reported in prior briefing are Deschutes 512 Performance Mobile and
Pentium ll Dixon 256 Performance Mobile. Pentium 3 Copper Mine 256 Performance
Where $5.2386 difference on $47.2386 billion is revision 3 consumer monopoly price and monopsony overcharge.
Desktop, Pentium 3 Copper Mine 256 Performance Mobile and P3 Copper Mine 128
(Celeron) Value Desktop, Pentium 4 256 Willamette Performance Desktop and Pentium
4 256 Foster Workstation.
Consumer overcharge, industrial monopolization, Intel Inside tied charge back is now
estimated on refined average weighted price method, for 23 production short runs, in
progress for discovery purposes. As anticipated from note in July 4th brief analyst
refinement from average price, to average weighted price on infra marginal speed splits,
has shown consumer monopoly price overcharge growing in value.
Economic analysis including latest input to FTC on October 29 is now calculated on Intel
average weighted price on MDR Intel quantity estimates, by microprocessor frequency
speed split, at Intel 1,000 piece stated price. Resulting in ability to calculate consumer
monopoly overcharge on exact infra marginal product quantities at monopoly price.
Infra marginal „short lots‟ of Intel microprocessors subjecting consumers to monopoly
price overcharge associated with Dealer‟s newest PC product introductions. Also where
Intel Inside commission tied charge back values too Media Sales Agents are at their
Refined economic analysis including 9341 review period; December 1995 through 2003
is here meant to validate Intel monopolization before, during and following Docket 9288
negotiated settlement. With the objective of confirming Intel employee perjuries and
criminal network manipulation of Docket 9288 result including this analyst‟s push under
in a covert security sting at that time. A sting that includes by production record Intel
chief executives, Intel security operators, three private security firms and regional law
enforcement believed to be the working associates of corporate and contract security
personnel. Analyst‟s aim is to show cause on witness tampering in an obstruction of
justice; affirmative act of constructed fraud. Too offer causal proof for forestalling 9288
remedies and Intel Network aim to disrupt the administration of justice in all following
State, Federal and civil actions and case investigations.
“True reasons of the distinction upon which the probation's of voluntary restraints are
founded are: 1st, the mischief which may arise from them, first to the party by the loss of
his livelihood, and the substance of his family; 2ndly, to the public, by depriving it of a
useful member. Another reason is, the great abuses these voluntary restraints are liable
to; as for instance, from corporations, who are perpetually laboring for exclusive
advantages in trade, and to reduce it into as few hands as possible; as likewise from
masters who are apt to give their apprentices much vexation on this account, and to
use many indirect practices to procure such bonds from them, in their custom, when
they come to set up for themselves . C.J. Parker delivering resolution of court in Mitchell
vs. Reynolds, King’s Bench, 1711, 1 P. Wms. 181, 24 Eng. Rep 347
Below from August 2000 find one of hundreds of analyst‟s FTC and CDOJ original
submittals to Messrs. Lin, Pitofsky at FTC, Mr. Greene at CDOJ, Ms. Reno, Mr. Klein
USDOJ, entire Senate Judicial Committee followed by supporting economic pointers of
Intel intent to monopolize and for proving Docket 9288 manipulated obstruction.
Following, fifteen examples 1995 through 2003 are meant to show economic cause why
Intel Network manipulation of FTC vs. Intel Docket 9288. That cause is intent to
monopolize markets actively concealed in real time at that time by an inter nation cartel.
The Art & Science of Camp Marketing
Antitrust compliance or
Anti competitive activity? Klamath (Pentium
Deschutes (Pentium II .25
1st Half 2000 - Intel Program 2:
Goal: - Antitrust compliance of monopoly? ?
Objectives: - Demonstrate Antitrust Compliance.
- Signal movement toward efficient production.
Strategies: - Communication‟s supporting leading product shortage.
- Allow primary customers (Dell) time to replace surplus upside
with legitimate sales supporting profitability and stock price.
- Parley indicator of Intel CPU surplus market staged ramp down.
Tactics: - New PIII speed grade „press‟ demos and review samples.
- P4 architectural introduction and technical demo.
- Produce P4 and CPU supply in relation to actual demand.
Analysis: Completion of Intel P6 core marginal revenue and surplus analysis through
Copper mine will tell if Intel is engaged in a staged ramp down of surplus market.
Or continues engaged in traditional campaign of disinformation hiding true course
of monopoly intent.
Mike Bruzzone, Camp Marketing Consultancy, campmkting@aol, 415 250 4652 FTC, DOJ, Senate Judicial Committee
Monopoly pointers from MDR advance Intel production estimates, segmented by speed
split, when multiplied by Intel Stated 1,000 piece price reveals a QUANDA relied on by
INTC inside stock traders, PC Dealer procurement and Media Sales Agents. A network
game to calculate Intel revenue and margin potential on future Intel product route
purchases including tied charge back values to Media Sales Agents up to eight quarters
into future time. Note mechanism for cartel stock pumping 2002 demonstrated to FTC
before October 29.
On average weighted price analysis analyst now suspects MDR estimates are the Intel
supply schedule. The product of virtual network resource does MDR validate Intel
production plan? Intel relies on external resources from which the organization gleans
other‟s ideas and makes them Intel‟s ideas. This analyst‟s marketing ideas and plans
have been gleaned by Intel marketing. Trailed in the field and made into a feature exhibit
at one Intel marketing department luncheon; don‟t talk to that guy at the Intel trade show
booth was their aim to inform marketing and sales personnel. One of several encounters
court ordered production shows Intel theft of analyst market plans from AMD in 1996.
Separate, analyst record for AMD Security that is theft of NexGen K6 development
schedule and the executive transfer of NexGen AMD confidential product details to Intel
“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
Below new to briefing find Pentium Pro P6 Workstation and Server 512 KB and 1 MB
large cache versions, plus Desktop 256, showing consumer monopoly overcharge > $975
for desktop, > $1692 for large cache versions on infra marginal quantity „speed splits‟ at
Intel stated 1,000 piece price. Showing $4,818,212,535 revenue on total production of
7,206,000 units, consumer monopoly overcharge on infra marginal production of 211,637
units is $128,321,067. Intel Inside tied charge back to Media Sales Agents on total
revenue at 1.5% commission multiplied x2 representing Dealer Media Trigger and Intel
Media Sales Agent kickback is $144,546,376. Total consumer overcharge and price
fixing consumer recoverable from Pentium Pro P6 Workstation Server is $272,867,443.
Pentium Pro P6 industrial monopolization over top of Pentium P54CS dumping destroys
any potential for Cyrix competitive survival while infringing AMD growth potential for
at least the next two years.
Camp Marketing Consultancy – Pentium Pro P6 256, 512, 1MB L2
P6 200 1MB 8/97
Analysis: After NexGen RISC Execution before Socket 7 transition how
2400 Intel snuffed Cyrix M1, guarded against NexGen, dumped on AMD
2200 $117,067,192 Monopoly Price Overcharge > $1692
2000 P6 200 512 11/95
1800 $5,970,061 Monopoly
MONOPOL P6 166 512 11/95
Price Overcharge > $975
Desktop Period 2 Price Suspect < MC
1400 Pentium Pro P6 Large Cache
$110,151,500 Industrial Monopolization
P6S 200 256
Large Cache AWP = $1070
P6S 180 256
1000 11/95 256
Large Cache 11/95
SHUT DOWN COMPETITIVE EQUILLIBRIUM
Pentium Pro D Desktop 256
600 U SHUT DOWN AWP = $521 D
Desktop 256 M U
400 P ATC = $336 M
N AFC = $167 I
200 G N
End of Run Sludge – 275 4.08 Mil Units, 1.984 Bil Rev targets Cyrix M1 & AMD K6
K Units 122.8 M Revenue 10 Quarters Quantities in Millions
Mike Bruzzone, Camp Marketing Consultancy FTC Revision 3 -12/21/2010
Below Pentium ll Klamath risk production and Deschutes commercial run showing
consumer monopoly overcharge > $537 on infra marginal quantity speed splits at Intel
stated 1,000 piece price. For $35,669,762,000 revenue on total production of 96,165,000
units, consumer monopoly overcharge on infra marginal production of 9,050,000 units is
$1,590,850,000. Intel Inside tied charge back to Media Sales Agents on total revenue at
3% commission multiplied x2 representing Dealer Media Trigger and Intel Media Sales
Agent kickback is $2,140,185,720. Total consumer overcharge and price fixing consumer
recoverable from Pentium ll Performance Desktop is $3,731,035,720.
Noteworthy one half of Pentium ll Performance Desktop run is priced at or less than Intel
Average Total Cost to produce; range eleven quarters $313 down to $292. With P3 risk
transition Pentium ll end of run volumes offer brief platform life. End of run Pll is below
cost sludge which Microsoft rides horizontally tied to an Intel frequency modulation
displacing 45,847,000 microprocessor sale‟s potentials from Intel horizontal competitors
Cyrix / National and AMD. That is industry theft valued at $11,985,717,000 revenue
Camp Marketing Consultancy - Pentium ll Performance Desktop
Pll 300 5/97 N P
Pll 400 4/14/98 F R
800 R O
775 Pll 266 5/97 A D
$772 M U
266 Pll 333 11/97 C
725 233 R
700 Pll 450 9/13/98 I
I O Monopoly Price Overcharge
650 Pll 233 5/97 A Infra marginal Exact Units > $537
625 Pll 350 4/14/98 L
Pll Klamath $534
500 333 DUMPING AT COST
475 300 21,663,000 Units
450 300 233 $5,654,043,000 Revenue
375 AWP 1 = $458 - $391
MONOPOLY COMPETITIVE EQUILLIBRIUM $357
325 400 AWP 2 = $351
$299 SHUT DOWN ATC= $313 - $292 $261
250 400 $272 450
225 $205 333 400 350
AVC = $150 - $136
Celeron Mendocino < AFC 333
125 AWP = $113 AFC= $163 - $156
50,879,000 Units < AFC < MC Mfg. Cost $117 - $59
25 $5,764,331,920 Revenue
11 Quarters Quantities in Millions
Mike Bruzzone, Camp Marketing Consultancy FTC Revision 3 - 12/8/2010
Above in lower left inset find Pentium ll Mendocino 128 (Celeron) Value Desktop priced
at and below average fixed cost. Showing revenue of $5,764,331,920 on 50,879,000 units
estimates industrial monopolization of $758,547,000 less than Average Fixed Cost of
$156. And $5,005,784,920 industrial theft less than Average Variable Cost of $136
suspect as below Marginal Cost. Intel Inside tied charge back consumer recovery value
associated with this Celeron value desktop short run is $345,859,915.
“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
For Celeron 128 KB version of PII speed grade beginning 300A clocks higher than rated.
Produced with fast, traditionally more costly L2 SRAM is a given for manufacture up to
Intel fixed cost level. In this Celeron run Intel engages in predatory production of
39,405,000 unit‟s suspect below marginal cost. And goose‟s all units with fast SRAM as
a cost add tied to Intel process monopoly advantage here relied as a weapon too destroy
competition; in x86 alternative microprocessors and alternative PC operating systems.
“. . . all we can ever know about the real world is what the world is not”.
Ernest Von Glasersfeld, Radical Constructivism
Camp Marketing Consultancy – Pentium ll Deschutes Performance Mobile
772 PIIM 266 @ Intro 4/2/98
722 PIIM 300 + North Bridge + AGP 9/98
233 Monopoly Price Overcharge
Infra marginal Exact Units > $537
PIIM 233 4/23/98, PIIM 333 1/25/99
Efficient MONOPOLY COMPETITIVE EQUILLIBRIUM
400 Point $383
COMPETITIVE EQUILLIBRIUM PRICE300 $353
300 AWP = $333
300 Shut 233 366
$307 ATC = $324 333
366 Down 300
250 333 266
200 366 266
$169 333 AVC = $168
AFC = $156
50 Mfg. Cost $34 - $62
8 Quarters Quantities in Millions
Mike Bruzzone, Camp Marketing Consultancy FTC Revision 3 - 11/27/2010
Above Pentium ll Deschutes 512 Performance Mobile indicating consumer monopoly
overcharge > $537 on infra marginal quantity speed splits at Intel stated 1,000 piece price.
On $25,679,260,000 revenue from total production of 77,952,000 units, consumer
monopoly overcharge on infra marginal production of 1,580,000 units is $714,695,000.
Intel Inside tied charge back to Media Sales Agents on total revenue at 3% commission
multiplied x2 representing Dealer Media Trigger and Intel Media Sales Agent kickback is
$1,499,250,480. Total consumer overcharge and price fixing consumer recoverable from
Pll Deschutes 512 Performance Mobile production short run equals $2,501,907,280.
Below Pentium ll Dixon 256 Performance Mobile including price below Average Total
Cost and suspect below Marginal Cost end of run. For revenue of $6,104,196,000 on
18,029,000 units estimates industrial monopolization from dumping at cost monopsony
period three at $1,574,703,000 where price is less than competitive equilibrium price
range $329 to $350. Followed by $1,128,636,000 industrial monopolization periods four
and five where price is less than Average Total Cost of $292 and suspect below Marginal
Cost for .18 micron process lithography. Total industrial monopolization on 10,057,000
units estimates $2,703,339,000 approximate. Intel Inside tied charge back consumer
recovery value associated with this Intel mobile short run is $360,851,760.
Camp Marketing Consultancy – Pentium ll Dixon Performance Mobile
4/2/98 I P
750 N R
PIIM 300 + North Bridge + AGP
722 F O
R D Qty
700 PIIM 366
650 M C TR
PIIM 400 @ Intro A ▲TR
PIIM 450 L
PIIM 233 4/23/98, PIIM 333 1/25/99 300 DUMPING AT COST
MONOPOLY COMPETITIVE EQUILLIBRIUM $424 $426 5.031,000 Units
COMPETITIVE EQUILLIBRIUM PRICE 1
AWP = $329
300 333 $313
300 Shut ATC = $292
250 SUSPECT PRICE @ < MARGINAL COST Down 333
$237 $22 300
200 $216 5.026,000 Units 0
$187 450 $1,128,636,000 Revenue 450
150 400 AFC = $156
100 AVC = $136
Mfg Cost $59 - $49
6 Quarters Quantities in Millions
Mike Bruzzone, Camp Marketing Consultancy FTC Revision 3 - 11/27/2010
“An environment where hard work works the worker out of work, parsimony produces
unemployment, price systems redistribute wealth without regard to worldly virtues, net
worth disappears in deflation, earned interest and pensions evaporate in inflation, where
the speculator and the manipulator reap the rewards of their competitive elimination
through forms of economic theft that shift an industrial market’s relative values”.
-Mike Bruzzone, Camp Marketing Brief U.S. Senate Edition, January 2003
Below P3 Katmai 512 Performance Desktop now indicating consumer monopoly
overcharge > $450 on infra marginal speed split at Intel stated 1,000 piece price. On
$12,741,958,000 revenue from total production of 34,124,000 units, consumer monopoly
overcharge on infra marginal production of 11,195 880 units is $1,022,694,800. Intel
Inside tied charge back to Media Sales Agents on total revenue at 3% commission
multiplied x2 representing Dealer Media Trigger and Intel Media Sales Agent kickback is
$764,517,480. Total consumer overcharge and price fixing recoverable from P3 Katmai
512 Performance Desktop production short run is $1,787,212,280.
Camp Marketing Consultancy - P3 Katmai 512 Performance Desktop
P 1000 $1,022,694,800 Monopoly Price É
Consumer Over Charge > $450
R on Infra Marginal Production
I TR I
C $800 P3 500 2/28/99 MR
E 700 P3 550 5/16/99 A
P3 600A 8/2/99 R C
$608 P3 600B 9/27/99
I Storm Wave with Crest and Long Face
450 MHz N O Fast to Peak, Concentrates & Reverberation end.
P3 450 2/28/99 L
MONOPOLY PRICE LINE $450
550 MHz 550 MHz
500 MHz 500 MHz
P3 533 9/27/99 COMPETITIVE EQUALIBRIUM
Shut Down Point ATC = $277
$262 AVC = $133
$178 AFC = $145
Mfg Cost $48.50 to $39.50
2M 4M 6M 8M 10M 12 13.343M
7 Quarters Quantities in Millions
Mike Bruzzone, Camp Marketing Consultancy FTC Revised Check 5/31/2010
Below P3 Copper Mine 256 Performance Desktop indicating consumer monopoly
overcharge > $450 on infra marginal speed splits by Intel 1,000 piece stated price. P3
Performance Desktop on MDR Intel supply schedule estimate 1 shows $37,995,339,220
revenue on 136,364,000 units. Consumer monopoly overcharge on infra marginal
production of 7,150,000 units is $1,103,498,344. Consumer surcharge from monopsony
setting up for predatory price on run down volumes period five through ten is
$1,348,392,000. Intel Inside charge back to Media Sales Agents on total revenue at 3%
tied back charge multiplied x2 representing Intel kickback and Dealer trigger is
$2,279,720,353. Total consumer recoverable from P3 Copper Mine 256 Performance
Desktop production short run equals $4,731,610,697.
Note consumer surcharge periods two and three on Dealer monopsony price suggesting
Intel horizontal predatory price move supporting P3 Tualatin 256 extension of Copper
Mine 256 run down volumes period five through ten. Note consumer surcharge periods
two and three on Dealer monopsony price suggesting Intel horizontal predatory price
move supporting P3 Tualatin 256 extension of Copper Mine 256 run down volumes
period five through ten.
Camp Marketing Consultancy - P3 Copper Mine 256 Performance Desktop
P3 1000EB 3/8/00, P3 1133EB 7/16/00
990 P3 800EB & E 12/20/99, P3 850EB 1/4/00
P3 750E 12/20/99
P3 850E 3/29/00 P3 733EB 10/25/99, P3 866EB 3/20/00
P3 733E 10/25/99
P3 933EB 5/28/00
650 P3 667EB 10/25/99
P 625 N
R 600 F $1,103,498,344 Monopoly Price Over
P3 650E R
575 A Charge > $450 on Infra Marginal Units
525 $1,348,392,000 Consumer Surcharge
E 500 I
Predatory Price on Run Down Units
475 A C
P3 600EB & 600E L
450 T 733
425 667 800
400 600 700
375 P3 500E 10/25/99 533 650
350 450 550
325 P3 1266t 512 8/5/01 450 500
P3 533EB 10/25/99 $290 $298
300 P3 1200 8/5/01 AWP = $279
P3 1100E 4/29/01, P3 1133t 8/5/01
933 ATC = $277
P3 533E 10/25/99 1100
225 Shut 1133 933
733 AVC = $132
200 $195 1100 866
P3 1000E 5/27/01
$207 Down 1100
1266t P3 900E 7/5/01 1266t 800
1133t 1000 866 650
150 1133t 933 850 733 AFC = $145
1266t 1100 600
1100 800 700
1000 1000 866 733
1100 850 700 533
100 1000 800 667 650
866 650 600
Mfg Cost $48.50 to $39.50
10 Quarters Quantities in Millions
Mike Bruzzone, Camp Marketing Consultancy; Campmkting@aol.com FTC Revised Check 10/29/10
Next page P3 Copper Mine 256 Performance Mobile indicating consumer monopoly
overcharge > $450 on infra marginal speed split by Intel 1,000 piece stated price. Note
consumer surcharge period four through seven for Dealer monopsony price suggesting
Intel horizontal predatory price move period eight on P3 Tualatin 256 extension of
Copper Mine 256 run down volumes through period ten. Tualatin 256 price regulates
upward Copper mine 256 end of run average weighted price and in its own short run adds
to the consumer monopoly overcharge value.
P3 Performance Mobile on MDR supply schedule estimate 2 shows $20,735,225,000
revenue on 57,050,000 units. Consumer monopoly overcharge on infra marginal
production of 16,325,000 units is $1,323,710,000. Consumer surcharge period‟s four
through seven for Dealer monopsony benefit and Intel predatory price on run down
volumes is $1,440,325.000. Intel Inside tied charge back to Media Sales Agents on total
revenue at 3% tied back charge multiplied x2 representing Intel kickback and Dealer
trigger is $1,244,053,500. Total consumer recoverable from P3 Copper Mine 256
Performance Mobile production short run equals $4,008,088,500.
“Monopoly or monospony represents a kind of knot, kink, or distortion in the general
field of the economic relationships, or a toll gate in the network of economic
communications which enables some individuals to capture and exploit power positions
which otherwise competitive forces would have eroded away”.
Principle of Personal Responsibility,
Presentation to the Catholic Economic Association, 1953
Camp Marketing Consultancy - P3 Copper Mine 256 Performance Mobile
MobiletopPIII M 850 9/5/2000, PIIIM 900 1/28/01,
PIIIM 1 GHz 3/4/01, PIIIM 1.26 10/1/01 $1,323,710,000 Monopoly Price
P Over Charge on Infra Marginal Units
I $1,440,325,000 Monophony Surcharge
Supporting Predatory Price Period 8
PIIIM 700 4/25/00, PIIIM 750 6/2000, PIIIM 900 3/4/01
E PIIIM 500 @ Intro 10/25/99 $391
PIIIM 800 9/25/00, PIIIM 1.33 9/16/01 (N/A) 800
PIIIM 600 1/18/00
PIIIM 450 10/25/99 COMPETITIVE
1 $350 $388 $393
800 AWP = $367
PIIIM 400 10/25/99 750 1000 750
700 850 700
$336 2 900
650 $324 850
650 600 800 $303 600
1133 750LV 1266
700 ATC = $261
250 500 450 1066 700LV 1133
1000 933 600LV 1066
200 933 900
AVC = $122
850 AFC = $139
50 Mfg Cost $49 - $34
10 Quarters Quantities in Millions
Mike Bruzzone, Camp Marketing Consultancy FTC Revised Check 10/23/10
Below P3 Copper Mine 128 (Celeron) Value Desktop priced at and below fixed cost. For
revenue of $7,753,871,000 on 86,740,000 units, estimates industrial monopolization of
Camp Marketing Consultancy - P3 Copper Mine 128 Value Desktop
C 250 ATC = $253
E É Qty
AFC = $136
533 AVC = $117
$79 $98 766 AWP = $90
75 $77 800 766
1100 766 633
1000 $68 733
50 $67 950 1100 700
1100 900 1000 600
1000 850 950
800 900 Mfg Cost $59 - $40
900 766 850
2M 4M 6M 8M 10M 12M 14.504M
12 Quarters Quantities in Millions
Mike Bruzzone, Camp Marketing Consultancy FTC Revised Check 10/29/2010
$384,704,000 at Average Fixed Cost of $136. Further industrial monopolization of
$7,405,167,000 where price is at or less than Average Variable Cost of $117 and suspect
below Marginal Cost. Intel Inside tied charge back consumer recovery value associated
with this Intel desktop short run is $465,232,260.
Below Pentium 3 Celeron Value Mobile priced at and below fixed cost. Revenue of
$3,132,065,000 on 25,790,000 units estimates industrial monopolization of
$2,780,853,050 at 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 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.
Camp Marketing Consultancy - P3 Copper Mine 128 Value Mobile
C 250 ATC = $253
$126 650 600 AFC = $136
125 $119 PIII-S Tualatin 600 600 $119 AWP = $121
550 550 550
933 866 AVC = $117
100 500 500 900 900 500
450 450 866
50 733 650
25 Mfg Cost @ $52 - $35
12 Quarters Quantities in Millions
Mike Bruzzone, Camp Marketing Consultancy FTC Revised Check 6/20/2010
In RICO proof that follows find partial classic Intel Xeon Tanner and Xeon Copper
mine economic analysis average price version. 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.
Noteworthy calculating Intel revenue and margin potential on „average price‟ verse
„average weighted price‟ calculation generally tempts some QUANDA traders to play.
Average price players likely lost on Cascade Xeon short run in relation to average
weighted players who knew too stay away from run down values.
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.
Camp Marketing Consultancy – Pentium ll & Pentium 3 Xeon
Pll 500 2MB q1 P3 900 MHz X 2 MB 4 & 8 Way
Intel Xeon Infra marginal Production AMD Response is Opteron
3250 Code Names:
Katmai .25 & Copper mine .18 micron Xeon variant
No wonder Intel code name Tanner Sledge hammer
3000 No wonder Intel code name Cascades & Claw hammer I
RICO PROOF P
INTENT TO MONOPOLIZE R
2500 POINTER M D
$2283 TANNER A U
$246,872,134 Monopoly Price
$2201 700 1MB
500 2MB Over Charge > $1915 G
500 512 AP =
2000 Pll 500 1MB q1 $1915 $1987
P3 700 MHz X 2 MB 4 & 8 Way
99 500 2MB A
500 2MB $1764 500 1MB
733 256 6/1/2000 L
500 1MB 500 2MB
550 512 500 1MB
500 512 550 512
AP T&C w/large Cache Versions
700 1MB 900 2MB $1377 A
1 GHZ 512
1250 700 1MB
1 GHZ 512 $1257 P3 700 MHz X 1 MB 4 & 8 Way
933 256 C
Pll 500 512 q1 A
99 P3 733 MHz X 256K 2 & 4 Way 10/10/1999
P3 1 GHz X 256K 2 & 4 Way 9/2000
$715 awp E P3 866 MHz X 256K 2 & 4 Way 1/2000
P3 850 MHz X 256K 2 & 4 Way 1/2000
R P3 667 MHz X 256K 2 & 4 Way 10/10/1999
I 500 2MB
S P3 933 MHz X 256K 2 & 4 Way 5/28/2000
P3 800 MHz X 256K 2 & 4 Way 1/2000 SLUDGE
P3 750 MHz X 256K 2 & 4 Way 1/2000
700 2MB P3 733 MHz X 256K 2 & 4 Way 1/2000
C 700 1MB
E 500 awp $584 1 GHZ 512 P3 600 MHz X 256K 2 & 4 Way 10/10/1999
866 256 $361 awp
800 256 733 256
933 256 ATC = $271
733 256 866 256
667 256 850 256
AFC = $145
Quantities by quarter, 10 quarters, 9341 Time Frame, q1 99 – q3
Mfg Cost = $114*
Mike Bruzzone, Camp Marketing Consultancy *Note: MDR stated Mfg Cost well understated for this eon variant. FTC 5/18/2010
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.
Next, below, Pentium 4 Willamette 256 Performance Desktop indicating consumer
monopoly overcharge > $450 on infra marginal speed splits by Intel 1,000 piece stated
price. Analysis is simply that run is to long and price too low.
Consider the industrial social effect of at cost dumping monopsony periods six and seven
and excess volume at period eight end of run. Always calculating on the conservative
periods four and seven priced below average total cost are close enough to efficient end
of run scenario within $73 of monopoly competitive equilibrium and $95 of average total
cost respectively. Both periods show the artificially low price inherent with all run down
volumes and this short run overall.
P4 Performance Desktop on MDR Intel supply schedule estimate 1 shows
$11,241,349,546 revenue on 49,594,000 units. Consumer monopoly overcharge on infra
marginal production of 2,200,000 units is $449,745,000. Intel Inside charge back to
Media Sales Agents on total revenue at 3% tied back charge multiplied x2 representing
Intel kickback and Dealer trigger is $674,480,973. Total consumer recoverable from P4
Willamette 256 Performance Desktop production short run is $1,124,225,973.
Camp Marketing Consultancy – P4 Willamette 256 Performance Desktop
P4 1.5 GHz, 11/20/00
P4 1.7 GHz, 4/15/01 I
650 P4 1.4 GHz, 11/20/00 R
Monopoly Price Overcharge
$61 P4 1.3 GHz, 11/20/00 I
I Infra marginal Exact Units
N > $450
1.5 P4 1.8 GHz 7/2/01, P4 2.0 GHz, 8/26/01 L
1.3 MONOPOL $499
400 P4 1.9 GHz, 8/27/01
DUMPING AT COST
350 COMPETITIVE Efficient
$323 MONOPLLY COMPETITIVE EQUILLIBRIUM $4,891,425,858
300 Excess at End of Run 1.5 Revenue
1,881,000 Units 1.4
250 $287,793,000 Revenue 1.3 $253 ATC = $248
1.9 AWP = $226
2.0 1.9 1.3 1.8 AFC = $136 1.7
1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6
1.7 1.6 1.5
100 1.7 1.6
Mfg Cost = $127 1.5
AVC = $112
8 Quarters Quantities in Millions
Mike Bruzzone, Camp Marketing Consultancy FTC Revision 3 11/21/10
Pentium 4 Foster 256 Xeon Workstation not shown here in plot indicates $128,458,490
total consumer recovery. That is consumer monopoly overcharge and tied charge back
fix on 5,728,000 units and $1,616,119,000 revenue.
Pentium 4 Northwood 512 Performance Desktop not shown here in plot on MDR partial
(Northwood A) first five quarter production phase through 2.8 GHz, plus analyst end of
run estimate on 3.0 to 3.4 Gigahertz volumes (Northwood B) suggests total revenue range
$17,604,460,750 to $34,826,460,380 between 71,772,000 and 157,572,000 units. That is
conservatively minimum 85,000,000 to around 126,000,000 units.
P4 Northwood consumer monopoly overcharge on MDR estimate for Northwood A infra
marginal production of 3,800,000 units is $509,600,000. Analyst conservative estimate
for Northwood B infra marginal production on 1,200,000 units is $333,600,000. Intel
Inside charge back to Media Sales Agents on total revenue at 3% tied back charge
multiplied x2 representing Intel kickback and Dealer trigger ranges between
$1,056,267,645 and $2,089,557,623. Total consumer recoverable P4 Northwood 512
Performance Desktop production short run anticipated between $1,565,867,545 too
$2,599,157,623. 130 nanometers remains an expensive production set aimed for Prescott
@ 90 nm.
P4 analysis continues to show production runs too long, priced too low, dropping below
average total cost mid through end of run. For Northwood B end of run volumes
including 3.4 GHz Extreme Edition at $925 appears meant to lift run down average price.
Likely there‟s a bridge upward for select end of run speed grades. Of interest comparing
P4 short runs to P3 is tied charge back value continuing to walking away in excess of
consumer monopoly overcharge value.
Summary of Intel Network Recovery Value‟s in part for 1997 through 2003 on revision 3
average weighted price method. Addressing Intel Network two decade misrepresentation
of no monopoly, no consumer monopoly overcharge, no price fixing, no product routing,
no exclusive dealing, no combined cartel, no kick back and no foul are not true.
Consumer Monopoly Price Overcharge = $ 7,121,477,615
Consumer Surcharge Monopsony Price = $ 2,788,717,000
Consumer Tied Charge Back Price Fix = $ 10,701,936,652
Partial Consumer Recovery = $20,612,131,267
Industrial Monopolization Price < AFC = $ 3,924,104,050
Industrial Monopolization Price < MC = $ 1,128,636,000
Industrial Monopolization Price < AVC = $ 12,762,163,870
Partial Industrial Recovery = $17,814,903,920
Note at cost dumping is calculated for FTC across 23 production short runs. However is
not recorded here as industrial monopolization when price is above average fixed cost
pending that intent to monopolize outcome in litigation.
Microsoft industrial social harm calculated from twelve Intel production short runs
herein suggests $7,537,248,000 monopolization at $48 OEM price attached horizontally
by Microsoft OEM license to 157,026,000 Intel microprocessors priced less than Intel
variable and suspect as below marginal cost to produce. Up to $10,889,836,800 on $48
OEM price attached horizontally by Microsoft OEM license to 221,876,800 Intel
microprocessors priced less than Intel Average Total Cost to produce.
“The position of those who maintain that there is no defect in an unregulated market
economy was made undeniable by the Great Depression”. Economics; Taming of
Mammon, Frontiers in the Knowledge of the Study of Man, Lynn White, 1956
On pointers and proofs whether Intel employees and witnesses perjured themselves in a
Network multipoint manipulation of the FTC, to deflect from core causes of action in
Docket 9288, and again in 9341 are clear. System, structure, economic, conduct pointers
and proofs examined under lens of legal case precedent reveals this fact. A premeditated
network obstruction to forestall remedies and disrupt the administration of justice in all
Intel case matters over the last twelve years including now.
Intel Network case matters are about insuring innovation production short run to short
run. Assuring civil rights while 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.
“The agent of expansion is not the capitalist but the innovator”.
Peter Drucker, The New Society, 1950
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.
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
* * * * *
Assessment and Models of
Technical Business Systems,
seen through Field, Primary
& Secondary Research.
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,
cybernetics, 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 &
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, 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:
None dare call it conspiracy
The Industrial Revolution
Ayers, Clarence E.
The Industrial Way of Life
Crisis in the Early Italian Renaissance
The Concept of Role
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
Decision and Control
Bennis, Warren G.
A Theory of Group Development
A Typology of Change Process
Leadership Theory and Administrative Behavior
Blake, Robert R.
Psychology and the Crisis of Statesmanship
Boulding, Kenneth E.
Brandenburger, Adam M.
Bradshaw, Leland P.
The Teaching-Learning Transaction
Competition in the New Computing Industry
Technology Assessment in Retrospect
Technology and Culture in Evolution
Buckminister, R. Fuller
Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth
Burke, John G.
Bursting Boilers and the Federal Power
Burt, Dobler, Starling
World Class Supply Management
Fisherman‟s Guide; systems approach to creativity in organization
Achieving Change in People
Group Dynamics and the Individual
Power; a Neglected Variable in Social Psychology
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
Are We Really in Control
The Impact of Technological Change
Covey, Stephen R.
Seven Habits of Highly Effective People
Cringeley, Robert J.
D‟Aveni, Richard A.
Toward a Theory of Social Conflict
Daniels, George H.
Technological Change and Social Change
Marketing High Technology
The Virtual Corporation
The Migrations of Human Populations
de Solla Price, Derek J.
Little Science, Big Science
Dixit, Avinash K.
The Command of the Air
Drucker, Peter F.
Applied Science and Technology
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
The New Environmental Attitude
Durant, William and Ariel
The Age of Louis XIV
The Age of Reason Begins
The Technological Order
Letter to President Roosevelt
Freedom through Socialism
The Engineering Profession
The Invention of the Riveting Machine
Ferguson, Charles H.
Ferguson, Eugene S.
Nonverbal Thought in Technology
Ferkiss, Victor C.
In Praise of Technology
Frank, Lawrence K.
Fragmentation in the Helping Professions
One Market Under God
The Road Ahead
The New Industrial State
The Economics of Innocent Fraud
Engineering the Household
Values and Social Science
Monopolies in America
General Advisory Committee to the Atomic Energy Commission
Report on the “Super”
Getzels, Jacob W.
Administration as a Social Process
Environmental Pollution in the Middle Ages
Glacken, Clarence J.
Nature and Culture in Western Thought
Chaos, making a new science
Glidewell, John C.
The Entry Problem in Consulting
Working with Emotional Intelligence
The Art of Worldly Wisdom
The Practice of Science and the Science of Practice
Who Will Tell the People, the Betrayal of American Democracy
Gouldner, Alvin W.
Engineering and Clinical Approaches to Consulting
Theoretical Requirements of the Applied Social Sciences
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?
Heilbroner, Robert L.
Do Machines Make History
The Frugality Problem
Paradigms in Progress, Life Beyond Economics
Hibbard, Walter R.
Mineral Resources; challenge or threat?
The Conceptual Status of Group Dynamics
Hostetler, John A.
Technocracy or Collaboration?
Jenkins, David H.
Force Field Analysis Applied to a School Situation
A Model for Analyzing Small Group Properties Pertinent to Planned Change
Jensen, Neal F.
The Food-People Problem
The Sources of Invention
Jolly, Vijay K.
Commercializing New Technologies
Selling the Dream
Kelman, Herbet C.
Process of Opinion Change
Technology and Human Nature
Kelman, Herbert C.
Group Dynamics, Neither Hope or Hoax
21st Century Management
Kuhn, Thomas S.
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Jager, Rama Dev
In the Company of Giants; conversations with the visionaries of the digital world
Lakoff, Sanford A.
Knowledge, Power and Social Purpose
The Systems View of the World
Tao Te Ching
The Theory and Measurement Methodology of Interpersonal Communication
The Discovery of the “Irrational”: Personal and Collective
Learning through Role Playing
Kurt Lewin‟s Approach to Conflict and Its Resolution
Levison, Conrad Jay
Guerrilla Marketing Attack
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?
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
Strategy of the Dolphin
Mann, Floyd C.
Studying and Creating Change
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
The Great Transition
Human Resources Management
McChesney, Robert W.
Rich Media, Poor Democracy
McGregor, Douglas M.
The Human Side of Enterprise
Meier, Hugo A.
Technology and Democracy, 1800 - 1860
Merton, Robert K.
Social Scientists and Research Policy
The Training Group
Moe, Edward O.
The Nature of Community
Morison, Elting E.
A Case Study of Innovation
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
Antitrust in the Global Trading System; reconciling U.S, Japanese and EU Approaches
The All Seeing Eye
The Technique of Total Control
Murphy, Arthur E.
The Efficacy of Reason
Unsafe at Any Speed
National Training Laboratories
Some Dimensions of Group Growth
The Technological Imperative versus Public Interest
On the Autonomy of Democratic State
Ogburn, William F.
Technology as Environment
Psychic Discoveries behind the Iron Curtain
The Socio-therapy of the Enterprise
The Problem of the Theory of Change
Pascale, Richard T.
The Art of Japanese Management
Peter, Paul J.
Pigors, Paul and Faith
The Incident Process
Pursell, Carroll M.
The Government and Industrial Technology
The Systems Approach
Ravitz, Jerome R.
Social Problems of Industrialized Science
The Researcher and His Audiences: Introduction to Crestwood Heights
A Process Conception of Psychotherapy
No Excuses Management
Economic Growth, Technology, and Society
Technology and Resource Endowment
The Citadel of Expertise
Sakharov, Andrei D.
Nuclear Weapons Development
Managerial Economics in a Global Economy
Sanders, Irwin T.
Approaches to Social Change
Is the Semiconductor Industry Mature?
Schein, Edgar H.
Interpersonal Communication, Group Solidarity and Social Influence
Economic Sources of Inventive Activity
Schutz, William C.
Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy
Schwartz Cowan, Ruth
The “Industrial Revolution” in the Home
Schwartz, Morris S.
Intervention and Change on a Mental Hospital Ward
The Consultant-Trainer Role
Semrad, Elvin V.
The Use of Group Processes in Teaching Group Dynamics
Senge, Peter M.
The Fifth Discipline
Art & Physics; parallel visions in space, time and light
Sheppard, Herbert A.
The T-Group as Training on In Observant Participation
Organization and Management
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
The Eclipse of Community
The Nature of Capitalist Crisis
Strauss, Anslem L.
Transformations of Identity
Sullivan, Harry S.
Multi-disciplined Coordination of Interpersonal Data
Economic Governance in the Age of Globalization
Terry, Earle Melvin
Advanced Laboratory Practice in Electricity and Magnetism
The Growth of a Group
Thompson, Arthur, A.
Crafting & Executing Strategy
Thompson, James D.
Organizational Management of Conflict
The Discipline of Market Leaders
Art of War
Varian, Hal R.
The Role of the Engineers
Wager, J. Alan
Growth versus the Quality of Life
Wallace, James C.
Freedom and Direction
The Rich Nations and the Poor Nations
The Invented Reality
How the Transistor Emerged
Technology as Legislation
Wik, Reynold M.
The Government and Agricultural Technology
Dynamo and Virgin Reconsidered
The Act of Invention
The Taming of Mammon - Frontiers in the Knowledge of the Study of Man
Technology and Warfare
York, Herbert F.
Zaheer, S. Husain
India‟s Need for Advanced Sciences and Technology
Resistance to Change – Its Analysis and Prevention
Journalism Oversight for Democracy Prerequisite; revision 3
Mike Bruzzone, Camp Marketing
“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”.
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
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.
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”.
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
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
Contribute by reporting publicly through your mass media outlet or write:
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
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
“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.”
Doctor of Philosophy,
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
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
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.”
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
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”.
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
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
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
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
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
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 = $432,000,000,000.
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
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
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
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
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.