FTC Docket 9288, May 1998.. So How Long has the FTC, SEC, DOJ Protected Intel Corp.?

Intel Corp.. without a Doubt Proof Sent to those who can STOP Intel from their Monopoly - their Cartel, Yet these Agencies Continue to Cover Up for Intel Corp. - Email me Tips on Which Judges, Ethics Boards, Attorneys, SEC Officers, DOJ Officers and .... That Cover for Intel Nation - Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Beginning Docket 9288, May 1998.. So How Long has the FTC, SEC, DOJ Protected Intel Corp.?

Over a Decade. WHAT !!

Prior Reports IGNORED by those Paid to Protect YOU???

"" Beginning Docket 9288, May 1998, various reports and analysis are submitted by this analyst to FTC now operating in voluntary civic service capacity under Department of Labor Code 3363.5. Today a decade of analysis delivers tens of Docket 9341 discovery proofs or pointers to proofs.

Many of which this audience are familiar from prior reports by this analyst submitted to U.S. Senate, Congress, State AGs and U.S. Attorneys.

Under Docket 9341 discovery rules, work from this analyst is passed by FTC Bureau of Competition to Intel for legal rebuttal.

Three Components of Monopoly Recovery

Monopoly recovery is a worldwide financial value having three main components:

1) Consumer recovery is based on the system costs of Intel Inside tied charge back for routing Intel microprocessors across state lines and inter nation boundaries inside a computer chassis. See prior analyst submissions for specific details covering the illegal aspects of this market rigging rebate fee scheme.
SEC, U.S. Senate, Congressional Committees, State Attorney Generals, U.S. Attorneys

2) Consumer recovery from monopoly price premium associated with some Intel microprocessor and PC product introductions.

3) Industrial harms which include predatory product dumping, Intel selling at a price less then average total cost, measures of variable down to average fixed cost. Finally, estimation of the marginal cost for Intel to produce a single x86 microprocessor in relation to price sought with variable cost cross check.

Where price is within or lower then average fixed cost, variable or marginal cost, revenues from those quantities are recorded as an industrial monopolization recovery value for FTC discovery.

Consumer Recovery Subset 1; kick back, in violation of Sherman Act Section 1, Section 2, Clayton Act Section 2, 3, 4, 5, 13e, 13c, 13d, Title 48, 1986 anti kickback act

Of the $26.442 billion subset of consumer recovery documented from Intel production estimates (where $42 billion total set is documented by contract), $22.657 billion or 85% is associated with Intel Inside tied charge back sum misrepresented in Intel and PC Dealer financials. That sum is split between Intel and PC Companies 50:50 for the purpose of this analysis based on the Intel Inside monopoly system metric. Yet Intel’s portion is known to increase, and PC Companies decrease, over the 15 year duration of this Intel Insider operation.

Intel financials associate Intel Inside as a marketing cost credited to PC Company micro- processor sales. When this commissionable sales value is actually an accrued Dealer rebate passed through Intel as a sales reward for Media Sales Agents taken as their fee, to sustain the supply chain’s product distribution ties between Intel, PC Dealers and Media Agent’s sales channels. Sales Channels include PC Week, PC Magazine, Computer Shopper, Family Computing, PC World, Windows Magazine, other PC and some general media.

Rebate values are sustained from back in time with forward time purchase agreements. Production short run to short run, Dealer’s microprocessor purchases are unnaturally weighted to benefit them guiding Media Agents sales preferences. Intel 1st tier Dealers purchase microprocessors in excess of end demand solely to strip margin values, including consumer transport charge, prior to reselling overage into secondary broker channels. PC Dealers who are Intel’s 1st tier brokers monopolize majority of Intel margin values, including tied charge back, sustaining their Media Sales Agent artificial attractor and the cross industry distribution tie in total.

This relationship is a financially driven one, planned and implemented for Media Sales Agents to register, meter, report level’s of Intel microprocessor flows through PC dealer channels back to Intel. That is the nature of the charge back; for media registering and reporting back channel sales flows through PC Companies to Intel. Over time the system evolved into one which accelerated Dealer product flows artificially from one Intel product generation to the next, on the weight of Intel kickback placements meant to discharge certain Dealer inventory, to end market buyers, on an Intel time schedule.

SEC, U.S. Senate, Congressional Committees, State Attorney Generals, U.S. Attorneys ""

Source of Post
Document the FTC, DOJ, SEC, State Attorney Generals, FBI and more know of and seem to be ignoring.. Go to www.CEOpaulOtellini.com document at top of blog...

Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Crystal@CrystalCox.com