It's not a history lesson DARBES. It's more FUD. Here's just one example the article claimed:
March 17 [1999]: The FTC accepted a settlement with Intel over the 1998 antitrust ruling. The agreement required Intel to refrain from withholding technical information from customers involved in intellectual-property litigation with the company, but did not constitute an admission of guilt on the chip maker's part.
Well if you read the agreement it seems to say exactly the opposite:
Provided, however, that any obligation set forth in this Paragraph II.A. shall be inapplicable with regard to any AT Information or product supply decision specific to any Intel microprocessor that the customer has asserted is infringing its patent, copyright or trade secret rights unless that customer agrees in writing not to seek an injunction against the manufacture, use, sale, offer to sell, or importation of all Intel microprocessors that are based upon the same core microarchitecture (e.g. P5, P6) as the Intel microprocessor that is the subject of the assertion of infringement; provided further, however, that Respondent shall not take action prohibited in this Paragraph II.A. for the reason that such customer is seeking or has sought compensation, damages or any other legal or equitable remedies other than injunction as herein provided.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
