Editing Intel (section)

===Challenges to dominance (2000s)===
As Intel exited other markets, the company depended so much on the 80386 and its successors that a marketing employee said that "there's only one product, and Andy Grove's the product manager".<ref name="inteloh20081202">{{Cite interview |last=Crawford |first=John |interviewer=Jim Jarrett |title=Intel 386 Microprocessor Design and Development Oral History Panel |last2=Hill |first2=Gene |last3=Leukhardt |first3=Jill |last4=Prak |first4=Jan Willem |last5=Slager |first5=Jim |url=https://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2015/06/102702019-05-01-acc.pdf |access-date=2025-05-15 |publisher=Computer History Museum |place=Mountain View, California |language=en-US}}</ref> After 2000, growth in demand for high-end microprocessors slowed. Competitors, most notably [[AMD]] (Intel's largest competitor in its primary [[x86]] architecture market), garnered significant market share, initially in low-end and mid-range processors but ultimately across the product range. Intel's dominant position in its core market was greatly reduced,<ref name="Wong">{{Cite news|url=https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/20060731/btintelchip31/intel-core-2-duo-a-big-leap-in-chip-race|title=Intel Core 2 Duo a big leap in chip race|last=Wong|first=Nicole|date=July 31, 2006|work=[[The Seattle Times]]|access-date=October 15, 2009|archive-date=December 5, 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111205030002/http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20060731&slug=btintelchip31|url-status=live}}</ref> mostly due to the controversial [[NetBurst]] microarchitecture. In the early 2000s, then-CEO, [[Craig Barrett (businessman)|Craig Barrett]] attempted to diversify the company's business beyond semiconductors, but few of these activities were ultimately successful.

====Litigation====
Intel was embroiled in litigation for several years. U.S. law did not initially recognize [[intellectual property rights]] related to microprocessor [[topology (electrical circuits)|topology]] (circuit layouts), until the [[Semiconductor Chip Protection Act of 1984]], a law sought by Intel and the [[Semiconductor Industry Association]] (SIA).<ref>The Senate Report on the bill (S.Rep. No. 425, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. (1984)) stated: "In the semiconductor industry, innovation is indispensable; research breakthroughs are essential to the life and health of the industry. However, research and innovation in the design of semiconductor chips are threatened by the inadequacies of existing legal protection against piracy and unauthorized copying. This problem, which is so critical to this essential sector of the American economy, is addressed by the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act of 1984. ...[The bill] would prohibit "chip piracy"—the unauthorized copying and distribution of semiconductor chip products copied from the original creators of such works." Quoted in [http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/977/1555/304802/ ''Brooktree Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.''] {{Webarchive|url=http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160516134515/http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/977/1555/304802/ |date=May 16, 2016 }}, 977 F.2d 1555, 17 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also ''Brooktree'', 21–22 (copyright and patent law ineffective).</ref> During the late 1980s and 1990s (after this law was passed), Intel also sued companies that tried to develop competitor chips to the [[Intel 80386|80386]] [[CPU]].<ref name="ReferenceA">"Bill Gates Speaks", page 29. {{ISBN|978-0-471-40169-8}}</ref> The [[lawsuit]]s were noted to significantly burden the competition with legal bills, even if Intel lost the suits.<ref name="ReferenceA" /> [[Antitrust]] allegations had been simmering since the early 1990s and had been the cause of one lawsuit against Intel in 1991. In 2004 and 2005, AMD [[Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.|brought further claims against Intel]] related to [[unfair competition]].