This is a legal matter. Kyle shouldn't take position "flaming" things up.
I'm not a lawyer , he's not a lawyer, so we are both unable to judge what is inside legal boundaries or outside of them.
He said that he counseled his lawers and they told him that this program is most likely illegal, BUT nVidia has also their own lawyers, who have surely advised the company about the legality of this matter. So, obviously the lawyers from one of the two sides are mistaken. And since Kyle isn't a judge in order to make statements on legal matters, these are issues that should be addressed at courts, and Kyle shouldn't "flaming" things for which the courts haven't reached a decision yet.
To go to court, you need to be damaged. Who were damaged? MSI, Gigabyte, ASUS. These are not US-based companies so they're protected by US anti-trust law. Instead of trying to fight it, they agreed to GPP's terms.
AMD is not the wounded party, at least not directly. They can't file suit until the effects of GPP definitively come back to them or a regulatory body like the FTC already rules that the terms of GPP are anti-trust material. Thing is, FTC doesn't investigate what they don't know about. Here's the timeline of what happened:
1) NVIDIA changed the terms of GPP.
2) AMD caught wind of this and communicated with their contacts trying to collect information about the language of the GPP because they could not obtain it directly from NVIDIA.
3) Kyle was one of the contacts and he started digging around. Because he wasn't directly affiliated with NVIDIA, the involved companies would talk off the record about GPP with him.
4) Kyle collated the information and ran it past his lawyers before publishing it knowing that his bridge to NVIDIA can be burned by going public with it.
5) The noise that Kyle's article generated caused other technology journalists to take a look at GPP to try to confirm/deny the claims. Most have responsed in concurrence.
6) The FTC started a probe into GPP. It often takes a year or more for the case to be brought forward.
7) Once the FTC rules GPP is anti-competitive, AMD will file suit against NVIDIA using the FTC ruling as leverage to get a settlement out of NVIDIA for damaging AMD's graphics card business.
Consumers and developers alike choose Windows. Name a specific anti-competitive practice Microsoft did the enforce their market dominance in the last two decades (e.g. buy out competitor, pay people to use their product over a competitors, etc.).
Who these companies want to do business with is entirely up to them; however, when a company decides to offer both products, NVIDIA can't pressure them to do anything where AMD is concerned and AMD can't pressure them to do anything where NVIDIA is concerned. That's anticompetitive.
From what i can remember though, is that until those chipsets were cut-off from the market, according to reviews, they had superior performance than their competitor's. And for myself ,
as a consumer that was what mattered the most
Performance didn't matter much after the FSB was moved entirely into the CPU.
Let's pretend that someone like NVIDIA wanted to make chipsets today. The only things they can do is modify USB2, USB3, SATA, PS/2, parallel ports, and maybe integrate audio. Thing is, all chipsets have the same PCIE budget exposed to it from the CPU. By adding more of these features, you reduce the lanes available to NVMe and AIBs. There's little in the way of differentiation between your product and what AMD/Intel offers. That's not because AMD/Intel wanted to shut NVIDIA out of the market; it's because the necessity for more bandwidth has lead to bringing everything closer to the CPU. Chipsets aren't a big money business anymore.
(*04:50min. of this video).
wrong
!!!- , MUST give a look at Jim(AdoredTV)'s 
outstanding