And what exactly is wrong with this behavior?
Points one and three seem to me a bit out of line on the EC's part. It is not uncommon for companies to negotiate with a single supplier for a part or set of parts in order to minimize their costs for inventory. This is actually a central premise to improving manufacturing efficiency through the consolidation of Bill of Materials (BOM) items into families of parts, and single-sourcing allows complete control of the supply chain to support Just In Time (JIT) inventory management. Such contracts are usually negotiated on both cost and Quality conformance: a substantial discount as well as a Service Level Agreement (SLA) for quantities and delivery schedules. This could be difficult to ding Intel with if they can demonstrate that this was done in collaboration with the customer.
Point three is similarly vague. Look at the airline industry: if Southwest or Ryan Air offer a discount fare, other airlines will match it even if they lose money in the deal. The deal is usually off-set with higher costs for other inventory items; ie, higher prices for other routes or on other parts ordered by the customer. Often this is incorporated into a blanket agreement under point one, again to simplify the inventory and provide a customer the ability to manage their margins over their entire product line rather than on an item by item basis.
On the other hand, point two is "fishy" at best. "Bribes" are supposed to be illegal, especially if they do not contribute to shareholder value in either company. On the other hand, it is not unusual for companies to offer financial "assistance" to customers, through grants, loans and "payment in kind' (PIK) trade to benefit both organizations. Boeing is big on leasing its aircraft for very reasonable rates to beat off Airbus in customers looking to make a large purchase, and it is tough to decide if the financial assistance is illegal, especially if shareholders of both companies benefit from the transaction.
Now, I'm not an Intel fan-boy, nor do I condone using monopolistic market position to pressure competitors out of business. However, so long as the company committing the "crime" does not use its influence to actually institute monopolistic behavior (ie, once a competitor is no longer able to address a market it raises prices and abbrogates contracts to unilateral advantage) and the competition retains an opportunity to re-enter the customer at a later time, I can't see this as inherently "evil".
Besides, blindly sticking your nose up another company's arse is a good way to fail spectacularly if they stumble - what happened to Intel lock-in customers with Itanium and the failure of Intel to address AMD's competitiveness over the past two years.
Oh, yes: a fart in the face certainly leave a lasting "air" around a stupid customer...