Sunday, December 26, 2010

Intel Corporation Competition Case Update - Intel Consumer Monopoly Overcharge

"Novermber 8, 2010; Nations Interest Publication release 3.2, now with fifteen monopoly examples and Intel Corporation source Attorney on DOJ and FTC antitrust compliance obligations

To: FTC Inspector General
FTC Commissioners
SEC Commissioner
Senate & Congress
State Attorney Generals
United States Attorneys
Director Robert Mueller, FBI
Honorable Eric Holder, DOJ
Vice President Joseph Biden

Fm: Mike Bruzzone
6025 McBryde Avenue
Richmond, CA 94805

Re: Intel Corporation Competition Case Update
- FTC Investigator Notice of Fiduciary Failure in Docket 9341
- Added pointers calculating 9341 consumer monopoly overcharge
- Lettered Relator Seeks Attorney; FCA, 31 USC 3279, recovery of monopoly & fraudulent cost imposed on Federal Government’s Intel based PC purchases.

“If the preoccupation of its official is to be no longer the promotion of justice and equal
opportunity but is to be barter in the markets that is not liberalism, it is degeneration”.
President Herbert Hoover
FTC Inspector General, Senate, Congress, State Attorney Generals, U.S. Attorneys, FTC & SEC Commissioners, Director Mueller, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, DOJ Antitrust, DOJ Cartel Divisions and Vice President Joseph Biden:

On non address of up to $48.735 billion# consumer recoverable and no antitrust remedies associated with FTC v Intel Corporation Docket 9341 consent order, please find analyst comment on reorganizing Federal Trade Commission toward financial self sufficiency, pros and cons of Section 5 for competitive case investigation, summation of Intel Inside tied charge back, fifteen Intel microprocessor production examples on which 9341 Intel consumer recovery estimates are calculated.

Consumer Monopoly Overcharge

Similar to prior Intel production examples 9341 consumer recovery pointers document monopoly overcharge in Docket 9288 and 9341 review periods. Herein fifteen examples 1995 through 2003 are meant to show economic cause why Intel Network manipulation of FTC vs. Intel Docket 9288. That cause is Intel intent to monopolize markets for the next decade actively concealed in real time at that time by an inter nation Cartel.

A cartel composed of Intel, PC Dealers, Media Sales Agents, investment banking, security operatives, corporate political relations and network confidence agents embedded by Intel, Media Sales Agents, and likely foreign Nation’s interest, into domestic x86 competitors to steal from and dismantle competition.

A network of extended relation’s who long time conceal Intel vertical by horizontal matrix of integrated dealing cells streaming intra platform computers to end buyers in system field effects. Where Federal authority in position to resolve systematic economic crime, have not, raising the question of blocker or detractor?

Nothing in Docket 9341 consent order addresses these facts, continued Nations, society harms and consumer financial recoveries form this history of anticompetitive system’s conduct, racketeering, industrial and economic espionages. An environment understood by industry players for nearly two decades. And many in government authority who seem to sit on the side lines? In fact the extent of those in DC with knowledge of the high level espionage and enterprise network corruption case investigations is really quite extensive.

“If such combinations be not destroyed all the advantages which would naturally come to
the public operating under the general laws of competition, will be lost, and the entire
commerce of an immense territory will be at the mercy of a single holding company.”
Justice Harlan Stone

All aspects of Intel monopolization beyond commercial fraud remain deleted from Docket 9341 consent order as accepted by FTC Commissioner’s on November 1. Resulting in this third Federal example of Intel Corporation dodging competition, racketeering and espionage violations pursuant to three investigative tracks that also validate Federal agency failures to regulate competition, racketeering, cross enterprise, cross profession network crime including in progress economic espionages; DOJ v Intel 1991 – 1993, FTC v Intel Docket 9288 1998 – 2001, FTC v Intel Docket 9341 2009-2010.

How is one to explain the result of this continuous compounded series of misfeasance and failures in oversight control across Intel case matters for nearly two decades?

FTC Reorganization

On two of three Intel case anomalies this analyst suggests the Federal Trade Commission should be reconfigured for financial self sufficiency. Up to $48.735 billion and antitrust remedies is a lot of funding to leave off the table.

Too earn its keep can FTC be reconfigured to lead virtual competition case actions? Like any private plaintiff attorney partnership paid for monitoring, regulation, investigation, leading case work for competitive recovery from the very corporations the agency is suppose to regulate under Sherman and Clayton Acts. Too modernize an agency held captive by the political agenda of corporate legal guild in relation to employment and professional placements beyond the agency itself. Including where corporate political and institutional influences are often responsible for making and sustaining employment placements in those agency’s in question.

Obviously not a fault of the institution or its Congressional Charter but of society and the personal boundaries of individual actor’s responsible for implementing and overseeing that charter. And where there are questions of oversight control perhaps State Attorney Generals should be included as added check under FTC Congressional charter? Certainly more desirable than this False Claim’s Act Relator.

Where, perhaps, State Attorney Generals should be able to initiate and oversee cases within FTC for spot control across the country.

Who’s been minding shop in DC? Where Intel case matters are concerned why are the continued symptoms of regulatory, oversight, corporate law enforcement and attorney fiduciary dysfunction so pronounced and for so long?

In the face of Intel Network again demonstrating administration of corporate and attorney fraternal ties that are greater than the Federal Power itself, making FTC financially self sufficient is designed to increase competitive effectiveness, to cut corporate ties, earn its keep under Charter on the very recoveries FTC is supposed to be delivering. No different from Relator under False Claims Act. Why shouldn’t FTC be rewarded operating returns on antitrust and commerce case recoveries?

In doing so like any partnership offer an incentive to federal employees on that return, under the Federal Power, which would surely keep FTC focused on the high value cases. With of course some ratio of funding for all other types of matters that require attention. Delivering on the administrative front a lean organization in step with its ability to self sustain organically. To counter corporate guild control it just might take a separate stronger independent public partnership.

On FTC case review under Section 5 of Antitrust Act

Having participated in two Section 5 investigations of Intel competitive practices; Dockets 9288 directly with FTC investigating attorney Mr. Lin, 9341 through attorney team liaisons Ms. Espeldon, Ms. Kransky and Mr. Cox, this analyst’s stated view has been that Section 5 offers an all encompassing umbrella to research, discover, validate Intel Network program and practices that harm competition and consumers.

Providing broad vantage to detect and calculate the costs of Sherman and Clayton Act violations on enterprises, industries, consumers, society and Nations.

For 9341 perhaps Section 5 should not be considered an unusual first approach to research and validate antitrust claims and harms.

Two decades of Intel Network concealing and misrepresenting harms and costs on competition and consumers requires a broad approach to systematically filter from superset too subset for stringent structural proofs.

Pointers and proofs decomposed from a monopoly broth relied on to conceal and divert from active system, structure and economic findings, error detection and correction through three Federal investigations, that is Intel Network monopolization for much too long.

Favorably Section 5 has revealed a springboard too evolve Section 2 case precedent concerning industry competitive effects claimed to cause competitor harms that may also be competition and consumer harms. Where Section 5 investigation has filled a gap in antitrust enforcement revealing a Section 1 path too hear on industry competitive claims.

Claims that are industry causes within system, structure and economic proofs of competition and consumer harms under Sherman, Clayton Acts, commerce and racketeering laws.

This path to remedy industry claims through Section 1 affirmative findings offers a bracket too review and evolve Section 2 case precedent for industry competitors.

Long time industry claims are worth judicial review within the bracket of established antitrust, commerce and racketeering case precedent. On this strategy the total case cannot be lost; only won. Where it’s more important than ever for Commission too actively exercise its full Congressional authority under Section 5 judicial hearing.

Two decades of Intel Network concealing espionage that is intended to monopolize multiple industries and markets through corporate political multipoint manipulation of Federal, State, and inter nation authority by organized network crime cannot be left unresolved.

Anyone in DC who continues along non address of antitrust, criminal and commercial frauds should be questioned. And if incapable of doing this job for fear of what Intel Network will do to you and your family as done to mine find someone capable to do that job. Mr. Holder, Mr. Mueller, Ms. Varney please place individuals into these positions who will do the job. No more varnishing over eighteen years of a compounding misfeasance.

The FTC has shown itself hampered in monitoring, regulating, remedying Intel corporate crime network. The U.S. DOJ through its inaction is suspect of similar.

The FBI informed of Intel marketing Media Agent spy ring over a decade ago and there are still no arrests? While these known individuals have buried themselves deeper into strategic influence positions within technology industry, media and society.

One has to ask why and what’s the next step toward reorganizing Federal law enforcement and regulatory agencies for competition espionage and cartel case effectiveness for industry, public and nation good.

Everyone close to these case matters knows the real Intel; society damaging enabler of cross enterprise, cross profession organized network crime.

Demonstrating debilitating affects on society Intel Corporate Political Network must be reformed to achieve any rational level of enterprise, industry and competition reform. Docket 9341 consent order fails to state any antitrust remedies.

This analyst believes Docket 9341 consent order will be ineffective on sole address of industry commercial frauds and futile to administer from antitrust conduct left unaddressed. Apparently not to be monitored under the order?

Under 9341 consent order, provision for Intel internal monitors of the order’s provisional frameworks has been established by the FTC.

However, ironically, the very act of compliance monitors identifying out of bounds anti competitive practices, and pressing Intel for correction, can be reversed too Intel’s advantage under the order. Typical of Intel style a provision within the order enables compliance monitor’s to be dismissed by Intel for monitoring anticompetitive compliance beyond the order itself.

This loop hole in compliance monitoring is significant and places monitors under Intel control. And other than for compliance monitors who are Intel Network placements presents a loosing proposition for any credible monitor.

Citing antitrust compliance boundaries Intel remains unable to comprehend the basis of market barriers of there own network creation.

Intel Corp. Compliance Position according to Intel source Attorney December 22, 2010

1) Boundaries of antitrust compliance obligations do not require Intel Antitrust Compliance Committee to address outside the organization itself, a) monitoring internal external relations associated with contract negotiations or sales agreements, b) addressing outside parties notice of current or ongoing antitrust and criminal violations to Intel’s attention.

2) Antitrust compliance obligation does not require policing for internal crime, including error correcting subgroup crime within organization to conceal antitrust, ongoing and lingering criminal violations.

3) Antitrust compliance obligation does not require focus on externalities as the catalyst for fraud and concealment of fraud to propagate antitrust and criminal violations.

4) Antitrust compliance obligation does not require policing the Intel legal department, or any department, for operation of sub groups engaged in network crime.

5) Antitrust compliance obligation does not require addressing claims of parties afflicted by Intel commercial frauds, antitrust violations including where Intel employee and contractor obstructions are designed to mask antitrust and other crime violations by internal and external co-relations.

Where Intel presents a lot of excuse’s not to regulate for antitrust compliance. And that is because Intel cannot demonstrate management consent to regulate anticompetitive conduct or organized network crime within and proximate to that enterprise.
Academic Attorney Position on FTC v Intel Docket 9341

Some academic attorneys suggest fault in FTC Section 5 to convene an investigation to find proofs of unfair methods of industry competition and deceptive practices that may not fit judicial interpretation within the range of established consumer antitrust cases. I acknowledge the criticism and FTC should have better prepared their complaint.

And stated so before the complaint was filed. That is to state specific Clayton Act and Sherman Act violations harming consumers under Anti Trust Section 5 authority in the face of Judiciary up front. At the time a Section 1 focus.

Were I suggest FTC key mistake following blindly parallel actions which contain built in faults ahead of 9341 research opening up the 9288 affirmative discovery paths.

All the while FTC remained surrounded within the traditional confines of an Intel invented reality of no foul driven by Intel long time network manipulation intended to keep it that way.

Noteworthy Docket 9341, similar to Docket 9288 Section 5 investigation again deflects from channel causes that are antitrust true positives, to industrial causes that may or may not fit judicial interpretation as competition and consumer antitrust harms.

Plaintiff causes repositioned by media to deflect from Intel Dealer and Media Sales Agent tied channel monopolization known too harm competition and consumers. Including tactics per se condemned by the Sherman and Clayton Acts that is price fixed product routing and structured market rigging, deflected toward the litigation trap of whether industrial harms harm consumers.

Where case focus is deflected in this fashion, directed away from known antitrust violations toward industry harms that might fit as competition and consumer harms, Section 5 questions are raised.

This analyst would like to propose a corporate political concern with FTC reliance on Section 5. A transparency concern that Section 5 is being used to mask competition espionage and the crime syndicates responsible for concealing them. And discovery rules which grant Intel advance notice on what evidence to destroy or alter.

And while there are multiple discovery cross checks to determine if Intel has destroyed or altered evidence, wouldn’t it be more effective to obtain a warrant on pointers and proofs, raid Intel, PC Dealers and Media Sales Agents, capture suspect and supporting documents and subsequently conceal discovery focus until the refined complaint is filed and criminal prosecution paths determined.

For a RICO case confronting the largest most financially destructive inter nation cartel in the history of modern business why would there be any other way? Perhaps this is not the FTC’s fault in poking around with their Section 5 action but indicative of drag within the U.S. DOJ Antitrust and Cartel divisions not stepping up to the plaintiffs desk sooner?

And FBI, where a problem in the San Francisco Bureau has been known for over a decade where Washington including the Director himself has always been copied on the complete case investigation as it progressed. Continued inaction in the case is a telling indicator of continued dysfunctional governance.

Network manipulation of FTC Section 5 inquiry has twice now confused and misinformed academics, attorneys, influencing observers, Congress and Senate affecting working views from information withheld.

Has stymied DOJ, FTC, industry plaintiff case outcomes and how many others?

By Intel Network deflecting commercial harm of their tied Dealer channel toward industry claims of harm that may or may not fit judicial interpretation of competition and consumer harms. The history of Intel investigation under 9341 & 9288 Section 5 has made government appear ineffective.

On 9341 repeated result of 9288; encompassing voids in overall remedies, Section 5 method again falls short by failing to tell the whole story.

Similar to 9288 system, structure and economic violations that prove intent to monopolize have been left out of 9341 consent order. In doing so refocus on industry competitor conduct has caused confusion that Intel competitor harms may not be competitive antitrust and consumer harms.

Obviously the most efficient way to address any litigation is facts on focused claims. I suggest ambiguity the downfall of Section 5 method in relation to a laser beam focus to hear Sherman and Clayton Act violations from the start. Supporting secondary focus on industry commercial frauds that are competitor harms for their determination by the court as competition and consumer harms.

This upfront approach of discovery raid followed by complaint and criminal prosecution addresses criticism for FTC action out of the pubic and judicial oversight where a new layer of FTC law may now be added under established law.

Perhaps too establish a layer of guild law under Federal competition law? Or reaffirm Intel law above the Federal Power and Nation’s law?

FTC, DOJ, U.S. Attorneys and State Attorney Generals supporting judicial review to determine whether competitor harms are also competition and consumer harms would undo these concerns. With Section 1 focus removes the question of chasing down Intel on false positives. And makes FTC and DOJ leader’s in supporting virtual private law satellites by detailing known discovery paths to affirmative antitrust true positives, opposed to negatives, supporting plaintiff actions including consumer actions.

For Docket 9288 and 9341 the core violation has always been contract, combination and conspiracy in an enterprise network fraud to conceal the Sherman Act Section 1 violation. A long time antitrust violation established on case precedent validated by established Clayton Act and RICO cases.

This Section 1 violation has always been intended by Intel Combination and Cartel practice to monopolize markets maximizing their combined system economic benefit. Too limit and steal from competitors and manipulate consumers.

And has always been cost too consumers including hidden transport tax for product routing affixed to primary Dealer’s Intel intra platform PC end sales price. An illegal transport fee enabled by Intel and Dealers, taxed too consumers in PC end sales price, where 100% of this route fee is collected by Media Sales Agents many who are codefendant propagandists concealing their own involvement in these continuous enterprise network crimes.

In this Section 5 process failure Intel Network deflection from consumer to industry causes of action has been experienced by all of us. There can be no more reversing the obvious even as cover for FBI and DOJ investigative intervention.

Its time to bring this racketeering case into the public light so all citizens can be instructed how to report and remedy competition espionage occurring in the domestic work place in real time and not over eighteen years time.

Regardless of FTC intention or bumble Section 5 false start has been a blessing in its success to reveal yet another Intel Network manipulation of federal regulatory and law enforcement. Including Intel Network media misrepresenting 9341 proposed consent agreement, as the final FTC settlement, prior to Commissioner’s November 1st acceptance. Limiting awareness of public comment opportunity? Resulting in Commission acceptance I can not agree with on lacking remedies. However discovery and remedies that still support the consumer case, State by State if necessary, on exact causes of action freed from its industrial divergence.

Now focused on consumer harms from monopoly price overcharge and Section 1 contract, combination and conspiracy too conceal Cartel price fixed product routing raising consumer PC price average 6%.

Section 5 ambiguities presenting a vague case disconnected from its complete set of facts has in fact benefited follow on case work from FTC exposure in a first round of Intel Network Judo. And will the FTC or Department of Justice now respond with Federal Jujitsu and Karate? Will State Attorney Generals? Will private actions?

For FTC 9341 refilled under Economic Espionage Act of 1996 31 USC § 1832 within the wrapper of Sherman, Clayton Act and RICO findings an easily won round two toward recovering $48.735 billion stolen by Intel Network from consumers.

And for industry plaintiffs to prove their commercial claims and recover financial harms under Section 2 assuring remedies that yield no undesirable concessions to Intel Network.

Having participated in a technical assistant capacity for both Docket 9288 and 9341, I agree with academic attorneys today who’ve chastised FTC hunting for antitrust causes of action that might fit under the Section 5 umbrella.

What a waste of time Section 5 has been in relation to focused address on specific structure and system causes that are Section 1 and Clayton Act per se condemnation’s of law that are proofs of Section 2 intent to monopolize and economic theft.

“The enforcement of free competition is the least business can expect”.
President Franklin Roosevelt

Intel Inside Tied Charge Back in Summary

Building on prior analysis reflecting on Intel Inside tied charge back the system metric can be summed up thus. That Intel Dealing Cartel combined cross enterprise cross market too venture back its own Cartel channel development in advance of the Intel microprocessor supply ramp. Where Intel and PC Dealers paid for their media channel’s expansion plan from Intel rebate fee credits earned in advance on every future computer sale from a predetermined production plan. Presenting the basis of the laundering violation; USC 1956, well before Docket 9341 identified Intel off the book kickbacks to Dell and how many others recorded as PC sales revenue.

A cartel venture which combines a minimum of six separate markets; x86 microprocessors, PC component platforms, Windows Operating System & Applications, PC design producers, investment banking and the media. With their push through system enabled between Intel Dealer Entry and Media Channel Exit Points from November 1991 through approximately 2006. After which push through system is more tightly coupled by Intel to individual PC Dealers on redesigned tying mechanisms that Docket 9341 and EUCC record as bribes and kickbacks.

Where Intel in combination with primary PC Dealer’s and Media Sales Agents agreed to redirect revenues from Intel and PC Dealers stockholder’s, disguised as legitimate sales costs, too pay for the combination’s Media Sales Agent channel build out from 1993 through Pentium 4 exponential growth.

A period of commercial set up by the Combined Cartel where Media Sales Agent’s promote Intel microprocessors routed in Dealer’s computers to end buyers tied to their own media revenue generation ahead of the Intel supply ramp.

A supply ramp detailed two year’s in advance on Micro Design Resource Intel forecast (now suspect as the actual Intel supply schedule by this analyst) under the ownership of the Ziff Davis Soft Bank Companies (1995 – 2000) headquartered in New York, New York and Tokyo, Japan. Followed in 2000 MDR purchase by Cahners Publishing from ZD Market Intelligence merged into Cahner’s Instat Market Research Group. In period ZDNet computer titles are purchased from SoftBank by CNET through final peak of Intel Inside tied charge back program.

In addition to Ziff Davis prominent Media Sales Agents include IDG PC World, CMP Windows Magazine, other technical and mass media; ZDTV?

Sales agency that would last through the cartel’s implosion in 2005/6 on hard copy publishing reconfiguration toward Internet dissemination compounded by Intel process hurdle to race microprocessor frequency past 3.8 GHz.

A period where Intel artificial press of process lithography to maintain its fabrication monopoly morphs from tied charge back to first dollar and loyalty rewards which are clearly the outcome of a continuous racket.

“The essential subordinate status of social justice as a goal of rational political discontent is illustrated by the principle that any group will find it eventually unprofitable to redistribute income toward itself at the cost even of the smallest decline in the rate of economic development. For any group which succeeds in such a redistribution there will be some year in the future beyond which it will be worse off in an absolute sense because it effected the initial redistribution in its favor”.

Richard Brandt, Social Justice in Social Dynamics, 1961 Twenty year ironies of Intel domestic PC protectionism are three fold. First, the cost impact on society exposed to artificial accelerants, systematic growth and concentration of the Dealing group.

Second, a combined cartel that did not deliver domestic PC protectionism but the system means for domestic economic theft. Third, with Toshiba and NEC limited to secondary status in the PC dealing group, Soft Bank purchase of Ziff Davis and then teamed with CNET (CNET up to 10% Intel owned in period) positioned both media companies, along with International Data Group’s PC World, to capture majority of Intel Inside margin rewards through the tied charge back program.

The cartel did not protect domestic industry but acted as the catalyst for inter nation organized attachment. Soft Bank who purchased Ziff Davis in 1995 knew exactly the benefits of Meizaru Kieretsu (hidden cartel) operating within the Intel Zaibatsu (vertical monopoly business conglomerate). Is this what Intel monopoly was meant to protect? And in respect to Soft Bank, why not, Intel Combine is an American Cartel.

Cross enterprise cross directorate because this sort of business combination can’t be coordinated singularly and requires mutual cooperation and direction. Although the network responsible for cartel operation’s including executives of Ziff Davis and other media responsible for enterprise infiltration to fill Cartel key man positions, in PC companies and Intel competitors, did attempt to keep the cartel’s coordination a secret.

From publisher’s top executives and regional ad reps who coordinated the placement’s to advertising and public relation agency personnel who policed the Intel sales system while acting as informant transfer bridges (along with some journalists) from Intel competitors back into Intel. The competitive rape of enterprises, industry and country for Intel tied charge back ad space sales, space commissions, publisher and agency directed client assignments and sustained employment that are network rewards of cartel membership.
A secret scheme reported by this analyst to his employers Cyrix, NexGen, ARM and AMD beginning 1991 through 1996 caused by Agent solicitations.

On employer inaction and Intel Network retaliation, followed by first reports to FBI in the summer and fall 1996.

Which was not the beginning of a legal system failure, but the beginning of an escalation in legal failures that has always plagued Intel case matter’s right up through 9341 result and the writing of this briefing today.

Intel monopoly profits are once again at their traditional inflated high. And that is because corporate fiduciary responsibilities, governance, regulatory and some in the Bar; no doubt specializing in serving white collar crime to sustain their attorney employments, have kept democracy stuck in Intel failure mode within the Intel lie that is a panacea of best practices meant to conceal criminal practice.
With Intel Network thumbing their noses and beating their chest’s in a victory over the FTC masking organized network crime. Where Intel CFO Smith on News Hour October 13 is positioned in front of posters that are microprocessor die photos resembling in gold hue the commercial bastions of Wall Street that are lower Manhattan office towers. Intel clinging too this constituency for support offers one indicator that all is not well in Intel Land. Followed by increasing the stock dividend as if this token of stockholder appreciation could resolve so many year’s of Intel enterprise network crime and corporate stockholder thefts.

Intel Network is responsible for a lot of looting and laundering; $42 billion# by Intel and Dealer financial records on Intel Inside explicit contract and tacit administration of the tying system. Taken from Intel and Dealer stockholders, advanced to media, intended to limit participation and monopolize their combined supply and distribution system.

These stolen funds sit waiting for consumer recovery within Intel, PC Dealer and some Media enterprises. Also I would think partner profit from INTC QUANDA players made within their investment banking operations. Using a secret tool, riding on other people’s money, and suspect as never crediting gains back to client’s accounts?

For Docket 9341 Intel system structures prove intent to monopolize. Economic analysis points to monopoly consumer overcharge and Intel industrial price below cost.

Intel explicit contractual agreements and their tacit provisions prove consumer price fixing of approximately 6%. All conduct proofs including commercial channel frauds are secondary in support.

There is no risk of antitrust false positive associated with these pointers to affirmative proofs; systems intent, consumer monopoly overcharge, industrial below cost, PC price fixing for holding the cartel and its tied distribution structure in place even now.

Added production examples on which 9341 consumer recovery is calculated.

Analysts June 4th brief estimates up to $88 billion in Intel consumer and industrial monopolization available for judicial recovery. Current consumer recovery estimate is approximately $48.735 billion. June 4th brief revision 2 and latter offers these three economic examples:

1) P3 code name Katmai 512 Desktop Performance pointer to consumer monopoly
overcharge of $300,990,000 and $764,517,480 in Intel Inside charge back values.

2) P3 code name Copper Mine 128 Value Mobile pointer to industrial monopolization;
$2,780,853,050 revenue less than average fixed cost, $351,211,950 less than variable
cost suspect below marginal cost end of run, and $187,923,900 in charge back values.

3) Cartel signaling embedded in P3 Xeon Tanner and P3 Cascades product dumping
RICO proof.
Pentium 3 Katmai 512 Performance Desktop, P3 Copper Mine 128 (Celeron) Value Mobile and P3 Xeon Tanner Cascades are shown again below in their updated average weighted price versions. New to revision 3.2 and 3.1 find Pentium Pro P6 Workstation, Server and Desktop followed by Pentium ll Klamath 256, Pentium ll Deschutes 512 plus Pentium 4 Northwood 512 Performance Desktop and Pll Mendocino 128 (Celeron) Value Desktop.

Included reported in prior briefing are Deschutes 512 Performance Mobile and Pentium ll Dixon 256 Performance Mobile. Pentium 3 Copper Mine 256 Performance Desktop, Pentium 3 Copper Mine 256 Performance Mobile and P3 Copper Mine 128 (Celeron) Value Desktop, Pentium 4 256 Willamette Performance Desktop and Pentium 4 256 Foster Workstation.

Consumer overcharge, industrial monopolization, Intel Inside tied charge back is now estimated on refined average weighted price method, for 23 production short runs, in progress for discovery purposes. As anticipated from note in July 4th brief analyst refinement from average price, to average weighted price on infra marginal speed splits, has shown consumer monopoly price overcharge growing in value.

Economic analysis including latest input to FTC on October 29 is now calculated on Intel average weighted price on MDR Intel quantity estimates, by microprocessor frequency speed split, at Intel 1,000 piece stated price. Resulting in ability to calculate consumer monopoly overcharge on exact infra marginal product quantities at monopoly price. Infra marginal ‘short lots’ of Intel microprocessors subjecting consumers to monopoly price overcharge associated with Dealer’s newest PC product introductions. Also where Intel Inside commission tied charge back values too Media Sales Agents are at their highest values.

Refined economic analysis including 9341 review period; December 1995 through 2003 is here meant to validate Intel monopolization before, during and following Docket 9288 negotiated settlement. With the objective of confirming Intel employee perjuries and criminal network manipulation of Docket 9288 result including this analyst’s push under in a covert security sting at that time. A sting that includes by production record Intel chief executives, Intel security operators, three private security firms and regional law enforcement believed to be the working associates of corporate and contract security personnel. Analyst’s aim is to show cause on witness tampering in an obstruction of justice; affirmative act of constructed fraud. Too offer causal proof for forestalling 9288 remedies and Intel Network aim to disrupt the administration of justice in all following State, Federal and civil actions and case investigations.

“True reasons of the distinction upon which the probation's of voluntary restraints are founded are: 1st, the mischief which may arise from them, first to the party by the loss of his livelihood, and the substance of his family; 2ndly, to the public, by depriving it of a useful member.

Another reason is, the great abuses these voluntary restraints are liable to; as for instance, from corporations, who are perpetually laboring for exclusive advantages in trade, and to reduce it into as few hands as possible; as likewise from masters who are apt to give their apprentices much vexation on this account, and to use many indirect practices to procure such bonds from them, in their custom, when they come to set up for themselves .

C.J. Parker delivering resolution of court in Mitchell vs. Reynolds, King’s Bench, 1711, 1 P. Wms. 181, 24 Eng. Rep 347

Below from August 2000 find one of hundreds of analyst’s FTC and CDOJ original submittals to Messrs. Lin, Pitofsky at FTC, Mr. Greene at CDOJ, Ms. Reno, Mr. Klein USDOJ, entire Senate Judicial Committee followed by supporting economic pointers of Intel intent to monopolize and for proving Docket 9288 manipulated obstruction.

Following, fifteen examples 1995 through 2003 are meant to show economic cause why Intel Network manipulation of FTC vs. Intel Docket 9288. That cause is intent to monopolize markets actively concealed in real time at that time by an inter nation cartel.

Monopoly pointers from MDR advance Intel production estimates, segmented by speed split, when multiplied by Intel Stated 1,000 piece price reveals a QUANDA relied on by INTC inside stock traders, PC Dealer procurement and Media Sales Agents.

A network game to calculate Intel revenue and margin potential on future Intel product route purchases including tied charge back values to Media Sales Agents up to eight quarters into future time. Note mechanism for cartel stock pumping 2002 demonstrated to FTC before October 29.

On average weighted price analysis analyst now suspects MDR estimates are the Intel supply schedule. The product of virtual network resource does MDR validate Intel production plan? Intel relies on external resources from which the organization gleans other’s ideas and makes them Intel’s ideas. This analyst’s marketing ideas and plans have been gleaned by Intel marketing. Trailed in the field and made into a feature exhibit at one Intel marketing department luncheon; don’t talk to that guy at the Intel trade show booth was their aim to inform marketing and sales personnel.

One of several encounters court ordered production shows Intel theft of analyst market plans from AMD in 1996. Separate, analyst record for AMD Security that is theft of NexGen K6 development schedule and the executive transfer of NexGen AMD confidential product details to Intel in period.

“From a scientific standpoint, what counts is knowledge not talk . . . if we want to continue to talk metaphorically about things called answers, then we still do better to speak about finding the answer, than making it . . .”

- Gabriel Stolzenberg, Inquiry into the Foundation of Mathematics

Below new to briefing find Pentium Pro P6 Workstation and Server 512 KB and 1 MB large cache versions, plus Desktop 256, showing consumer monopoly overcharge > $975 for desktop, > $1692 for large cache versions on infra marginal quantity ‘speed splits’ at Intel stated 1,000 piece price. Showing $4,818,212,535 revenue on total production of 7,206,000 units, consumer monopoly overcharge on infra marginal production of 211,637 units is $128,321,067. Intel Inside tied charge back to Media Sales Agents on total revenue at 1.5% commission multiplied x2 representing Dealer Media Trigger and Intel Media Sales Agent kickback is $144,546,376. Total consumer overcharge and price fixing consumer recoverable from Pentium Pro P6 Workstation Server is $272,867,443.

Pentium Pro P6 industrial monopolization over top of Pentium P54CS dumping destroys any potential for Cyrix competitive survival while infringing AMD growth potential for at least the next two years.

Below Pentium ll Klamath risk production and Deschutes commercial run showing consumer monopoly overcharge > $537 on infra marginal quantity speed splits at Intel stated 1,000 piece price. For $35,669,762,000 revenue on total production of 96,165,000 units, consumer monopoly overcharge on infra marginal production of 9,050,000 units is $1,590,850,000. Intel Inside tied charge back to Media Sales Agents on total revenue at 3% commission multiplied x2 representing Dealer Media Trigger and Intel Media Sales Agent kickback is $2,140,185,720. Total consumer overcharge and price fixing consumer recoverable from Pentium ll Performance Desktop is $3,731,035,720.

Noteworthy one half of Pentium ll Performance Desktop run is priced at or less than Intel Average Total Cost to produce; range eleven quarters $313 down to $292. With P3 risk transition Pentium ll end of run volumes offer brief platform life. End of run Pll is below cost sludge which Microsoft rides horizontally tied to an Intel frequency modulation displacing 45,847,000 microprocessor sale’s potentials from Intel horizontal competitors Cyrix / National and AMD. That is industry theft valued at $11,985,717,000 revenue potential.

Above in lower left inset find Pentium ll Mendocino 128 (Celeron) Value Desktop priced at and below average fixed cost. Showing revenue of $5,764,331,920 on 50,879,000 units estimates industrial monopolization of $758,547,000 less than Average Fixed Cost of $156. And $5,005,784,920 industrial theft less than Average Variable Cost of $136 suspect as below Marginal Cost. Intel Inside tied charge back consumer recovery value associated with this Celeron value desktop short run is $345,859,915.

“As soon as the problem of freedom as opposed to laissez-faire - is seen to consist in the creation of free zones within the planned structure, the whole question becomes more detailed. Instead of the unified and abstract conception, concrete issues arise. The various historical interpretations of freedom, freedom of movement, freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom from caprice and tolerance are all special obligations which must be met by the new society”.

Karl Mannheim, Freedom Under Planning, 1941

For Celeron 128 KB version of PII speed grade beginning 300A clocks higher than rated. Produced with fast, traditionally more costly L2 SRAM is a given for manufacture up to Intel fixed cost level. In this Celeron run Intel engages in predatory production of 39,405,000 unit’s suspect below marginal cost. And goose’s all units with fast SRAM as a cost add tied to Intel process monopoly advantage here relied as a weapon too destroy competition; in x86 alternative microprocessors and alternative PC operating systems.

“. . . all we can ever know about the real world is what the world is not”.
Ernest Von Glasersfeld, Radical Constructivism

Above Pentium ll Deschutes 512 Performance Mobile indicating consumer monopoly overcharge > $537 on infra marginal quantity speed splits at Intel stated 1,000 piece price. On $25,679,260,000 revenue from total production of 77,952,000 units, consumer monopoly overcharge on infra marginal production of 1,580,000 units is $714,695,000. Intel Inside tied charge back to Media Sales Agents on total revenue at 3% commission multiplied x2 representing Dealer Media Trigger and Intel Media Sales Agent kickback is $1,499,250,480. Total consumer overcharge and price fixing consumer recoverable from Pll Deschutes 512 Performance Mobile production short run equals $2,501,907,280.

Below Pentium ll Dixon 256 Performance Mobile including price below Average Total Cost and suspect below Marginal Cost end of run. For revenue of $6,104,196,000 on 18,029,000 units estimates industrial monopolization from dumping at cost monopsony period three at $1,574,703,000 where price is less than competitive equilibrium price range $329 to $350. Followed by $1,128,636,000 industrial monopolization periods four and five where price is less than Average Total Cost of $292 and suspect below Marginal Cost for .18 micron process lithography. Total industrial monopolization on 10,057,000 units estimates $2,703,339,000 approximate. Intel Inside tied charge back consumer recovery value associated with this Intel mobile short run is $360,851,760.

“An environment where hard work works the worker out of work, parsimony produces unemployment, price systems redistribute wealth without regard to worldly virtues, net worth disappears in deflation, earned interest and pensions evaporate in inflation, where the speculator and the manipulator reap the rewards of their competitive elimination through forms of economic theft that shift an industrial market’s relative values”.

-Mike Bruzzone, Camp Marketing Brief U.S. Senate Edition, January 2003

Below P3 Katmai 512 Performance Desktop now indicating consumer monopoly overcharge > $450 on infra marginal speed split at Intel stated 1,000 piece price. On $12,741,958,000 revenue from total production of 34,124,000 units, consumer monopoly overcharge on infra marginal production of 11,195 880 units is $1,022,694,800. Intel Inside tied charge back to Media Sales Agents on total revenue at 3% commission multiplied x2 representing Dealer Media Trigger and Intel Media Sales Agent kickback is $764,517,480. Total consumer overcharge and price fixing recoverable from P3 Katmai 512 Performance Desktop production short run is $1,787,212,280.

Below P3 Copper Mine 256 Performance Desktop indicating consumer monopoly overcharge > $450 on infra marginal speed splits by Intel 1,000 piece stated price. P3 Performance Desktop on MDR Intel supply schedule estimate 1 shows $37,995,339,220 revenue on 136,364,000 units. Consumer monopoly overcharge on infra marginal production of 7,150,000 units is $1,103,498,344. Consumer surcharge from monopsony setting up for predatory price on run down volumes period five through ten is $1,348,392,000. Intel Inside charge back to Media Sales Agents on total revenue at 3% tied back charge multiplied x2 representing Intel kickback and Dealer trigger is $2,279,720,353. Total consumer recoverable from P3 Copper Mine 256 Performance Desktop production short run equals $4,731,610,697.

Note consumer surcharge periods two and three on Dealer monopsony price suggesting Intel horizontal predatory price move supporting P3 Tualatin 256 extension of Copper Mine 256 run down volumes period five through ten. Note consumer surcharge periods two and three on Dealer monopsony price suggesting Intel horizontal predatory price move supporting P3 Tualatin 256 extension of Copper Mine 256 run down volumes period five through ten.

Next page P3 Copper Mine 256 Performance Mobile indicating consumer monopoly overcharge > $450 on infra marginal speed split by Intel 1,000 piece stated price. Note consumer surcharge period four through seven for Dealer monopsony price suggesting Intel horizontal predatory price move period eight on P3 Tualatin 256 extension of Copper Mine 256 run down volumes through period ten. Tualatin 256 price regulates upward Copper mine 256 end of run average weighted price and in its own short run adds to the consumer monopoly overcharge value.

P3 Performance Mobile on MDR supply schedule estimate 2 shows $20,735,225,000 revenue on 57,050,000 units. Consumer monopoly overcharge on infra marginal production of 16,325,000 units is $1,323,710,000. Consumer surcharge period’s four through seven for Dealer monopsony benefit and Intel predatory price on run down volumes is $1,440,325.000. Intel Inside tied charge back to Media Sales Agents on total revenue at 3% tied back charge multiplied x2 representing Intel kickback and Dealer trigger is $1,244,053,500. Total consumer recoverable from P3 Copper Mine 256 Performance Mobile production short run equals $4,008,088,500.

“Monopoly or monospony represents a kind of knot, kink, or distortion in the general field of the economic relationships, or a toll gate in the network of economic communications which enables some individuals to capture and exploit power positions which otherwise competitive forces would have eroded away”.

Principle of Personal Responsibility,
Presentation to the Catholic Economic Association, 1953
Below P3 Copper Mine 128 (Celeron) Value Desktop priced at and below fixed cost. For revenue of $7,753,871,000 on 86,740,000 units, estimates industrial monopolization of
$384,704,000 at Average Fixed Cost of $136. Further industrial monopolization of $7,405,167,000 where price is at or less than Average Variable Cost of $117 and suspect below Marginal Cost. Intel Inside tied charge back consumer recovery value associated with this Intel desktop short run is $465,232,260.

Below Pentium 3 Celeron Value Mobile priced at and below fixed cost. Revenue of $3,132,065,000 on 25,790,000 units estimates industrial monopolization of $2,780,853,050 at price is less than Average Fixed Cost of $136. And $351,211,950 industrial monopolization where price is at or less than Average Variable Cost of $117 and suspect below Marginal Cost at production end of run. Intel Inside tied charge back consumer recovery value associated with this Intel mobile short run is $187,923,900.

In RICO proof that follows find partial classic Intel Xeon Tanner and Xeon Copper mine economic analysis average price version.

Playing signaling revealed by the Quanda, savvy PC Dealers were informed to stick with the quasi static equilibrium and back eddy offered by Xeon Tanner, and to avoid being washed over the falls that is Xeon Cascades.

Noteworthy calculating Intel revenue and margin potential on ‘average price’ verse ‘average weighted price’ calculation generally tempts some QUANDA traders to play. Average price players likely lost on Cascade Xeon short run in relation to average weighted players who knew too stay away from run down values.

Cascades is the Intel desktop microprocessor Copper mine 256, repackaged as a high performance Xeon server product at monopoly price premium and for dumping onto AMD. Xeon Cascades was not a high performance product and by June 2000 main board suppliers serving the broker system market, had rejected it, causing Intel to cancel its retail boxed version of the Cascade product line. Cascade’s was then left to sell through Intel primary Dealer channels.
Please note that AMD Opteron code names; Sledge Hammer and Claw Hammer, follow in response to Intel Network notice of Tanner signaling and pending Cascade predatory product dumping. Dumping is relied on by Intel a lot. Strategically to stop current competitive product flows in channels or to make it unprofitable for competitors to enter that product category.

Next, below, Pentium 4 Willamette 256 Performance Desktop indicating consumer monopoly overcharge > $450 on infra marginal speed splits by Intel 1,000 piece stated price. Analysis is simply that run is to long and price too low.

Consider the industrial social effect of at cost dumping monopsony periods six and seven and excess volume at period eight end of run. Always calculating on the conservative periods four and seven priced below average total cost are close enough to efficient end of run scenario within $73 of monopoly competitive equilibrium and $95 of average total cost respectively. Both periods show the artificially low price inherent with all run down volumes and this short run overall.

P4 Performance Desktop on MDR Intel supply schedule estimate 1 shows $11,241,349,546 revenue on 49,594,000 units. Consumer monopoly overcharge on infra marginal production of 2,200,000 units is $449,745,000. Intel Inside charge back to Media Sales Agents on total revenue at 3% tied back charge multiplied x2 representing Intel kickback and Dealer trigger is $674,480,973. Total consumer recoverable from P4 Willamette 256 Performance Desktop production short run is $1,124,225,973.
Pentium 4 Foster 256 Xeon Workstation not shown here in plot indicates $128,458,490 total consumer recovery. That is consumer monopoly overcharge and tied charge back fix on 5,728,000 units and $1,616,119,000 revenue.

Pentium 4 Northwood 512 Performance Desktop not shown here in plot on MDR partial (Northwood A) first five quarter production phase through 2.8 GHz, plus analyst end of run estimate on 3.0 to 3.4 Gigahertz volumes (Northwood B) suggests total revenue range $17,604,460,750 to $34,826,460,380 between 71,772,000 and 157,572,000 units. That is conservatively minimum 85,000,000 to around 126,000,000 units.

P4 Northwood consumer monopoly overcharge on MDR estimate for Northwood A infra marginal production of 3,800,000 units is $509,600,000. Analyst conservative estimate for Northwood B infra marginal production on 1,200,000 units is $333,600,000. Intel Inside charge back to Media Sales Agents on total revenue at 3% tied back charge multiplied x2 representing Intel kickback and Dealer trigger ranges between $1,056,267,645 and $2,089,557,623. Total consumer recoverable P4 Northwood 512 Performance Desktop production short run anticipated between $1,565,867,545 too $2,599,157,623. 130 nanometers remains an expensive production set aimed for Prescott @ 90 nm.

P4 analysis continues to show production runs too long, priced too low, dropping below average total cost mid through end of run. For Northwood B end of run volumes including 3.4 GHz Extreme Edition at $925 appears meant to lift run down average price. Likely there’s a bridge upward for select end of run speed grades. Of interest comparing P4 short runs to P3 is tied charge back value continuing to walking away in excess of consumer monopoly overcharge value.

Summary of Intel Network Recovery Value’s in part for 1997 through 2003 on revision 3 average weighted price method. Addressing Intel Network two decade misrepresentation of no monopoly, no consumer monopoly overcharge, no price fixing, no product routing, no exclusive dealing, no combined cartel, no kick back and no foul are not true.

Consumer Monopoly Price Overcharge = $ 7,121,477,615
Consumer Surcharge Monopsony Price = $ 2,788,717,000
Consumer Tied Charge Back Price Fix = $ 10,701,936,652

Partial Consumer Recovery = $20,612,131,267

Industrial Monopolization Price < afc =" $">
Industrial Monopolization Price < mc =" $">
Industrial Monopolization Price < avc =" $">

Partial Industrial Recovery = $17,814,903,920

Note at cost dumping is calculated for FTC across 23 production short runs. However is not recorded here as industrial monopolization when price is above average fixed cost pending that intent to monopolize outcome in litigation.

Microsoft industrial social harm calculated from twelve Intel production short runs herein suggests $7,537,248,000 monopolization at $48 OEM price attached horizontally by Microsoft OEM license to 157,026,000 Intel microprocessors priced less than Intel variable and suspect as below marginal cost to produce. Up to $10,889,836,800 on $48 OEM price attached horizontally by Microsoft OEM license to 221,876,800 Intel microprocessors priced less than Intel Average Total Cost to produce.

“The position of those who maintain that there is no defect in an unregulated market economy was made undeniable by the Great Depression”. Economics; Taming of Mammon, Frontiers in the Knowledge of the Study of Man, Lynn White, 1956

In Conclusion

On pointers and proofs whether Intel employees and witnesses perjured themselves in a Network multipoint manipulation of the FTC, to deflect from core causes of action in Docket 9288, and again in 9341 are clear. System, structure, economic, conduct pointers and proofs examined under lens of legal case precedent reveals this fact. A premeditated network obstruction to forestall remedies and disrupt the administration of justice in all Intel case matters over the last twelve years including now.

Intel Network case matters are about insuring innovation production short run to short run. Assuring civil rights while preserving ability to innovate based on examples that demonstrate Intel methods of creative destruction can be very destructive economically, structurally, holistically and socially. Intel Network RICO is proven. Section 1 and Section 2 case proofs wait to be discovered by FTC or sit delivered at FTC and DOJ.

“The agent of expansion is not the capitalist but the innovator”.
Peter Drucker, The New Society, 1950

I look forward to open Intel hearings for a transparency that will educate every American on forms of domestic economic terrorism caused by illegal monopolization, combinations, cartels, frauds, theft, deceit and the cover ups that have stymied these Intel Network case matters from their complete remedies and resolutions for over a decade.

Respectfully Submitted

Mike Bruzzone
Camp Marketing

FBI Original Source of Intel Network RICO; 1996
FTC Invited field reporter Docket 9288, 1998-2000
CDOJ and NYDOJ first to report; 1998
CDOJ lettered to work report; Intel Section 1 Framework; 2000 –
SEC Notice; 2007
U.S. Attorney NCD recognized FCA Relator; 2008
FTC voluntary analyst Docket 9341; under Labor Code 3363.5; 2009

* * * * *
Assessment and Models of
Technical Business Systems,
seen through Field, Primary
& Secondary Research.

Mike Bruzzone
Managing Director
Camp Marketing Consultancy

Partial list of primary research, undertaken and completed by lettered invitation on behalf of the Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Competition followed by Office of the California State Attorney General.

May 10, 1998 Bureau of Competition invitation to input; F.T.C. vs. Intel; Docket 9288.
Lettered to work report, March 21, 2000; Office of California State Attorney General.

Assessment and models of technical business system - competitive strategy, system’s framework, operational clockworks defined through field, primary and secondary research, as seen through the lenses of ten academic disciplines: the law, economics, industrial management best practice, cybernetics, general system’s theory, value theory, system psychology, network dynamics, analysis of responsible science in technocracy 1926 – 2002, communication’s science.

Partial Primary Research:

Economic analysis across 21 consecutive Intel microprocessor production short runs.
Assessment of Intel P5, P6 production; wave front analysis, surplus reverberation & concentration patterns.
Intel Pentium (P5) economic analysis; 1993 – 2002.
Intel Pentium (P6) economic analysis; 1996 – 2002.
Intel Pentium 4 economic analysis; 2001 – 2004.
x86 microprocessor and graphics processing unit design share research 1990 - 2008.
Assessment of Intel intra-platform horizontal component/matrices consolidation; 1993 – 2009.
Assessment of Editor Choice Awards effecting consolidation of Intel Inside dealer combination.
Assessment of Intel Inside page space allocation as weight of rebated fee pools.
Identification of Intel intra platform microprocessor broker dealers by Intel Inside space allocation.
Assessment of industrial de-structuring inside and outside the rungs of periodic and point attractors.
Complete System’s Structure Map; industry taper, channel attractors, value ties, mechanics over structure.
Legal case studies and economic overlays over Intel system’s structure and supply chain map; 1993-2000.

Filters for moving Intel case to hearing stage; Easterbrook, Calvani, monopoly share, 9th Circuit filter considering Intel in input and output markets, MCI test, no economic sense & profit sacrifice test, Areeda-Turner below cost price test, predator price test, elasticity analysis, efficient components price standard, general universal test.

Including 1,000,000 words of written analysis through 128 months of reporting to the U.S. Senate & National Association of Attorney Generals.

Partial syllabus of secondary research sources:

Allen, Gary
None dare call it conspiracy

Ashton, T.S.
The Industrial Revolution

Ayers, Clarence E.
The Industrial Way of Life

Baron, Hank
Crisis in the Early Italian Renaissance

Bagdikian, Ben
Media Monopoly

Baumgartel, Howard
The Concept of Role

Bavelas, Alex
Group Dynamics and Inter-group Relations

Beene, Kenneth D.
An Approach to Problems of Inter-religious Conflict
Case Methods in the Training of Administrators
Deliberate Changing as the Facilitation of Growth
Democratic Ethics and Human Engineering
Operational Research

Beer, Stafford
Decision and Control

Bennis, Warren G.
A Theory of Group Development
A Typology of Change Process
Group Observation
Interpersonal Communication
Leadership Theory and Administrative Behavior

Blake, Robert R.
Psychology and the Crisis of Statesmanship

Boulding, Kenneth E.
Beyond Economics

Brandenburger, Adam M.

Bradshaw, Leland P.
The Teaching-Learning Transaction

Brealy, Richard
Corporate Finance

Breshnahan, Timothy
Competition in the New Computing Industry

Brooks, Harvey
Technology Assessment in Retrospect

Bronowski, J.
Technology and Culture in Evolution

Brynner, Gary
Worker Alienation

Buckminister, R. Fuller
Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth

Burke, John G.
Bursting Boilers and the Federal Power

Burt, Dobler, Starling
World Class Supply Management

Campbell, Robert
Fisherman’s Guide; systems approach to creativity in organization

Cartwright, Dorwin
Achieving Change in People
Group Dynamics and the Individual
Power; a Neglected Variable in Social Psychology

Chin, Robert
Human Relations: A “New” Discipline or an Integrative Force?
Problems and Prospects of Applied Research
The Utility of Systems Models and Developmental Models of Practitioners

Cipolla, Carlo, M.
Clocks and Culture

Clark, Wilson
Intermediate Technology

Commoner, Barry
Are We Really in Control

Counts, George
The Impact of Technological Change

Covey, Stephen R.
Seven Habits of Highly Effective People

Cringeley, Robert J.
Accidental Empires

D’Aveni, Richard A.

Dahrendorf, Ralf
Toward a Theory of Social Conflict
Daniels, George H.
Technological Change and Social Change

Davidow, William
Marketing High Technology
The Virtual Corporation

Davis, Kingsley
The Migrations of Human Populations

de Solla Price, Derek J.
Little Science, Big Science

Dixit, Avinash K.
Thinking Strategically

Douhet, Giulio
The Command of the Air

Drucker, Peter F.
Applied Science and Technology
The First Technological Revolution and Its Lessons
The Futility and Dangers of Technology Assessment
The New Society

Du Bois, Cora
The Public Health Worker as an Agent of Socio-cultural Change

Dubos, Rene
The New Environmental Attitude

Durant, William and Ariel
The Age of Louis XIV
The Age of Reason Begins
The Renaissance

Ellul, Jacques
The Technological Order

Einstein, Albert
Letter to President Roosevelt

Engles, Friedrich
Freedom through Socialism

Fairbain, William
The Engineering Profession
The Invention of the Riveting Machine

Ferguson, Charles H.
Computer Wars

Ferguson, Eugene S.
Nonverbal Thought in Technology

Ferkiss, Victor C.

Fine, Charles

Florman, Samual
In Praise of Technology

Foster, Richard

Frank, Lawrence K.
Fragmentation in the Helping Professions

Frank, Thomas
One Market Under God

Gates, Bill
The Road Ahead

Galbraith, John
The New Industrial State
The Economics of Innocent Fraud

Geidon, Siergfried
Engineering the Household

Geiger, George
Values and Social Science

Geisst, Charles
Monopolies in America

General Advisory Committee to the Atomic Energy Commission
Report on the “Super”

Getzels, Jacob W.
Administration as a Social Process

Gimpel, Jean
Environmental Pollution in the Middle Ages

Glacken, Clarence J.
Nature and Culture in Western Thought
Gleck, James
Chaos, making a new science

Glidewell, John C.
The Entry Problem in Consulting

Goleman, Daniel
Working with Emotional Intelligence

Gracian, Baltasar
The Art of Worldly Wisdom

Greenwood, Ernest
The Practice of Science and the Science of Practice

Greider, William
Who Will Tell the People, the Betrayal of American Democracy

Gouldner, Alvin W.
Engineering and Clinical Approaches to Consulting
Organizational Analysis
Theoretical Requirements of the Applied Social Sciences

Gruen, William
The Moral Dimension of Science

Grove, Andrew S.
High Output Management
Only the Paranoid Survive

Guest, Robert H.
Scientific Management and Assembly Line

Gunderson, Robert Gray
Group Dynamics, Hope or Hoax?

Hammer, Michael
Reengineering Revolution

Heilbroner, Robert L.
Do Machines Make History

Henderson, Carter
The Frugality Problem

Henderson, Hazel
Paradigms in Progress, Life Beyond Economics

Hibbard, Walter R.
Mineral Resources; challenge or threat?

Horwitz, Murray
The Conceptual Status of Group Dynamics

Hostetler, John A.
Amish Society

Jaques, Elliott
Technocracy or Collaboration?

Jenkins, David H.
Force Field Analysis Applied to a School Situation
Group Self-evaluation

Jensen, Gale
A Model for Analyzing Small Group Properties Pertinent to Planned Change

Jensen, Neal F.
The Food-People Problem

Jewkes, John
The Sources of Invention

Jolly, Vijay K.
Commercializing New Technologies

Kaplan, Jerry
Start Up

Kawasaki, Guy
Selling the Dream

Kelman, Herbet C.
Process of Opinion Change

Keniston, Kenneth
Technology and Human Nature

Kelman, Herbert C.
Group Dynamics, Neither Hope or Hoax

Kestin, Hesh
21st Century Management

Kuhn, Thomas S.
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

Jackson, Tim
Inside Intel

Jager, Rama Dev
In the Company of Giants; conversations with the visionaries of the digital world
Lakoff, Sanford A.
Knowledge, Power and Social Purpose

Laszlo, Ervin
The Systems View of the World

Tao Te Ching

Leary, Timothy
The Theory and Measurement Methodology of Interpersonal Communication

Lerner, Max
The Discovery of the “Irrational”: Personal and Collective

Levit, Grace
Learning through Role Playing

Levitt, Theodore
Marketing Imagination

Levinger, George
Kurt Lewin’s Approach to Conflict and Its Resolution

Levison, Conrad Jay
Guerrilla Marketing Attack
Guerrilla Marketing

Lewin, Kurt
Principles of re-education
Quasi-Stationary Social Equilibria and the Problem of Permanent Change

Lilenthral, David E.
Democracy at the Grass Roots

Lippitt, Gordon L.
What Do We Know About Leadership?

Lippitt, Ronald
Dimensions of the Consultant’s Job
Value-Judgement Problems of the Social Scientist in Action Research

Loomis, Charles P.
Tentative Types of Directed Social Change Involving System Linkage

Lynch, Dudley
Strategy of the Dolphin

Machiavelli, Nicole
The Prince

Mann, Floyd C.
Studying and Creating Change

Manniheim, Karl
Freedom Under Planning
From Trial and Error to Planning
Roots of the Crisis of Evaluation

Marlowe, Donald E.
Public Interest, First Priority in Engineering Design?

Marrow, Alfred J.
Changing a Stereotype in Industry

Martin, James
The Great Transition

Mathis, Robert
Human Resources Management

McChesney, Robert W.
Rich Media, Poor Democracy

McGregor, Douglas M.
The Human Side of Enterprise

McKenna, Regis
Relationship Marketing

McLuhan, Marshall

Meier, Hugo A.
Technology and Democracy, 1800 - 1860

Merton, Robert K.
Social Scientists and Research Policy

Miles, Mathews
The Training Group

Moe, Edward O.
The Nature of Community

Morison, Elting E.
A Case Study of Innovation

Moore, Barrington
Sociological Theory and Contemporary Politics

Moore, Geoffrey A.
Crossing the Chasm
Inside the Tornado

Moore, James F.
Death of Competition

Morgan, Arthur E.
The Garrison Dam Disaster

Morgan, Thomas, D.
Modern Antitrust Law and its Origins

Morici, Peter
Antitrust in the Global Trading System; reconciling U.S, Japanese and EU Approaches

Mumford, Lewis
The All Seeing Eye
The Technique of Total Control

Murphy, Arthur E.
The Efficacy of Reason

Nadar, Ralph
Unsafe at Any Speed

National Training Laboratories
Some Dimensions of Group Growth

Nelkin, Dorothy
The Technological Imperative versus Public Interest

Nordlinger, Eric
On the Autonomy of Democratic State

Ogburn, William F.
Technology as Environment

Ostrander, Shelia
Psychic Discoveries behind the Iron Curtain

Pages, Max
The Socio-therapy of the Enterprise

Parson, Talcott
The Problem of the Theory of Change

Pascale, Richard T.
The Art of Japanese Management

Peter, Paul J.
Marketing Management

Pigors, Paul and Faith
The Incident Process

Porter, Michael
Competitive Advantage
Competitive Strategy
On Competition

Pursell, Carroll M.
The Government and Industrial Technology

Ramo, Simon
The Systems Approach

Ravitz, Jerome R.
Social Problems of Industrialized Science

Riesman, David
The Researcher and His Audiences: Introduction to Crestwood Heights

Rogers, Carl
A Process Conception of Psychotherapy

Rogers, T.J.
No Excuses Management

Rosenberg, Nathan
Economic Growth, Technology, and Society
Technology and Resource Endowment

Roszak, Throdore
The Citadel of Expertise

Sakharov, Andrei D.
Nuclear Weapons Development

Salvatore, Dominick
Managerial Economics in a Global Economy

Sanders, Irwin T.
Approaches to Social Change

Sanders, W.J
Is the Semiconductor Industry Mature?

Samuelson, P

Schein, Edgar H.
Interpersonal Communication, Group Solidarity and Social Influence

Schmookler, Jacob
Economic Sources of Inventive Activity

Schutz, William C.
Interpersonal Underworld

Schumpeter, Joseph
Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy

Schwartz Cowan, Ruth
The “Industrial Revolution” in the Home

Schwartz, Morris S.
Intervention and Change on a Mental Hospital Ward

Seashore, Charles
The Consultant-Trainer Role

Semrad, Elvin V.
The Use of Group Processes in Teaching Group Dynamics

Senge, Peter M.
The Fifth Discipline

Shalin, Leonard
Art & Physics; parallel visions in space, time and light

Sheppard, Herbert A.
The T-Group as Training on In Observant Participation

Shrode, William
Organization and Management

Siler, Todd
Think like a Genius

Simon, Herbert A.
What Computers Mean for Man and Society

Slater, Phillip E.
Displacement in Groups

Spiegel, John P.
The Resolution of Role Conflict within the Family

Stanley, William O.
The Collapse of Automatic Adjustment

Stein, Maurice
The Eclipse of Community

Strachey, John
The Nature of Capitalist Crisis

Strauss, Anslem L.
Transformations of Identity

Sullivan, Harry S.
Multi-disciplined Coordination of Interpersonal Data

Tabb, William
Economic Governance in the Age of Globalization

Terry, Earle Melvin
Advanced Laboratory Practice in Electricity and Magnetism

Thelen, Herbert
The Growth of a Group

Thompson, Arthur, A.
Crafting & Executing Strategy

Thompson, James D.
Organizational Management of Conflict

Treacy, Michael
The Discipline of Market Leaders

Tzu, Sun
Art of War

Varian, Hal R.
Intermediate Microeconomics

Veblen, Thorstein
The Role of the Engineers

Wager, J. Alan
Growth versus the Quality of Life

Wallace, James C.
Freedom and Direction

Ward, Barbara
The Rich Nations and the Poor Nations

Watzlawick, Paul
The Invented Reality

Weiner, Charles
How the Transistor Emerged

Winner, Langdon
Technology as Legislation

Wik, Reynold M.
The Government and Agricultural Technology

White, Lynn
Dynamo and Virgin Reconsidered
The Act of Invention
The Taming of Mammon - Frontiers in the Knowledge of the Study of Man

Wright, Quincy
Technology and Warfare

Yergin, Daniel
Commanding Heights

York, Herbert F.
Strategic Reconnaissance

Zaheer, S. Husain
India’s Need for Advanced Sciences and Technology

Zander, Alvin
Resistance to Change – Its Analysis and Prevention

Journalism Oversight for Democracy Prerequisite; revision 3
Mike Bruzzone, Camp Marketing


“The specialization of science is an inevitable accompaniment of progress; yet it is full of dangers, and it is cruelly wasteful, since so much that is beautiful and enlightening is cut off from most of the world. Thus it is proper to the role of the scientist that he may not merely find new truth and communicate it to his fellows, but that he teach, that he try to bring the most honest and intelligible account of new knowledge to all who will try to learn . . . it is here in teaching of men who by profession must themselves be both teachers and taught, that the narrowness of scientific life can best be moderated, and that the analogies, insights, and harmonies of scientific discovery can find their way into the wider life of man”.

Robert Oppenhemier,
Prospects in the Arts & Sciences, 1955

In relation to Federal Trade Commission June 8th Docket 9288 complaint, the settlement proposal addresses three issues which in the opinion of this analyst are insufficient. That Intel cannot cut off customers, stifle competition, and impede innovation in relation to intellectual property disputes. Incident’s where Intel shuts out rivals, changes the structure of organic competition, steals the intellectual property of competitors and then offers to license on Intel terms after.

Disputes raised by enterprises who are horizontally and vertical compliments, as well as competitors to Intel. Independent enterprises with know how and technology enablement capability beyond Intel franchise. These are more than just companies working on extensions of Intel reference designs or system integration and distribution houses. They are established contributors to domestic economic renewal that maintain ground up technology enablement expertise. Know how driving development of competitive semiconductor, microprocessor and compute platform architectures in relation to Intel’s own.

Unique and differentiated approaches to computing; Alpha, Clipper, Power PC, Sparc, Nx586, Nx686, AMD, Cyrix, Rise, IDT Centaur and Transmeta alternative x86 offerings. Offering a broad foundation for subordinate economic potentials to attach, that are unique system block, logic and system implementation’s supporting these co-development initiatives. All minor in volume compared to Intel architecture yet capable of seeding innovation, too drive new business structure, including new levels of product utility and economic benefit for computer user’s world wide.

Thus competitive threat’s capable of upsetting Intel status quo. Where inventive corporations with the potential of displacing parts of the Intel monopoly derived surplus barrier are intellectual targets to be leveled. To be targeted and stripped of their incentives, inventive and competitive potentials, know how, manpower, financial resources and branding ability.

Disrupt bread and butter ‘Intel architecture’ PC sales for companies with enablement expertise on the one hand, and their ability to fund alternate computing approaches whether replacements or substitutes to Intel architecture, can be compromised on the other. I trust this dispels a myth perpetrated by some academics, press and analysts. That the few domestic microprocessor and compute platform companies remaining with ground up system design and development capabilities are in fact Intel competitors.

Alternative processor and computer company’s then are a threat too Intel Network. Options for these inventive companies then are simple. Bow to Intel and be assimilated. Walk a thin blue line. Defend against proactive and premeditated obliteration. Carry along a larger constituent club.

“One of the most challenging, and tantalizing propositions of what may be called the larger economics, is that the success of economic institutions depends to a large extent on the nature of the whole culture in which they are embedded, and not solely on the nature of these institutions themselves”.

Religious Foundations of Economic Progress
President and fellows of Harvard College, 1952

Situation Analysis:

Underworld characters with local political and law protection are infiltrating legally established businesses and snatching working controls in various semiconductor design fabricators, compute systems design producers, media, venture, banking and financial institutions.

Such characters it is held have a made a bundle in the underworld; threatening executives, rigging markets, product distribution operations, concealing abuses through network manipulations, fraud, media propagandist controls and covert security operations. Pyramiding their illicit gains into the labyrinthine of the enterprise they have endangered legitimate corporate, State and Federal governance, worldwide regulatory, law enforcement and Nation’s controls.

The Intel Corporation case matters are a green field for evolving constitutional, federal & state, competition, civil, labor & world human rights laws & legislation.

Mike Bruzzone
Camp Marketing

Various dangers loom from these industrial, financial, channel and political infestations. Where their confidence men and woman loot legitimate corporations, sabotage product development, manufacturing, and manipulate governance within institutions from the inside and outside. They can rig situation assessment, tamper with executive decision making, dissuade from competing, will make examples out of resistors, mislead and tamper with law enforcement, jurists, Judges, manipulate elected leaders to defraud the public and Nations.

To better procure political support their network manipulations portray business operations as nirvanas of best practice. These misrepresentations enable a form of mass corruption that preys on legitimate businessmen especially those who would challenge them. They have turned happy, honest corporations into devils dens leading in the consequent demoralization of an orderly society.

I cannot over emphasize the danger that can lie in the muscling into legitimate industries by hoodlums, there is too much evidence before us of racketeers and industrial spies teamed to gain control over legitimate technical, product, investment and media concerns. Positioned by their propagandists as leading executives they utilize all the old mob tricks – extortion, strong arming, threats, pay offs, sabotage and constructions. Efforts covering their crime ring’s criminal advantage over legitimate competition, democratic methods of capital accumulation for reinvestment and economic renewal. This break down has endangered all legitimate enterprise institutions in performing system regulatory and governance functions across all democratic societies.

“Participation as an ideology in American society seems to be of growing importance just when technical complexity threatens to limit effective political choice. The actual scope of citizen influence on technological development depends on many of the usual factors that affect any political decisions: leadership, community, organization, access to the media, the visibility and urgency of the issue.

Information can be mustered to support either side of a debate, and power hinges on the ability to manipulate knowledge and control uncertainty. Technical expertise, therefore, is a crucial political resource in politics and technology. And the key questions focus on the relationship between policy makers and their experts, on the ways in which decisions about innovation deal with uncertainty concerning social costs, and on the dilemma of democracy in this increasingly complex and professional policy arena”.

Dorothy Nelkin
Technological Imperative vs. Public Interests, 1976

This August 2000 edition of the Art & Science of Camp Marketing Brief hopes to trigger reflection on social, civil, industrial and political issues associated with U.S. vs. Intel: FTC Docket 9288 and now 9341. For eighteen years this analyst has recorded and reported on organized crime infiltration molding the state of competition in the x86 microprocessor, PC platform and media markets. Detail’s associated with discovery and recording criminal infiltrations into Cyrix, NexGen, ARM, AMD, PC distribution and media channels. Where organized crime intent was meant to dismantle competitors, too monopolize the x86 and PC platform markets, to loot competition, competitive enterprises and Nations.
Now at the level of inter nation dialogue moving toward Intel Network remedies. Responsible frameworks for monopolist and rackets error detection and correction, within Intel, cluster and channels, for the provisional administration of a remedial framework assuring regulatory compliance and monopoly oversight control.
From anyone who can add value. These crimes are not unknown to many of the observing witnesses reading these communications. Many who are capable of bringing specific knowledge to the situation assessment for a complete and total democracies’ solution.

Contribute by reporting publicly through your mass media outlet or write:

Attn: Secretary
Federal Trade Commission
Docket 9341 Public Comment
600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20580

On Enterprise Networks -

We are about to discover where between truth and justice, the four corners of misfeasance, malfeasance, fraud and accomplice competition rebounds on legitimate address of all subsets of the Intel Corporation competition case matters. These are enterprise remedies for participation, industrial stability, economic efficiency, competitive and employment potentials, revenue and profit contributions.

On this subject as field reporters we have options. Silence, or that worse option, the mimicking repeater of the certified Intel Blogger, alternatively, the all encompassing business report, investigative report or opinion piece.

This innovator in a tough environment for innovation chose investigative reports. Reporting that supports the journalism tradition of corporate political oversight, as a best practice, for protecting freedom in any democracy; chose yours.

On FTC Docket 9341 settlement proposal we’ve heard from Intel Network and herd. Now act for society on journalism as one foundation for our democratic freedoms.

“A free press can and should be an accountable press. The received wisdom of press freedom assumes that freedoms and rights can be free standing. In fact, there are no rights without counter part obligations and duties.”

Onora O’neill,
Doctor of Philosophy,
Cambridge University

Where journalism as a democratic protection can introduce the need for legitimate corporate governance institutions; rackets error detection, support courage to admit organized crime infiltration, timely correction, for monopoly and organized network crime prevention. Where Intel DOJ antitrust compliance obligations have always required Intel employees to be the first to report and remedy. That is not to attack those who are first to report. Or too deny and then too attack. More so we cannot negate this inherent report responsibility from citizens residing in a civil society. Responsibility to report where ever competition espionage endangers enterprise, municipality, State, Nation, life and liberty, industry, competition, truly a free press and our freedom to compete in a functioning democracy.

Every American needs to be familiar with the indicators of competition espionage occurring within the enterprise and how to report it for remedy in real time. Intel Network and associated x86 and PC market failures are our foremost teachers.

“The ingenuity and the perseverance of industrial management in the pursuit of economic ends have changed many scientific and technological dreams into commonplace realities. It is now becoming clear that the application of these same talents to the human side of enterprise will not only enhance substantially these materialistic achievements but will bring us one step closer to the good society. Shall we get on with the job”.

The Human Side of Enterprise
Douglas M. McGregor, 1957

Where knowledge based solutions that free critical industries from mob controls can deliver everyone a return to the well regarded principles of democratic capitalism. Where investments and capital accumulations are naturally grown and sustained on an enterprise’s good business decisions, and not on the decisions of a criminal network in an Intel police state.

Universally accepted methods of level industry supporting open participation from all contributors, based on organic models, where all are naturally enabled to pursue their full potentials and none criminally limited.

Please pursue the journalist oversight cycle, over and over again, until technocracy gets this right.
“As originator and prime mover over the mass-production revolution, this country has risen to world leadership and become the greatest power. So far this leadership has been confined to the realm of technology. We have not developed the social and political institutions to go with this technology. But precisely because mass production technology is a corrosive acid which no pre-industrial culture or social order can resist, the world requires a working model of the political and social institutions for an industrial age. Without such a model to imitate and learn from, the mass production revolution can only produce decades of war, chaos, despair and destruction. If the model is not furnished by the West, if it is not a model of a free industrial society the model will be that of a slave industrial society.

If this country fails to serve as a working model, it if does not succeed in developing at home a functioning and free industrial society, our very technological leadership will bring catastrophe to the world and to our selves. It will lead to the acceptance, on a worldwide bases, of institutions and beliefs unacceptable and deeply hostile to the basic beliefs and institutions of the American tradition and to the tradition of the West. In such a world, the United States could not maintain its own institutions and perhaps not even its independence. No amount of military strength, no success of anti-Communist diplomacy, no Marshall Plan, could in the long run prevent this. These, however, necessary and beneficial, are stopgaps and futile in the end unless they are followed up by the assertion of world-leadership which only the successful development of a Constitution for a Free Industrial Society can provide.”

Peter Drucker, The New Society, 1950

I suggest the structure of scientific revolution associated with Intel Network monopoly represents one of the worst case scenarios of what can go wrong when any government allows protection of an industry by a sub-society of its participants. In this case engineers under the influence of professional managers who are the members of a cross enterprise, cross profession network crime ring. Who through the extended period of their proactive chaos dismantled multiple enterprises and industries cloaked behind the back drop of a worldwide business and economic realignment.

Beginning 1991 escalating even today corporate influence networks have proven themselves untrustworthy; for governance and oversight, including as government educational resources. In this worst case Intel example where a monopoly for two decades is granted total control, and unfettered freedoms, to pursue whatever course it chooses to achieve its desired level of industry, economic and trade law protectionism. Intel x86 microprocessor and the disintegrated cells of the intra-platform PC market was the worst possible choice for a monopoly experiment of this type.

“The government’s need for science has frequently stimulated it to new organizational experiments. The basic problem has been that, much as the government needs science, science has, by and large, offered its services only on its own terms. Those terms have been support without control, or in other terms, power without responsibility”.

Carrol W. Pursell Jr.
Science & Government Agencies, 1966

Today the value of production continues too consolidate toward the few capable of its mass production. Where a history of monopoly abuses by organized crime continues in industries where technocrats utilize the mysteries of their business specialty to gain control from active governance, democratic forms of competition and system regulation.

Yes, action regulation and governance do help. Too prevent cross enterprise organized crime infiltration, and to insure the means to deliberate on issues of correction and control, methods and results of actions which in fact touch upon all of us; in every industry, across all civil society.

“The political world is today defined through its relation to the technological society. Traditionally, politics formed a part of a larger social whole; at present the converse is the case”

Jacques Ellul, Sociologist
The Technical Order, 1962

While this analyst feels the Intel Combination achieved its objective of domestic PC protectionism, the network franchise did so for its own vested interest unobservant of law. Where there has been a war against the capital, economic, civil and human rights of many regardless of these harms still being masked over by Intel invented reality.

Intel intra platform PC vertical by horizontal sales system wiped out a massive number of domestic inventors through methods positioned as beneficial to U.S. economic growth. When, in fact, Intel Network through artificial system accelerations to rig and monopolize markets drove an international political bumble whose effects are now known. By you and me and officials within industry and government, across multiple nations, on which Wintel and America will continue too be judged.

A systematic reconfiguration of industry and channels by organized network crime undermining economic rights and democratic foundation’s across many countries. Crimes masked by organized network crime. A crime ring that today is scattered across and buried into multiple corporation and media enterprises. The result of two decade’s of delay in error correcting Intel Network from our overcoming the deceptions and misrepresentations that comprise the Intel lie.

Students of democratic societies recognize that when large organizations wield concentrations of economic power, political power is not far behind .The unnamed fear behind this realization is of a drift toward fascism, where the power of large organizations supplants the role of the individual in society.”

Charles Geis,
Monopolies in America, Oxford Press

On Intel -

As astonishing as it might seem, there is nothing unique or complicated about the way in which Intel monopolized the x86 microprocessor and PC platform markets. The methods are as old as guild control of commodities, secured through majority ownership of production facilities, some sharing of production data, ability to manufacturer in excess of demand, to control surplus ownership, its value distribution, and in these technologic times to accelerate distribution system structure and to conceal that acceleration in combination with mass media.

Through every kind of terrain, the signposts are there along the roadside. Sometimes they point out the hazard’s, other times the general direction, the turns or forks in the road. It is in the congested valleys of the industrialized West that they are often obscured along detours or diversions cluttered with neon lights and billboard advertising. The system sign posts are still there, but they have to be carefully sought out”.

Robert Campbell,
Management Consultant - Mobil Corp.

Where some media enterprise participated in propagating espionage’s forcing computers onto consumers for a fee, while hiding behind our first amendment right. This aspect being hideously noteworthy; relied on for microprocessor and intra-platform monopoly maintenance, product routing, industrial concentration, to steal the revenues of one company and to divert those revenues to other favored concerns. Too artfully cover the simplicity of these anti-competitive and criminal acts. To create the counterintuitive illusion of an Intel Nation success out of fundamentally much less.

After earning stewardship over a natural x86 monopoly, and shortly following the SBC 386-16 MHz development cluster, Intel’s intent to monopolize through anti-competitive means in violation of law was clear. As of October 1989, and with volume production of the 386-33 class platform, Intel had established a channel surplus of graded 386 CPU product; effective as a monopoly price support, and had demonstrated the utilization of legal rigs, retroactive restraints, production capacity and allocation to suppress other x86 microprocessor design fabricators from competitive market entry and channel growth.

“A near monopolistic company may be especially privileged, by insisting on longer (production) runs without incurring the loss of large stocks. This can be done by the simple expedient of holding the customers to ransom and making them accommodate the necessary stocks. It is fortunate for the national economy that few companies are in a position to get away with this, for it ties up unnecessary amounts of capital”.

Dr. Stanford Beer, Industrial Scientist
Decision & Control, 1966

Channels, as the 486 platform transition occurred, now filled with aging strata of prior Intel CPU class and speed grades. Class and speed grades that as the Intel monopoly matured would be dumped onto competitors as a method for their elimination. Speed grades ideally sold by channels on a first-in-first-out basis for capital recovery. So that new product, both Intel and competitive substitutes and replacements, could be purchased and enter some channels. Substitute x86 microprocessor and microprocessor platform replacements offering utility value to consumers including a lower price. However a price that traditionally delivered lower margin to channels. The stage was now set for the combination of Intel’s PC development with channel bottleneck monopolies into the Intel Power Complex.

Intel is an anomaly in our domestic technology industry. While other semiconductor and inter platform PC design/manufacturers produce from a forecast of customer demand supporting process economic migration, Intel over produces to monopolize process, utilizing its production might combined with intra industry financial incentives to block others from competing and entering the x86 and PC platform’s market.

There is nothing new or complex about these methods of monopolization addressed in antitrust and commercial case law precedent. The next time an Intel representative proclaims Intel is not a monopoly you can inform them you know differently. As a result of Camp Marketing Briefs and from some of your own observations and experiences, you know the truth. Publish on it.

On Media -

Through a ten month IPO quite period when your primary competitor is Intel, and during the second quarter of 1993 in the midst of all out war with Ziff Davis, two Cyrix employees appealed to the publisher of PC World to explain why this was happening. Why was Cyrix being attacked by another industry and specifically Ziff Davis? This soon to be president of IDG stared into space for a moment and said one thing, “they are a profit maximizer”.

What we know now is the greater foundation on which this strategy was driven. Intel is not just a profit maximizing monopoly. Intel is a sales maximizing monopolist. Capable of driving marginal revenue gains from a predetermined production plan that can deliver multiple periods of monopoly profit across anyone production short run. Monopoly profit required to offset the cost of a pressed lithographic acceleration required to maintain Intel’s process, x86 microprocessor, and intra platform PC monopolies.

Where media could plan ahead of Intel cash intake based on the Intel production plan. Knowing full well they could plan, model, and shape their own revenue growth within this Intel planned economy. Including concentration of satellite sales toward their own tied sales channels. Based on agreed upon contracts, rebates and discounts, with Intel, that protect leading channels and built upon their market shares. By media misappropriating and redirecting competitors share. Where the use of many illegal restraints lead to the systematic elimination of Intel horizontal competitor’s, and the lateral concentration of Intel PC dealers, given known parameters and programs including those which PC Media was directly involved.

Program’s for which Ziff Davis played a crucial role. Where the Ziff Davis sales force rolled out and initially managed the Intel Inside program. A first move for Intel and Ziff Davis that forced other PC media too participate in the pursuit of these immense and illegal Intel Inside ad pools, or financially be left out of this game. A program that would eventual spread to the entire media layer, across multiple categories; PC print, business print, local newspaper, broadcast, web, and leaves us with the democratic mess, and the affront on journalism we have today. Including journalism’s continued democratic error to remain mum on this subject.

Over the last 15 years how many journalists have thought about walking into the Publisher’s office and asking why?

Corporate plus media combination in a tied sales system has been incredibly destructive. The ability of media operating in vertical by horizontal sales agreement with Intel; a bottleneck monopoly, to misappropriate the sales revenues of one PC company for redirecting those revenues to another PC Company is an espionage. Under commercial code in similar situations we know it’s a racket. This commercial fraud sales loop hole needs to be closed permanently; including by augments to RICO and antitrust law.

“The megatronic system or power is the source of our troubles. Rampant technology results from the decisions of anonymous technocrats - scientists, engineers, attorneys, corporation and publishing and advertising executives. They compose the ‘system’ which attempts to gain complete power and to extend its authority into all areas of human life. We must resort to cultural inventions to rid ourselves of their system”.

Lewis Mumford, Sociologist,
The Technique of Total Control, 1970

By 1995 continuing through this decade in combination with Intel and primary OEMs, media would be instrumental in the use of system’s structures to deposition the marginal utility value of substitute products and platform replacement’s, while agreeing to fix Intel PC platform pricing by CPU, core logic and platform class in cooperation with some Intel Dealers.

PC World and other’s participated in, while Ziff Davis lead many of these Intel programs. Including too actively shift manufacturer share, and revenues, to specific Intel Combination OEMs who are media’s major advertisers; insuring media’s own revenue gains. Racketeering, Section 1 vertical by horizontal combination and Section 2 intent to monopolize are noted.

Recognizing the sole hold out Byte Magazine, who like all dissenters is blacklisted and put out of business by Intel Network.
In this closed distribution system, Ziff Davis and media communications in general, through various environmental interactions persuaded industry, often through extortion, to adopt too mob practices and controls. Alternate x86 senior executives could have averted this situation on at least three occasions in the 1992 through 1993 timeframe. Intel and media executives, on the other hand, could have prevented it from happening all together. This is Intel Networks foremost crime.

Guiding levels of dialogue on technology concern:

From Technology and Change Boyd & Fraser 1979
Courses by Newspaper - National Endowment for the Humanities

1) Immediate or urgent problems such as unchecked technological advance related to our physical environment; quality of air and water, endangerment of species, climatic changes.

The exploitation of consumers, hazardous working conditions, the use and misuse of computers, nuclear reactors and radioactive waste.

2) Tracking down the sources of immediate and urgent problems which are spawned by technological advance.

To determine responsibility or to pinpoint deficiencies in the structure of the economy, political, legal or societal institutions or customs, which permitted the problems to arise in the first place.

3) Philosophical and ethical considerations having to do with the very nature of technology and what effects its development on human beings.

FTC Docket 9288 and 9341 touch all three areas concerning technology change considering anticipated implementation of Intel Network environment and democracies remedies.

On domestic microprocessor, other semiconductor and computing platform management –

Coming events cast their shadows in the present. As we study those shadows through 18 years of Intel Network monopolization it is possible to observe the forces and trends shaping the future of microprocessor, semiconductor and compute platforms development. Force’s that affect the stability of industry and nations and will continue to shape management styles of technical concerns into the ensuing decade.

Where executive prerequisite of legitimate governance and corporate fiduciary responsibility over network system’s and practices has never been as great. A management responsibility for insuring open innovation across industries based on organically sustainable growth models.
Responsibility that supports the scope of participant’s for industry stability, profitable expansion over sales concentration, for organizational excellence, customer and stockholder value from these firms offering the potential for technical excellence into a new millennium. Leadership best practices based on a return to democratic principles, democratic rights supporting the freedom of any individual to invent, enable, produce, and market free from criminal effect.

The microprocessor, segment, platform, channel or partner manager of the future has and will continue to encounter accelerating growth in the size and complexity of organizational systems, technical coalitions and camps. Whether emancipated members of the former Intel Power Complex, traditional competitors set free, among channel’s including media, for a re-emergence of independent inventors and platform design and manufacturing clusters.

Where technical development and marketing has been moving away from the formal authoritarian and hierarchical management style’s of a monopoly computing concern. Mired in industrial and channel dogma, bound to their x86 surplus racket, where vertical by horizontal ties among Intel PC and Media Dealers were disguised as legitimate value streams for a very long time. Where corporate gangs have demonstrated control over certain development, industry production and end markets for their own aim and that of their channel puppet masters. Debilitating to every Nation calculated on the costs to society from Intel Dealership. With antitrust and RICO multipliers = $432,000,000,000.

As industry transforms one would hope movement away from this frightening trend, reversed and redirected toward more informal, equitable and fluid ways of bargaining, brokerage, advice and consent, service to customers, stockholders and employees. Service based on a return to management best practice and principle given a renewed emphasis on equitable values. Industry values free from integrative mob attitude forced onto others. The application of intellectual property rights of owners, freedom to develop and compete independently including in cluster, fair bargaining, corporate and government support of these rights including antitrust law, the practice of management ethics and employee rights. Too reverse all harms and recover from an era where lack of ethics has lead to lacking management if management at all.

“As soon as the problem of freedom as opposed to laissez-faire - is seen to consist in the creation of free zones within the planned structure, the whole question becomes more detailed. Instead of the unified and abstract conception, concrete issues arise. The various historical interpretations of freedom, freedom of movement, freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom from caprice and tolerance are all special obligations which must be met by the new society.

Karl Mannheim,
Freedom Under Planning, 1941

Evidence of the increasing complexity of organization is observable in the growth and influence of the Intel Power Complex, the formation of transnational camps, investment and bank holding companies, distribution cartels including corporations in combination with media to manipulate industry, consumers and government.

Where corruption in and around Intel forced corruption onto other’s as a method to compete. Among corporate entities who dominate much of the global production and growing at such a rate to eclipse the potential of new entrants. Entities no less than individuals, whom exert great influence on the world’s affairs and have grown in economic size beyond all but the wealthiest Nation’s, and have demonstrated an eclipse in the power of democratic government, justice and law.

Catalysts for economic and social upheaval that has and can continue to rival the impact of any prior revolution. Delivering opportunities for industry, management and system reforms that can in fact be revolutionary. For technical governance institutions to demonstrate that semiconductor, and compute platform companies, are once again in control of their valley’s namesake and all around the world.

Where their network marketing, distribution, HR, sales and communication princes and princesses are as obsolete as their racket’s and practices. Industry and society at a critical juncture where action regulation can support reform sending a signal of emancipation, or where no action signals business as usual under environmental mob controls.

The environmental factors and forces at work, such as changing human and management values, along with rapid technological advances, the growing size and complexity of organizational patterns have blurred the traditional lines of morality, what are in the best values of the corporation and for stockholders, what is in the best interest of the private and public sectors. And have changed the very foundation of management itself. Where the application of intellectual activity and service too mankind has degraded under the Intel x86 microprocessor and intra platform monopoly status quo.

“Once technology risks have been assigned, the safeguards evaluated, the costs calculated, one is then prepared to worry about distribution. Who will enjoy how much of the benefit? Who will bear the burden on the uncertainty or the price tag of the costs? Here is where normal politics - pressure groups, social and economic power, private and public interests, bargaining and so forth - enters.

We expect that those most aware, best supplied, and most active will manage to steer a larger proportion of the advantages of technological productivity their way while avoiding most of the disadvantages. But for those who have raised technology as a political problem under this conception, reforms are needed in the distribution process. Even persons who have no quarrel with the inequities of wealth and privilege in a liberal society now step forth with the most trenchant criticisms of the ways in which technological “impacts” are distributed through the social system. A certain radicalism is smuggled in through the back door. The humble ideal of those who see things in this light is that risks and costs from a particular innovation should be able to account for the consequences beforehand. They should also shoulder the major brunt of the costs of undesirable side effects. This in turn should eliminate some of the problems of gross irresponsibility in technological innovations and application in previous times.

Since equalization and responsibility are to be induced through a new set of laws, regulations, penalties and encouragement's, the attention of this approach also aims at a better understanding of the facts of practical political decision making.

Obviously the ‘implementing’ systems have a great deal to do with the eventual outcome. My question is, however, in what technological context do such systems themselves operate and what imperatives do they feel obliged to obey?”

Langdon Winner, Political Scientist
Technology as Legislation - Autonomous Technology, 1977

The future executives of microprocessor, semiconductor and platform enablers must gravitate toward the concept that they are responsible for their activities, people in general, the advancement of industry, customer, stockholder and employee values, to do away with criminal activity, expecting a renewed focus on institutional governance over their business affairs to maintain justice, law, civil rights, democracy and democratic capitalism.

A technical environment regulated for supporting independent contribution, invention, development, manufacture, law abiding marketing, sales and communications. Supporting constituent and consumer freedom of choice; where you don’t have to cheat to compete, made possible through adherence and maintenance of liberty by legitimate institutional governance which must become a real Intel value.

No business or governmental organization, whatever its formal relationship, will be able to escape these industry, customer, stockholder, social, public and citizen responsibilities. All levels of management will be faced with the major responsibility of merging human values with the potential from technological advance to preserve human capital, the creation of goods and services for improved lifestyles, in the interest of everyone, where economic potentials based on democratic principles sustain liberty.

Today’s professional managers must modify their managerial styles and methods in manning the transition toward the era of public managers who are both economically and socially oriented. Operating in the best interest of their customers, employees, society and operating in the service of stockholders free from mob effect.

Managers can develop from a hired man status for private corporation shareholders into business institutional leaders who will manage the enterprise for the best balanced interests of society, to preserve and maintain the private enterprise system, individual participation, industry sustainable growth models, for technical invention and enablement. These concepts are essential for technology growth and management into the future.

“We still think and talk of the basic problems of an industrial society as problems that can be solved by changing the ‘system’, that is the superstructure of political organization. Yet the real problems lie within the enterprise.

It is not the solution of the problems of the ‘system’ that will set the structure of the enterprise. On the contrary, it is the solution of the problems of the enterprise that will shape the system under which we shall live” - Peter Drucker

In Conclusion –

The ramification of U.S. v Intel; FTC Docket 9288 and 9341 cross all levels of technology concern reflecting on the path and impact of technology, its use and misuse in human society. Noteworthy these Section 5 actions identify substantial economic and per se violations of law and pass all judicial filter’s prompting immediate movement to hearing including criminal proceedings.

For FTC Intel settlement step, no doubt under cartel amnesty of some sort, Intel chief executives owe each of us, all society, a complete, honest and rationale explanation of what has happened their from their vantage. A civil necessity for our understanding how to recognize and remedy competition espionage occurring in the workplace in real time, and not over 18 years time.

Lacking this citizen requirement and to do otherwise over the next decade provides an open invitation for organized crime use of system mechanic’s to rig the internet, command quantum improvements in semiconductors, computing, nano electro mechanical and molecular, chemical, genetic and bio technologic resources.

The social, economic and political degeneration associated with the growth of the Intel Power Complex was known and implications understood prior to 1979, subsequent growth and control over government by the Intel Business System.

Technocrats, media, academia and analysts used this prior understanding to craft system’s structures deployed by a constituent monopoly, and specifically the media, to manipulate and deceive our society. Too persuade us differently. Too hide this truth.

The painting of an illusion to defuse what in fact sociologists, historians, economists, political scientists and some members of the technical elite already knew was occurring; that organized network crime can significantly damage society. Research, write and publish. "

More on Intel Corp. Fraud, Corruption, Anti-Trust Violations, Sherman Act Violations ..

Posted Here by
Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox