I agree with aspects of this take. In my original post I think that "should" is a strong word. Realistically companies only have an obligation to make themselv

I agree with aspects of this take. In my original post I think that "should" is a strong word. Realistically companies only have an obligation to make themselves profitable so really companies "should" only strive for profitability within the boundaries of the law above all else. AMD have no obligation to drive an open standard, it's at their discretion to choose that approach - and it might actually come at the cost of profitability as it opens them up to competitors. In this case - I believe that hardware & platform software companies that distribute a closed platform which cannot be genuinely justified as anything other than intending to prevent consumers from using competitor products "should" be moderated by regulator intervention as it results in a slower rate of innovation and poor outcomes for consumers. That said, dreaming for the regulation of American tech giants is a pipe dream, haha.