Your first inference is an inference too far.
And I certainly think that the benchmark organizations should have made clear that they were using Intel authored compilers and run-time libraries to exercise all the processors in their tests.
It would then have begged the question about what influence the compiler might have.
But I dont think it is wrong of a company to prepare a set of products that work well together and that don't necessarily work well with third-parties' products. Nor do I feel they are obliged to tell all about it.
Obviously Intel's market dominance makes them a special case but i feel hardware and software issues, where others are free to do their own engineering, are different cases to tied selling, and sales and marketing incentives not to buy a competitors' products.
After all Intel could have prepared a compiler and runtime libraries that simply stalled when confronted by a non-Intel x86. One could argue that Intel was doing others a favor by allowing software to run at all.
When using specific software for benchmark to demonstrate the processor performance, it would be unfair, dishonest, and misleading to customer/consumer, to say the least, if the benchmark is performed by using one processor vendor compiler to compile the software and runs on competitor processor, especially not disclosing. Sham on the benchmark company and it lost all its credibility.
It would have been fair had the benchmark been performed when same benchmark software are compiled using processor vendor own compiler on its own processor, or that from other neutral compiler vendors, such as gcc, Microsoft vc, etc. or using existing popular applications.
It seems we could infer that Peter would also believe that security rating agencies should rate securities proportional to the fee Financial Institution offer to the rating agencies, which is THE reason of current economy meltdown. The victims of anti-competition behavior in any industry are not faceless just as those victims of the worst recession since great depression.
It is a ridiculous and spurring attempt by government to limit the power and intellectual property of a legitimate competitor in the the worldwide marketplace. What governments seems to forget is Intel is a "publicly" traded company that is owned by both large and small investors worldwide and that these attempts to rein the company in for the "greater good" just serve to reduce the stock price and make the public poorer. If the EU and US want control of the company-buy 51%- and play nice if they like. At least then, we can all be richer for it.