I think most people would agree competition in general is beneficial to an economy based on free-market. But we at the same time learned long ago that certain things could not be left to the market itself. Corporations are never a friend of a free market. Given chance, they will do everything they can to be rid of competitions. (Disclaimer: I run a small business myself) It's not a coincidence in history you'd find a few giant conglomerates that parasites under a military dictatorship.
Even in a modern, developed free-market we still often run into dilemma. In the case of Intel suits we often hear things like exclusives, incentives, co-marketing, rebates, etc. One would think they are perfectly legitimate practices and s/he might be right in a perfect world. But things don't exist in vacuum, and even if we discount the monopoly status (and the market power that naturally comes with it), there still are issues that arise from the "totality of circumstances".
"Rebates" may not sound bad. But most would not think highly of "Bribery". When does rebates become bribes? Where do you draw the line?
"Incentives" are almost a necessity for progress, yet not many would like to be "coerced" under false pretense of "choice". And many would agree that a choice under coercion isn't really a choice at all.
"Co-marketing" does sound great, but most would be upset if they were duped by, say, price-fixing. After all, consumers are the one who ultimately pay for such corruptive practices.
So at the end it all comes down to balancing. Some make it sound to be an easy matter, but I'm afraid not. Unless one's an extremist, s/he has no choice but to see the line drawing problem - between rebates and bribes, incentives and cocercion, cooperation and corruption, etc. And that's just a small part of what this suit is about.