We can define market monopoly by market application segments of computing: desktop computers, mobile devices (smartphones, tablets), servers, embedded systems,

We can define market monopoly by market application segments of computing: desktop computers, mobile devices (smartphones, tablets), servers, embedded systems, IoT devices, etc. It's pretty clear that Intel holds nearly total monopoly in desktop and server segments. I can imagine that this monopoly is close to being natural[1] (thus, legitimate and legal), one should be proved wrong to state otherwise. But I can't accept that an expensive, critically important, high-tech product turned out to be massively flawed, but the company (especially the monopolist) behind it not only doesn't bear responsibility, but generally denies the existence of the technical flaw ("it's not a bug, but a feature"). Moreover, it's still unclear whether this bug will be fixed at all[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly [2] https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/22/linus-torvalds-declares-intel-fix-for-meltdown-spectre-complete-and-utter-garbage/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/22/linus-torvalds-declares-in...