Intel needs to crush the Federal Trade Commission.
A legal victory won’t suffice. Intel can surely obtain that result, but only after six or seven years of litigation in a system that is rigged to favor the FTC. But by that time, nobody will care about the legal result.And while it’s perhaps impolite to say this in libertarian circles, Intel has a moral duty to crush the FTC. The Commission is attacking all of us, not just one company. The FTC wants to run our lives. I’ve documented this time and again in this space. They won’t stop until every industry is subject to their arbitrary whims. Congress and the courts have abandoned any pretense of oversight. The Beltway libertarians – yes, I mean the Cato Institute – have demonstrated nothing but cowardice and compliance in the face of increasing FTC aggression. Intel is now the last, best hope for stopping the FTC once and for all.
So what’s the battle plan? First and foremost, Intel needs to divert serious resources into “opposition research.” They need to document every FTC abuse of power, not just in their case but for every case dating back at least a decade. They need to find every small business owner whose livelihood was destroyed by mid-level FTC bureaucrats and put them before the cameras. They need to show every conflict of interest, every revolving door, every bribe, and every act of misconduct that’s gone unpunished by the current regime. I’ve spent almost a decade tracking this stuff, and while my collection is substantial, it doesn’t contain 5% of the total that’s out there.
Second, Intel needs to take the battle outside the Beltway. You can’t win playing on the enemy’s home field. The FTC’s abuses must be exposed to every small town newspaper, blog, Twitterer, etc. Ignore the establishment press; they can’t – and won’t – help you. There needs to be a concerted, 24/7 effort to keep the FTC on the defensive in the public’s eye. The FTC wins its battles by controlling the message. Take away that advantage and they’re left with nothing.
Third, Intel needs to identify and support the right allies. Again, this means staying outside the Beltway. The think tanks are useless. The Tea Party movement showed us there’s still genuine grassroots opposition to state tyranny. We need new groups and new methods to fight an old enemy.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Intel management must make it clear that they are in charge – not their attorneys. This isn’t to knock the work attorneys do in such cases. Intel’s general counsel, Douglas Melamed, did a commendable job when he represented Rambus in its victory over the FTC. But far too often, lawyers dominate the decision-making to the point where companies cut themselves off from the public completely. Lawyering must be a part of Intel’s strategy, not the entire strategy.
With the right strategy and leadership, Intel can do more than defeat the FTC’s challenge; it can permanently discredit the FTC to the point where the establishment must cut ties in order to save their own backsides. There is no substitute here for total victory.
{ 25 comments }
Who are you?
“Who are you?”
A nut who couldn’t build a barbecue.
Any other questions?
Pat McCook, try clicking on Mr. Oliva’s name at the top of the article. It leads to his web site, which has a “Curriculum Vitae” link.
http://www.skipoliva.com/
“The Beltway libertarians – yes, I mean the Cato Institute – have demonstrated nothing but cowardice and compliance in the face of increasing FTC aggression. Intel is now the last, best hope for stopping the FTC once and for all.”
Oh dear, we are back to this
I really don’t see why we should be rooting for Intel here, they’ve practically been granted a monopoly through the x86 patent and it’s only to be expected, that the government try to haphazardly clean up the mess it created.
“I really don’t see why we should be rooting for Intel here, they’ve practically been granted a monopoly through the x86 patent and it’s only to be expected, that the government try to haphazardly clean up the mess it created.”
What a bunch of horses–t. This isn’t about patents. It’s about a group of criminals that systematically violate the liberty and property of innocent people. Intel is in a position to destroy these bastards once and for all.
There are thousands of innocent people — who had nothing to do with any patents — who were targeted by the FTC and lacked the resources to fight back. Intel has the resources. If they fight, I’m backing them 100%.
If you want to hide behind the mantra of opposing patents, be my guest. But don’t think for one second that you’re being principled or heroic. You’re just an enabler for criminals.
Agreed, Manuel.
“..x86 patent and it’s only to be expected, that the government try to haphazardly clean up the mess it created.”
Yes, the competition in the CPU industry is practically non-existant, and that is a major contributor. There effectively are two CPU architectures that dominate the industry and both are wrapped up in patents (or pending patents).
Now, I think Intel has the moral high(er) ground here, and it would be nice if one of the state’s creations managed to bite in in the proverbial behind. However, that doesn’t change the fact that Intel is a mockery of true free enterprise, backed as it is by the guns of the state.
As an anti-patent radical, I agree that this case really isn’t about patents. If the state wanted to get rid of a patent monopoly, there is an easy solution: get rid of the patent. This is really about punishing a company for competing and doing what it is supposed to do.
I believe your are way off track here. Intel will drag it on for 5-10 years, until the object of the process is rendered moot by the technological evolution. Pretty much like IBM and Microsoft before, these trials are a blessing for lawyers and expert witnesses (mainly economists) and nobody (besides Intel shareholders) has any interest to finish them too soon, i.e. before it becomes obvious for absolutely everybody that the whole thing is only meant to generate employment of phds.
This case has everything to do with patents. The only way a company can achieve an anticompetitive monopoly (or whatever terminology the state uses) is with the help of patent laws and other legal monopoly-granting schemes.
But personally, I’d rather have patent laws and no FTC than an FTC with now patent laws, so again, it would be nice if Intel could “crush” the FTC (ha!).
(that should be “with no patent laws.”)
Priorities people, priorities.
Let us compare the two entities shall we. Intel actually produces a product which enriches all of our lives in absolutely immeasurable ways.
On the other hand, the FTC has proven itself to be an absolutely useless and parasitic arm of the leviathan. It produces nothing, and worse yet it systematically works to bring more and more of the market under its grip and arbitrary whim. We all suffer from this.
So yes, intel has state-backed patents. Yes it has used them to stifle competitors. But let us ask ourselves this question: which outcome will do more for competition. The complete overthrow of the FTC and all the stupid little policies it attempts to impose; or allowing them to win this fight insofar as they are legitimately recognized as being able to attempt to do what they are doing.
Not that I believe Intel has the balls to even consider doing this. It will probably be just fine with this outcome, if they believe it will shield them from future competitors.
Any patent on the x86 is irrelevant.
I am typing this on a PowerPC G4, running Mac OS X 4.11, and I also run an iPod Touch with whatever processor it has (it is not an x86). That device can do most anything an x86 can do, albeit more slowly. It is more powerful and has more storage than the Sony Pentium laptop with Windows 2000 I bought in Sept. 2000.
True, both Windows and Mac OS X now primarily run on x86 processors. Yet both will run on x64 processors, which is a new architecture (and no doubt patented as well).
There has been plenty of opportunity for customers to choose other processors over the years. HP created a whole new architecture, Itanium, which failed to find a substantial market. Windows NT was originally implemented on three processors: x86, PowerPC and MIPS. Only x86 of those three remain, due to customer demand (or lack of same).
As far as I know, Intel is guilty of only one thing: using the freedom of contract to create relationships with its customers. Don’t we all wish for the same freedom? Don’t we want to sell our products and services in the manner we choose?
Intel >>>>>>>> FTC insofar as moral high ground is concerned. The FTC is disgusting and deserves NO support whatsoever, whether or not Intel was aided by government.
I agree. The FTC is useless … and they aren’t doing anything to undo the damage caused by patents anyhow. I for one would just love to see half the companies in the fortune 500 gang up on them. It would be in everyone’s best interest excluding the FTC and lawyers.
With all the companies, I can’t believe an effective counter attack can’t be launched.
It is a mess to attempt to disentangle the patent / monopoly protection from the persecution of the state’s agents.
Ultimately, you benefit from the state’s protection, and if you benefit enough from it, you’ll find yourself suffering its wrath.
Without doing any research, my first guess would be that Intel hasn’t spent a lot of lobbying money in the DC stink hole. Microsoft didn’t either, until they were attacked by the antitrust machine. Now they have a huge lobbying presence.
Benefit from government, and eventually you’ll find that you have to benefit government in turn.
Manuel Barkhau: “I really don’t see why we should be rooting for Intel here, they’ve practically been granted a monopoly through the x86 patent and it’s only to be expected, that the government try to haphazardly clean up the mess it created.”
Manuel, I’d be curious if you could provide the patent number for “the x86 patent”. And, while you’re at it, the patent number for those 200 mpg carburators that “Big Oil” allegedly “buys” and “covers up.”
The U.S. Pat. No would be a 7-digit number. I find about 18,000 of them issued to Intel (a bunch of them are even mine); which one is “the x86 patent”?
Sadly the majority of tech-oriented places seem to be cheering the FTC in this “Brave Deed.” I doubt you’ll find many supporters in Intel’s camp outside of the anarchist/libertarian crowd, but that’s the status quo for all persecution I’m afraid.
Legal monopolies don’t always translate into an economic monopolies. There’s a difference.
Interesting concept, but Intel won’t do any such thing. The corporate world has adjusted itself to doing business this way with the gov’t. It is all theatre.
Big business loves Big Gov’t.
Though, in the long run, this interventionism will undoubtedly kill entrepreneurship, before the end is in view, the individual entrepreneur simply makes the required adjustments to more and more state interventionism. Hence, the road to serfdom…
Intel has no allies, nevermind the right ones. Twisting arms and engaging in anti-competitive behavior tends to not make a lot of friends.
Stephen “anti IP” Kinsella is a patent attorney ? !!!
@ unbelievable
“Stephen “anti IP” Kinsella is a patent attorney ? !!!”
You didn’t know that? The issue is cherry-picked by Mises.org. First of all Stephan, Mises fellow, is more knowledgeable about patent law than anyone. The opposition (http://www.ipwatchdog.com/about/gene/) are dunces. The appeal is free music for the youth. And if we can show that “freedom works”, the public just might try it in other facets of society.
So, the reality could be less unbelievable as it appears on the surface.
By the way, what’s your strategy for repealing some of the leviathan? Ride this freedom train, at least some of the way. Get cheap music, medicine, get cheap everything and force “do-nothing” patent attorneys like Stephan to allocate their human capital more efficiently.
Comments on this entry are closed.