The Federal Trade Commission filed a federal antitrust lawsuit against Intel Corporation. The suit, which accuses Intel of violating Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, comes on the heels of a separate antitrust lawsuit filed against Intel last month by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo.

Technology analysts at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based public interest group, questioned whether the FTC’s action is actually about protecting consumer welfare.

“This lawsuit may succeed at grabbing headlines, but it won’t benefit consumers one bit,” declared Ryan Radia, Associate Director of Technology Studies. “There is not one iota of evidence that Intel’s maligned actions have actually harmed consumers or delayed processor innovation. In reality, computer chips have gotten faster, cheaper, and more efficient every year for several decades. This baseless intervention in the marketplace will only delay further innovation in the microprocessor market.”

“The Commission mistakenly equates Intel’s market share with market power. In fact, Intel has managed to sustain its market share over time only because it has continued to innovate aggressively and compete with archrival AMD to bring better processors to the market. This dynamic state of affairs has benefited consumers immensely. Spending millions of taxpayer dollars intervening in a well-functioning market is an enormous waste,” Radia observed.

“The FTC suit is just the latest illustration of how antitrust laws are often hijacked by regulators and used to promote a government industrial policy. Struggling competitors turn to Washington or Brussels to get ahead, and regulators are all too willing to get involved in the name of ‘consumer welfare,’” Radia stated.

“Intel’s allegedly illegal business practices are properly viewed as legitimate, pro-consumer business practices in the vibrant market setting we see today,” said Wayne Crews, Vice President for Policy. “Intel is disciplined not only by aggressive competitors but by downstream business customers like Dell and HP, impatient capital markets and consumers. Ironically, the primary barrier to computer makers ganging up against Intel, should they truly need to, is antitrust law itself.”

“Abusive monopoly power is supposed to result in a reduction of quantity and an increase in prices,” said Crews. “Yet the opposite phenomenon has occurred in the processor marketplace. In the dynamic high tech sector, firms can sustain market share only through perpetual innovation. The sad fact is antitrust laws steer markets in unnatural directions, thwarting the evolution of commerce and creating instabilities in entire sectors.”