How can this be such a big deal if California with its 35 million population has fined Microsoft for $1.1 billion, nearly the same amount? It's like a fifth of Intel's annual profit.

More to the point, I don't understand what "shaking down some foreign companies" could possibly accomplish here, other than the openly stated objective of making the "free market" be a reality unaffected by Intel's monopolisation attempts.

It's not like AMD is a European company. There isn't even a single significant European company competing in this market.

First off, the companies I'm talking about are M$, Intel, and the pending suit against Apple (which is probably going to expand in short order, now that the shakedown is complete on Intel and M$). You are correct, AMD is a US company, so what is the EU going to do with $1.4 Bln...give it to AMD...who is the plaintiff here...because in that example you were SO quick to pick-up on...and I was just WAITING or somebody to do so,...it was a consolidation of class action lawsuit from consumer...not government. Is the EU saying it is going to award this money to EU citizen's who bought Intel-based PCs, but they wanted AMD computers? What is the endgame here...THIS my friend, is nothing more than a shakedown by EU regulators...go to ANY retailers and you will find a TON of AMD based desktop...I can take pictures at WALMART, Bestbuy, Target, etc etc etc if you want, PLUS online...this is going to end badly...I can guarantee you that.

So, is EU going to SUE M$ over the exclusive DLC for GTA nad other games? Is the EU goign t o fine the US for having a Most Favored Nation status for some countries? If they want to say that EU citizens were prevented from buying AMD based computers, and they have evidence of the lack of THAT option, I can agree with it, but to say cutting sweet deals with manufacturers to use their chips is riddiculous. So...are they going to sue Apple for squahing others from making computers, other than Apple built computers from running OS X? WTF...

I'm still not to sure Intel has tried to monopolize anything. I thinks its because Intel has just been around for a while and had great products across the spectrum that they got so big.

If AMD really wanted to compete they would try to develop their own technologies rather than base their their entire line of CPUs off technologies owned by the competitor.

Unlike the Microsoft case I have a feeling Intel might be close to innocent here. They might have offered incentives but companies could have easily said no to them. In the end why isn't the manufacturers who took the incentives/bribes in trouble?

I'm still not to sure Intel has tried to monopolize anything. I thinks its because Intel has just been around for a while and had great products across the spectrum that they got so big.

If AMD really wanted to compete they would try to develop their own technologies rather than base their their entire line of CPUs off technologies owned by the competitor.

Unlike the Microsoft case I have a feeling Intel might be close to innocent here. They might have offered incentives but companies could have easily said no to them. In the end why isn't the manufacturers who took the incentives/bribes in trouble?

Your comparisons are not relevant for this case.

If you have followed Microsoft's antitrust cases at all, you must know that the rules are applied differently to companies which have a monopoly in a particular market. Some deals which would be fine for your random small company are frowned upon when performed by companies which do those deals to squash the competition. Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly in the gaming market, Apple doesn't have a monopoly in computers or operating systems, so they have more freedom to do those deals.

This is of course because when a company gets big enough, it has the resources to drive competitors out of the market simply by cutting prices and losing money while the competitor goes bankrupt. Then they drive prices back up, and customer lock-in ensures that they get back to making profits, perpetuating a monoply. This is why artificial rules have to be introduced to maintain the choice given by the free markets. There's no free market without regulation, due to this reason.