| Blame Fish–Lips |
Thank you, FTC, for getting all up in everyone's business. Intel makes good chips, so people start buying a lot of Intel chips. This is not anti-competitive "market dominance". If there is a market, you cannot be anti-competitive. There's always the chance that the next line of intel chips blows chucks and the AMD ones don't. Do you really exercice dominance and control over a market when you still are subject to your customers?
For comparison, a true monopoly is where there is only one seller and it's impossible (or more likely, illegal) for anyone else to sell but you. Because of how difficult this is, it really only exists when the government shoves it's slimy hands down the pants of the market. But even if a company DOES manage to capture 100% of a market, they still can't act like a monopoly.
Say for example that John's Inc. makes all the buggy whips in the world. They feel powerful and thus charge twice as much as before. Chances are good that someone else will start making buggy whips for less, competing the price down. Did John's Inc. have a monopoly? Nope! But even if that doesn't happen, what happens when Ford Inc. shows up and starts making cars? John's Inc. goes under even if he doesn't have competitors! John's Inc. never controlled the market, as he was still wholly subject to the whims of the people.
With Intel, we have both a rapidly changing market AND competitors. There's nothing more competitive then the technology market. Someone should get the FTC some coloring books, as they obviously have too much time on their hands.