You also might suggest to Mr Bore-dom that instead of having an AMD orgasm in his pants, maybe he might want to read the WHOLE article, then he might have noticed this note at the bottom..... You know, the one with the Court Jesters cap next to it?



What?! Something about this article seems odd? Maybe you should read it again carefully, or double-check the date it was published...

FYI


I've PM'd Matt and requested to be removed as Moderator. I'm done with this bullshit, and this board.

FYI

When a person submits a TOS violation, it DOES NOT go to the Board Moderator, it goes directly to Matt. MODERATORS DO NOT SEE ANY TOS VIOLATION SUBMISSIONS. Just in case someone was under that mistaken impression.

And btw, if ANYONE has a problem, with a specific post being deleted, or the way the Moderation is being handled on this board, then again, take it up with Matt.

As I have CLEARLY POSTED in a link contained in this boards header.....

Message From IH Admin Matt On TOS Guidelines
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=1109442
If you have any problems with a post deletion, take it up with me. Everybody here can send me a private message via my profile. It crawls up my spine when people get into this deletion discussion on these boards. Nobody on this board deletes posts. I am the only one who does, so discuss with me.

That specific quote has now also been added, for those who didn't bother to read the link in the first place.

Dell servers most deliberated

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Research/?p=250
We just looked back at 6 months of IT Priorities data to see which vendors IT pros prefer and avoid for their dominant IT plans. In the server category, we found that Dell is by far the most preferred vendor as well as the most avoided among survey respondents listing server projects as a top priority.

Intel: Friend or foe?


Although AMD has painted Intel as a bully, execs who've dealt with company draw a more ambiguous picture.

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-5851249.html
Aggressive dealing is nothing new in the technology industry, but the Epson experience illustrates how Intel has elevated the practice to an art form. Unlike other companies known for clumsier tactics, industry veterans say the leading chipmaker has risen to the top of its business at least in part by making deals through a combination of incentives, assistance and hard-nosed negotiating.

Steve Tobak, a principal at Invisor Consulting who used to compete against Intel in the late 1990s while at Cyrix, describes Intel's business practices this way: "The stick is implied. They do it in a way that won't stick in court. But they also have a carrot. And it's a powerful and many-faceted carrot."

Those facets can include such tangible commodities as preferential chip allocation, marketing dollars and introductions to big customers--which can all easily translate into millions of dollars.

Hardware makers that take technological assistance from Intel, such as blueprints or royalty-free reference designs, are often predetermining their eventual adoption of its chips. But these plans also let them cut engineering budgets and the time required to come to market.

By contrast, the competition has never been quite as organized. Several years ago, sources say, Cyrix, AMD, Compaq Computer and IBM formed something called "The Sundance Consortium" to develop and promote a non-Intel PC platform and held secret meetings in Chicago. Disagreements ensued, and the coalition eventually fell apart.

Manipulation can also go both ways. A former Cyrix executive once said Ben Rosen, the longtime chairman of Compaq, used to call him every few months and ask him to sit in the lobby. The reason: Intel sales representatives were coming to visit, and Rosen wanted to make sure that they saw one of their competitors on site. In return, Compaq adopted Cyrix for a few computers.

"When you're in the process of putting together your PC lineup, you negotiate up until the last moment," one former high-ranking computer executive said. "It's not like no one pretends there isn't competition out there."

Reasons such as this make it difficult to prove long-standing patterns of unfair practices in many businesses. A central charge of AMD's lawsuit is that Intel uses a war chest of marketing dollars and rebates to edge out the competitor. But these kinds of incentives are used throughout the electronics industry--even by AMD.

Complicating AMD's claims further is the fact that computer makers and retailers love these funds. Intel generally offers four types of financial aid: volume discounts; Intel Inside funds for advertising; market development funds for promoting specific products, such as Centrino; and rebates, which, like volume discounts, are related to sales. Without these incentives, making money on PCs would be a harder proposition for many.

Unlike executives at Microsoft, whose trial proceedings sometimes had the feel of cathartic therapy for angry PC manufacturers, Intel's dealmakers "are more likeable in their approach," according to once source who worked with both companies.

Even some of Intel's adversaries refer to the company's sales representatives with a good-natured acronym--"FIGs," for fill-in-the-blank Intel guys.

Others, however, remain bitter even after obtaining multimillion-dollar settlements from the company.

Despite repeated denials by Intel, former Intergraph CEO Jim Meadlock insists that the chipmaker withheld technical information and products in trying to force his company to sign a patent cross-license.

"They destroyed our hardware business. We were on Windows NT and, at the time, there was no alternative," he said in a recent interview. "They put tremendous pressure on you. It was tough to get someone to testify against them."

Intel, TI Both Hampered By Macroeconomic Risk

http://www.forbes.com/markets/2005/09/07/intel-texas-instruments-earnings-0907markets01.html
Standard & Poor's Equity Research reiterated "hold" ratings on both Intel (nasdaq: INTC - news - people ) and Texas Instruments (nyse: TXN - news - people ) ahead of third-quarter updates set for after the market close Thursday.

With both companies, S&P Equity Research sees discounts in the respective stock valuations as "warranted."

For Intel, the research firm estimates third-quarter earnings of 36 cents per share on sequential sales growth of 7% to $9.9 billion, with gross margin at 60%. S&P Equity Research expects 2005 earnings of $1.47 per share, and sees 2006 earnings at $1.56.

Brazil seeks to establish semi industry

http://www.eet.com/news/semi/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=SEUN30MOBHK1UQSNDBESKHA?articleID=17070085...
MANHASSET, N.Y. — Brazilian authorities will announce Wednesday plans to establish a semiconductor industry in the state of Minas Gerais, where a technology park spanning 990 acres is being dedicated to semiconductor manufacturing and design.

Intel Capital Invests In Collabnet

CollabNet raises $9.5M
http://biz.yahoo.com/bizj/050906/1160258.html?.v=1
CollabNet said Tuesday it raised $9.5 million in venture funding.
The Brisbane software company said Benchmark, Industry Ventures, Intel, Norwest Venture Partners and WR Hambrecht gave money in the Series B1 round.


Collabnet Home Page
http://www.collab.net/
CollabNet is the leading provider of on demand distributed software development solutions. Our solutions help corporations leverage the true value of their software assets by bringing together development teams, regardless of geographic location.

Info On Intel Capital

Story Already Posted, but I thought the info on Intel Capital was interesting....

http://app.quotemedia.com/quotetools/popups/story.jsp

Intel Capital, Intel's venture investment program, focuses on making minority equity investments to grow the Internet economy in support of Intel's strategic interests. Intel Capital invests in hardware, software and services companies in several market segments, including computing, networking, and wireless communications. Intel Capital has invested more than US$4 billion in approximately 1,000 companies in more than 30 countries since 1991. Since its inception, about 160 portfolio companies have been acquired by other companies and another 150 have gone public on various exchanges around the world. Intel Capital employs investment managers in about 25 countries. Last year alone, Intel Capital invested more than US$130 million in about 110 deals with approximately 40 percent of its investments made outside the United States. For more information, visit www.intel.com/capital.

Intel takes stake in Grisoft in Czech deal

http://yahoo.reuters.com/financeQuoteCompanyNewsArticle.jhtml?duid=mtfh34445_2005-09-06_15-30-19_l06...
PRAGUE, Sept 6 (Reuters) - Intel Corp. (INTC.O: Quote, Profile, Research) and private equity firm Enterprise Investors have acquired a majority stake in Czech anti-virus software developer Grisoft for $52 million to help it expand and possibly go public, they said on Tuesday.

Intel EOLs 533MHz FSB Xeon CPUs

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/06/intel_eols_xeons/
Intel has formally announced the demise of the 533MHz frontside bus-supporting Xeon processor, company documents seen by The Register reveal.

With the Xeon DP line now already running an 800MHz frontside bus, marking the 533MHz version's cards comes as no surprise perhaps, but the decision to end-of-life the products is now official.

Intel Pledges 1,500 PCs, Wireless Access Points, Technical Support for Hurricane Katrina Disaster

http://app.quotemedia.com/quotetools/popups/story.jsp
Intel Corporation today announced it is coordinating the donation of 1,500 laptop personal computers to the American Red Cross for distribution to shelters in support of Hurricane Katrina disaster relief efforts. In addition, Intel will donate 150 wireless Internet access points and 50 Tropos mesh radios to be deployed at the New Orleans Airport and in downtown New Orleans for Federal Emergency Management Agency, New Orleans government and citizen use. Intel employees will provide on-site technical assistance to ensure the success of all technical deployments.

Intel's 65nm Pentium Extreme Edition to get '1066MHz FSB'

httpi://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/05/intel_pee_955/
Intel's dual-core Pentium Extreme Edition will gain support for the chip maker's 1066MHz frontside bus when it enters the 65nm era, if a company roadmap slide leaked onto the Web is to be believed.

The chip, apparently dubbed the Extreme Edition 955, is based on 'Presler, the upcoming 65nm dual-core Pentium D part. Like the standard desktop chip, the 955 will contain 2MB of L2 cache per core, and incorporate Intel's Virtualisation Technology, according to the slide, which was posted on Chinese-language site HKEPC.

Believe what you want but my record over the years speaks for itself .


Doesn't have anything at all to do with what "I believe". Your correct, I think people can review your postings, and come to a conclusion about your so called "unbias" for themselves. No need for any assistance, from anyone at all. But please, feel free to keep right on fooling yourself, if it makes you feel better.

you must have missed these posts then.


3 posts, huh? 1 in September, and 2 in August. Is that all you could find? Amazing, since during August/September timeframe, you made ~ 125 posts. So, shall I just go and review your last 50 posts, and compare the number that are critical of intel, to those that are critical of AMD, or praise AMD vs intel, and show how "unbiased" you are? It shouldn't be too hard to do.......

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/profile.asp?User=31316

Is he a practicing lawyer then ? Anyway if Intel wins good luck to them, I'm just pointing out how it looks to an unbiased third party so you can mentally prepare yourselves early for any unfavorable outcome .


Well, he sure seems to know a hell of allot more about legal issues, then I do, or apparently you do, for that matter. And his postings on legal matters in the past, that I didn't even have a clue about, clearly shows some sort of Legal Background, FAR beyond that of a "Retail Clothing Worker". Yeah, I think it's pretty clear that he knows legal all right. I mean, for anyone not wearing blinders, that is.

And btw, you're claiming to be an "Unbiased 3rd party"?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh man, that was a good one. Thanks, I needed that.

I noticed none of the Japanese OEMs denied which is the strongest part of the case.


Is that the best you can do? Ha, if you think Sony, or any of those other Japanese OEM's are going to destroy their relationship with intel, to support AMD, after 2 other OEM's have so far exposed AMD as B.S. artists, then you understand the Japanese mindset even less then I thought. Also, Duke has already pointed out that the japanese regulatory ruling, doesn't apply to US courts, if it did, AMD wouldn't have needed to submit a secondary lawsuit in japan. And if it's a legal opininion I'm looking for, I think I'll take his obvious expertise, over your "opinion"..... any day.

Secondly, I have a feeling that AMD is no longer interested in calling the CEO's of Acer, and Dixons to testify for them. Don't worry, intel will, as well as all those other OEM's you cite. And as soon as those 2 people testify that 2 specific claims in AMD's Lawsuit are LIES, I have a feeling that the Judge, or especially a Jury, won't have any trouble seeing the rest of AMD's "complaint" as the B.S. marketing ploy that it is.

Here, "Enlighten And Educate" Yourself

Dixons disses AMD claims
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2005/07/11/dixons_amd_intel/
Dixons is considering legal action in response to AMD's naming of the company in anti-trust filings made in the US.
But the UK's favourite retailer is not happy. In a statement released last week, Dixons described the allegations as "poorly-researched and false" and said it was driven by customer demands not rebates offered by manufacturers.


http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=13432&hed=Intel%3A+AMD+Suit+Is+Wrong
Intel added that computer maker Acers and retailer Dixons Group have refuted AMD’s antitrust claims.


http://news.com.com/Intel+answers+AMD+in+court/2100-7341_3-5845745.html
The complaint asserted that then-Intel CEO Craig Barrett said Acer would suffer "severe consequences" if the company participated in the launch of AMD's Athlon 64 chip, according to Acer founder Stan Shih. The answer said that Shih has refuted the assertions, stating that the conversation with Barrett only dealt with industry trends. The answer also noted that Acer continues to use AMD chips.

but hey I'm prepared to be enlightened and educated.....


No you're not. Clearly, you've already made up your mind, and nothing anybody will say here, is going to make any bit of difference at all. You've already "proved" that at least.

But just so you know, I already read of at least one instance where AMD claimed in their suit that intel strong armed a CEO executive, who has specifically debunked that claim, and said nothing of the sort happened.

Don't worry, I'll dig it up, just so you can be "educated".

Not working directly in the cpu industry.....
Of course Intel and its employees have a different outlook on this ......

Right, try and deflect the subject by suggesting that the only reason people support intel is because they're employees. When a person has nothing of value to add, then attack the other person instead. It's an old tactic mas, and very transparent.

So, I guess your answer to my question, as to whether you are willing to provide evidence, is No. Probably because all of your so called "knowledge", is from what you read on the web, and therefore, you personally don't have any proof at all, of what you're claiming. That's what I thought.

Conjures up a great visual


It's funny, these people like to brag how they "know" intel is doing these things, but when you put it to them if they're willing to come forward and prove their claims are not B.S., by actually testifying in open court, then all of a sudden, they seem to find any and every reason in the book, why that's not possible. INCLUDING Mike McGee.

I'm not surprised.

They only want fair payback for Intel screwing them out of OEM sockets for what, decades now ? Not too much to ask for is it and they will get it even if it's years down the line .


All AMD's problems are intel's fault...... Blah Blah Blah Blah, same ole same ole "story".

So mas, since you seem to be so sure of what you're saying, does that mean I have your permission to forward your posts also, along with Keith's and Dan's, to AMD's legal department, so that you can have the opportunity to back up your claims with your court testimony? Or is it like Kieth and Dan's claims, you just "know" it's true.

Just curious.

If he puts a winky.....


Oh, I don't know, I can usually tell when someone is just joking, and when they're masking hatred as fun. It didn't seem to me that mas was trying the latter option..... this time anyway

In any case, I knew when I posted the story, that someone would somehow try to twist it, and make it intel's fault and/or responsability, so unbeknownst to "them", I had several stronger replies already thought up. Actually, I expected "someone else" to do it, but in any case, I thought my comeback was rather clever, don't you think?

(btw, I still have some of those "other" replies readily available, just in case "anybody else" was wondering)

perhaps Intel should take turns paying for it considering it's their x86-64 of choice .


Sure, why not. After all, it's become standard lately among AMD fans, to expect intel to pay for AMD's F**K Ups.

Hasn't it

(Boy, you walked right into that one. Try not to make it so easy for me next time, OK?)

AMD's X86-64 site goes missing

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25921
AN AMD supported site that is where people port GNU/Linux to its X86-64 architecture appears to have suffered something of a SNAFU. The registration for the x86-64.org site, hosted by Network Solutions appears to have run out.
Someone forget something?


Looks to me like AMD was so busy bitching about intel that they neglected to pay attention to their own business. Hey, that's exactly what intel is saying.

[AMDroid Foil Hat Switched On]

Well, it's OBVIOUSLY intel's fault for forcing AMD to sue them, so that's why the registration ran out. No, No wait, I know. intel strong armed the web site and forced them into an expiration. No, No wait, I know, I know, intel is illegally paying rebates to the site, so that they won't carry their competitors web pages. Yeah, that's it, not AMD's own fault at all, it's those intel bastards "again". There, I feel better now. Shoot, for a second there, I though AMD was going to have to take responsability for their own F.U.

AMDroid Foil Hat Switched Off]

You, of course know, that this is a real issue. Not especially Dan or Keith, because they could easily be impeached by use of their own postings, but "experts" or others who are inherently prejudiced against Intel.


Oh yeah, it's a real issue all right. "Fight to the death" and all that. Sending that email to AMD, was just my way of trying to be "helpful", by giving Dan and Keith, the opportunity to back up their beloved company, by supplying proof of their claims, instead of just posting them on a stock message board. Wasn't that "nice" of me?



BTW, I spoke to someone who "knows", and told him, about the Droids speculation on SI and/or iHub, that intel might settle. He laughed at me, so I took that to mean that he doesn't agree.

Don't worry about a thing. Uh, just make sure to bring your toothbrush. :))


Could be, since I've already sent an email to AMD's legal department, pointing out Dan and Keith as potential witnesses, who, based on their posts, claim to "know" that AMD's charges are true, and alerting AMD that they can probably support AMD's claims. Perhaps AMD will now decide to secure a court order, that will compel iHub to reveal their identities, and then they can both be issued a sopena, so that they will then have the opportunity to directly assist AMD, with their testimony in court.

AMD's explanation is that we are poor and unsuccessful, therefore IT MUST be Intel's ILLEGAL acts. Intel makes a very good argument that shows the mistakes that AMD made, all by itself. If even close to believable, this provides an explanation that will destroy AMD's ability to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence or in some issues a higher burden, their explanation and therefore their case.


Duke, so, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused, and in the USA, the accused is innocent, until proven guilty, not the other way around. Did they change that? The only reason I ask, is that, the "They're Guilty, Unless They Can Prove Themselves Innocent", seems to be the position the Fanboys are taking towards the lawsuit, so I'm wondering if I missed that change in the law?

Intel has publicly committed to the merged Xeon / Itanium platform in 2007, and they need both Whitefield and Tukwila to get there.


Right, but my point was, which I probably did not explain suffciently, is that having issues with a design 1.5 years prior to release is nothing unusual, or unexpected, and so, CharlieD's charaterization of this as some sort of big "news" strikes me as sensationalism, at best. I guess I shouldn't be surprised at that, since after all, it is the Inq. Tell me something Alan, how many designs have you worked on, that worked as expected, 1.5 - 2 years prior to the scheduled introduction? For me, the count so far over my 25 year career, is zero.

BTW, the stuff I'm working on now, is also scheduled for 2007 introduction, and right now, it doesn't work exactly like I initially hoped it would...... either

Whitefield was always scheduled for end 2007.


Or maybe, a report that the chip is coming out in 2007 may even mean that it is EARLY, at least according to this.....


http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20040501121856.html
Intel's Chip for Servers Designed in India Will Come in 2008


Of course, as we all know..... ummmmmmm I mean, "You And I" know, that trying to project a cast in stone, release date for a chip, 2-3 years in the future, and/or try to claim that it is "Late" based on that projection, would mean that that person is probably living in some sort of "fantasy", anyway, eh?

I think you will find this an incorrect statement.
AMD, the day after AMD's law firm filed the complaint realized the lack of precedent of the Japanese rulings and have since filed a law suit in Japanese courts to turn the administrative findings into a real law suit, in order to try to patch up what I and perhaps they now view as defects in their complaint.


Now Now Duke, don't bother Mas with facts like that. We don't want to mess up Mas's Japanese Fantasy (cough), I mean, his "Expert Knowledge" (cough, cough), about the Japanese people and how their culture operates, now do we?

You misunderstand the Japanese case. Court precedings only follow if the initial ruling is not agreed to. As they said no further action will be taken. Nothing to do with saving face as is a popular fantasy on this thread.


No, I don't think so. Just for your information, I've worked directly, on-site, with 6 Japanese Engineers, from 2 different Japanese companies, for the last year and a half, on at least 2 major projects, with a 3rd just beginning. Because of that, I've been required by my company, to take several Japanese culture classes, specifically designed to help Americans understand the way Japanese people, and their culture operate. So, while I agree that there is some fantisizing going on, and I'm absolutely certain that one of us doesn't understand the Japanese people, and their culture, IMO, it's obviously you that appears not to understand the Japanese, and are living in some sort of fantasy, not me.

So tell me, Mas, what is your direct experience working with the Japanese, and/or what training have you received to help you understand them? Watching Anime Cartoons on TV?

Now as in defining this particular case not a change of circumstance if you understand the subtle meaning I am trying to convey, perhaps 'here' would have been better. Intel will be like MS and wait until Justice gives her final verdict as the status quo suits it. The case is good, it's about time this was sorted for good, one way or the other.


And You don't seem to understand my point. Of course it's going to be a fight to the death, not to mention bloody. That decision was made for intel, when AMD filed their lawsuit. "Now" intel has no other choice, but to fight to the death. There can't be any settlement "Now".

Maybe there might have been a chance to settle this amicably, while AMD was slitering around like a snake in the grass, complaining to multiple Government regulators, as the "Unnamed Company" complaining about intel, but I guess that wasn't enough for Hector to get his rocks off. By taking the extra step of filing the lawsuit, taking out full page ads, etc etc, etc, "Now" intel is left with no other choice, but to fight. Settling would mean admitting that they are a monopoly, that would be business suicide, and that just is not going to happen, except in some Droidian Fantasy.

The Japanese Government understood something that seems to have eluded ole Hector and his merry band. The concept of saving face. Do you think it was an accident that the Japanese regulators came out with a preliminary finding, instead of taking it directly to court? No, they understood perfectly, that by doing it that way, it gave intel the opportunity to accept the decision, while disagreeing with it. the Japanese government got what they wanted, intel, while not pleased was able to accept the findings, while disagreeing with them, and everybody gets to save face. Not so "Now".

No, "Now", it's a fight to the death, all right, because "Now", Intel has no other choice. Hector and AMD made sure of that.

Off course there's not going to be a settlement now. Intel will want to drag it on until Hell freezes over.


What do you mean "now"? As far as intel was concerned, there never was going to be any settlement. What? did you actually believe the B.S. Dan was spouting about a settlement, or assume any differently yourself? If so, then perhaps you didn't pay enough attention during the historical intel/AMD i80286 litigation, or perhaps you're not as smart as I thought.

Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.

Isn't irony delicious!


Sure is, especially since intel has always denied they tried to Strong Arm anybody, and it looks to me like AMD is not only admitting they could do it, but are practically bragging about it. I'd be willing to bet you won't see MikeM or CharlieD pointing that irony out, eh?

Intel's Legal Strategy Takes Shape

http://www.forbes.com/technology/2005/09/02/intel-amd-antitrust-cz_dw_0902intel.html
NEW YORK - Intel's lengthy rebuttal to Advanced Micro Devices' incendiary antitrust lawsuit reveals the beginnings of a legal strategy to defend itself against its smaller rival. The plan appears to be not to just simply defend itself against the charges but to deconstruct what it says is AMD's business failures over the years. The message: You screwed up on your own.

The rebuttal also shows that Intel (nasdaq: INTC - news - people ) is not likely to engage in settlement discussions with the company and will fight the case all the way to court. That process could take years.

As the case drags on, AMD (nyse: AMD - news - people ) will have to counter Intel's claims that bad business decisions are to blame for its current market position. Further, AMD also will have to convince PC companies to come forward and publicly bolster its claims of Intel's anticompetitive tactics. If none volunteer, AMD has said it could compel them to disclose what they know. That's not likely to sit well with the PC makers. It's an open question whether they will be happy to do business with AMD after being forced to publicly provide behind-the-scenes information on a crucial supplier.


Gee, it doesn't look like analyists think that "There will be a settlement". No, it's looking more and more likely, that with AMD's planned "Strong Arm Tactics" with their customers, it's more likely that, "AMD's actions will result in pissing off their customers". It's looking more and more like AMD might be cutting off their nose, to spite their face.

GO AMD!

Intel Seen Having Upper Hand In AMD Lawsuit

http://www.forbes.com/markets/2005/09/02/intel-amd-lawsuit-0902markets01.html
Standard & Poor's Equity Research maintained a "hold" opinion on Intel (nasdaq: INTC - news - people ), saying Advanced Micro Devices (nyse: AMD - news - people ) will bear a large burden of proof if its suit against Intel goes to court.

The research firm said it will be challenging for AMD to prove consumer harm, given that declining PC prices in recent years have resulted in part from lower microprocessor costs.

"We believe [AMD] will need to present compelling evidence that Intel not only illegally impeded AMD in the microprocessor market, but also hurt consumers in the process," S&P Equity Research said.

Intel, Philips form consumer alliance

http://www.eet.com/news/semi/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=170700047
LONDON — Intel Corp. is linking up with Royal Philips Electronics to attack the consumer electronics market, according to a Reuters report.
Intel made an announcement about its involvement with Philips at the Internationale Funkausstellung (IFA), a consumer electronics exhibition taking place in Berlin, Germany, Sept. 2 to 7, according to the report. The annual IFA event is the world's biggest consumer-electronics trade fair and an usually dominated by Philips, which has a vision of ambient intelligent systems that join together seamlessly.

Via announces shiny new chipset, the P4M800 Pro

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25905
VIA HAS TODAY announced its new VIA P4M800 Pro chipset, designed to support the full range of Intel Pentium 4 and Celeron processors, with an FSB of up to 800mhz.

Intel's Lead Legal Counsel Bio

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/kits/bios/sewell.htm
D. Bruce Sewell

Bruce Sewell is vice president and the general counsel of Intel Corporation. As general counsel, he manages a team of attorneys, lobbyists, and analysts in approximately 30 offices worldwide. Sewell also represents Intel on several professional, legislative and policy boards.

Previously, Sewell served as Intel’s director of litigation and as assistant general counsel. Sewell joined Intel in 1995 as a senior attorney advising various business groups on such wide-ranging topics as antitrust compliance, licensing and intellectual property. Sewell was also a frequent contributor on complex transactions, including in the areas of corporate alliances and acquisitions.