Surely, the point is that because Intel is so unbelievably rich when compared to AMD (and getting comparitively richer all the time as AMD haemorrages cash) that no matter how large the fine, there would be no pressure for Intel to raise their prices. My guess is that if they believed they could get away with it, Intel could destroy AMD in a heartbeat simply by:

• 1. Intel sells products at a loss
• 2. AMD forced to follow suit to remain 'competitive'
• 3. AMD goes bust.
• 4. Intel is now the only supplier in town, a swift price rise recoups all the losses they've incurred during the price war.

After being caught out to some extent by AMD in the past, Intel has responded strongly and now has the better technology and this gap only looks as though it will increase since AMD can't raise a candle to Intel's R&D capability.

Sure, there's still some value to be had in certain AMD products, but to me, it's beginning to feel a bit niche - which is a shame. I can't see AMD being run into the ground as being good news for any of us (unless you hold a lot of Intel stock!)

Assuming I have the relative financial strengths of the two companies correct, the only question this leaves is why Intel would have decided to try and tie up these kinds of deals - surely they could have achieved the same effect without resorting to such draconian measures. Sure, getting this kind of agreement from the major system builders protects them from being squeezed on price because the system builders can't choose AMD instead but since they can afford to be squeezed whilst AMD can't, it seems to be a very bad strategic decision - or maybe somebody is now going to point out how I haven't understood the situation at all...