Sure, saying there are ulterior motives to this story is a conspiracy theory. Without, say, video evidence of the author getting handed a bag of money by Bob Swan you're free to dismissively label it as such.

Without more information we're left with:

- Everything in the WSJ article was known years ago.

- AMD is a week away from likely taking the x86 performance crown from Intel in nearly every metric.

- The last time this happened, Intel engaged in outright illegal non-competitive behavior to preserve market share.

>It's like what Lenin said... you look for the person who will benefit, and, uh, uh... You know what I'm trying to say...

> The fact that companies who are competitors can compete fiercely doesn't prove anything.

The linked Wikipedia shows that Intel was convicted and fined for illegal anticompetitive measures against AMD. They were fined 1.25 billion dollars, a non-trivial sum. It is a factual statement that Intel has historically attempted to suppress AMD products through measures beyond competing on features alone.

While this does not prove the original accusation, it is supporting evidence, and makes the statement more plausible.

So basically: fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Learn your lesson, it's a conspiracy theory.

Also, calling it "fierce competition" is a mischaracterization of their actions. They have been fined by countries for these practices, and have done what they could to keep the evidence from public view. Intel deserves the suspicion they get.