> The Pentium 4 (NetBurst) was a dead end design, and Intel had to backtrack and build off their laptop CPUs that were based on the older Pentium Pro design.
Don't forget Itanium, Intel's other dead end architecture. It's actually kind of amazing that Intel recovered from both at the same time (for the most part).
In what way were they collecting monopoly rents? It seems like what happened was someone came out with a better product and took a bunch of their business. Isn't that exactly what monopolies are expected to prevent from happening, and, as I understand it, the reason they are considered so bad?
The Commission filed an administrative complaint against Intel Corp., the world’s leading computer chip maker, charging that the company had illegally used its dominant market position for a decade to stifle competition and strengthen its monopoly. The complaint alleged that Intel engaged in a course of conduct to shut out rivals’ competing microchips by cutting off their access to the marketplace. In particular, the complaint alleged that Intel unlawfully maintained its monopoly in relevant central processing unit, or CPU, markets, and sought to acquire a second monopoly in the relevant graphics markets, using a variety of unfair methods of competition. In August of 2010, Intel agreed to a settlement containing provisions that would undo the effects of Intel's past conduct, and prohibiting Intel from suppressing competition in the future.
Don't forget Itanium, Intel's other dead end architecture. It's actually kind of amazing that Intel recovered from both at the same time (for the most part).