Antitrust law is famous for enabling the government to chase after pyrrhic victories in the name of benefiting consumers. Competitors will cheer, of course, because they get to see the big guy hammered in a way that might benefit them competitively and that costs them nothing.<p>In the microprocessor field, during the years between 2000 and 2006 (when Intel's alleged monopolistic practices supposedly hurt consumers), the quality and performance of microprocessors improved significantly while prices fell at an annual rate of 48.9%. So we have anti-competitive behavior that, far from raising costs, has lowered them in a huge way - yet, and this is key for antitrust purposes, at no time has Intel sold below cost (which places it squarely within two decades of Supreme Court precedent consistently rejecting antitrust challenges to above-cost price cuts).<p>In this context, the FTC seeks a remedy "[r]equiring Intel to make available technology . . . to others, via licensing or other means, upon terms and conditions as the Commission may order."<p>Now <i>that</i> will certainly spur companies to spend hundreds of millions in fields such as this to innovate.<p>Will this hurt Silicon Valley? Draw your own conclusions. The cheering competitors will say no. My guess is that just about everyone else (at least those who are informed about the issues) will seriously question whether having regulators throwing their weight around helps innovation or the consumers that benefit from such innovation. But at least we can all feel satisfied that the bully is getting its comeuppance.