In view of the lack of competition in the microprocessor industry, it was imperative that Intel gained a dominant position. Though, Intel was found to have been a much sought after seller of microprocessor as indicated by its substantial revenues, the company was motivated to take certain steps that contradicted the spirit of competition. The company cannot be excused for its specific definition of rebate payments under which it justified paying huge amounts of money to its customers so that they did not make purchases from any other buyers (Woo, ohara, Torrie, Singh, Gupta 28). This move defies the ethical principle of rebate payments. However, it also brings in view the fact that despite being found guilty on several occasions, the company continued to exercise its superior control over the market. It still boasts of being a major manufacturer in the industry and competition still remains low in the area. It is important to take into consideration the financial profits made by a company in this regard which is the main contributing factor to enabling rebate payments. The lawsuits and fines should have been implemented with a far greater objective than to simply serve as a means of punishment. The steps taken by Intel against AMD were in no way fair or legal. They were in fact, a major reason why the company lost its majority share despite having won appreciation for a far better product compared to Intel. While Intel utilized its dominant position to influence major computer companies to ignore the popular demand and choose the manufacturer for the cost benefits. This was purely done on the strong financial position (Hruska, 2008) of Intel which had amassed great profits earlier. The company should have not used its profitability margin to manipulate the market. Intel continued to indulge in the controversial practice of making rebate payments to other major companies such as HP and IBM which were also leading manufacturers in the world of computer systems. It should have been noted by the legal authorities and brought under strict action. While, the lawsuit settlements and fines did serve as a financial slap for the company, they did not act as long term deterrents. In order, to curb this behavior in the future where a company uses its monopoly to manipulate the market and force out competitors, effective long term measures need to be taken. The strategy adopted by Intel is seen as a step to discourage the emergence of better quality products that gives customers a wider choice among alternative products. The overall effect stops the industry from developing and reduces the margin for improvement; it also leaves the customers at a risk of exploitation.
在微处理器行业缺乏竞争的观点，它是必要的，英特尔取得了主导地位。不过，英特尔被人们所追求的卖方的微处理器的可观的收入后，公司积极采取某些步骤，与竞争精神。公司不能免除其具体定义回扣下它的合理支付巨额资金的客户，他们没有从任何其他买家购买（宇，奥哈拉，托瑞，辛格Gupta，28）。此举无视回扣的伦理原则。然而，它也带来了视图的事实，尽管被发现有罪，在很多情况下，公司继续在市场行使其优越的控制。它还拥有的是在行业的主要厂商，竞争仍然很低的地区。这是考虑到由一个公司在这方面，这是主要的因素使退税款项的财务利润重要。诉讼和罚款应该已经实现更大的目标不是简单地作为一种惩罚。英特尔所采取的步骤是对AMD的不公平或法律。他们事实上，一个主要的原因，公司失去了大部分份额，尽管有一个更好的产品相比，英特尔赢得赞赏。而英特尔利用其优势地位的影响主要计算机公司忽视大众需求和选择成本效益的制造商。这纯粹是做强的财务状况（鲁斯卡，2008）英特尔，已经积累了巨大的利润前。公司不应该用它的盈利幅度操纵市场。英特尔继续沉迷于制造回扣支付给其他大公司如惠普和IBM也是领先的制造商在电脑系统的世界这一有争议的做法。它应该被注意到的法律授权和受到严格的动作。同时，诉讼和解和罚款，并作为公司财务的一巴掌，他们不作为长期的威慑。在秩序，遏制公司利用其垄断操纵市场和竞争对手的力量未来的这种行为，有效的长期需要采取措施。英特尔采用的策略是一个步骤来阻止质量更好的产品，为客户提供更广泛的选择之间的替代产品的出现。整体效果停止工业发展和减少改进的边缘；这也使客户在开发风险。
