Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
n adverse decision by the EU Commission, will have little practical effect on the way Intel conducts business. The discount structure that AMD whined about and the EU is disputing was ended by Intel in 2006 before the EU charges were issued.
An EU order that Intel must stop a discount plan that ended in 2006 is a symbolic victory at best. Even some other unknown restrictions will likely have little effect on Intel's ability to conduct business.
Nellie Koes (sp) recently commented after the Microsoft appeal that the MS restrictions did not as desired decrease Microsoft's market share. This was the tell that what the EU Commission really wants to do is set the "fair market share" for competitors. But the tools the Commission has available don't work well to adjust market share. The technology business moves too fast.
As much as the Commission would probably like to set market share quotas it does not have that legal power. So if AMD wants to get the "fair share it deserves" it is going to have to do it the old fashioned way -- Earn It -- with better products, infrastructure and engineering support.
F.T.C. Chief Balks at Intel Inquiry
Intel executives said the difference between American and foreign antitrust was that Americans view it as protecting competition, while the others use it to protect competitors.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/22/washington/22ftc.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
WASHINGTON, Oct. 21 — The head of the Federal Trade Commission has rejected requests by lawmakers, other commissioners and a small rival company to open a formal antitrust investigation of Intel, the world’s largest maker of computer microprocessors, for anticompetitive conduct, government officials and lawyers involved in the proceeding said.
In recent weeks, regulators in Korea and with the European Commission have separately accused Intel of antitrust violations by offering large discounts to computer makers in exchange for their not using products by the rival company, Advanced Micro Devices, which has struggled to compete and has waged a global antitrust campaign against Intel. Japanese officials made similar accusations in 2005.
The trade commission has been conducting an informal review of A.M.D.’s complaints for more than a year, gathering thousands of documents from Intel and its customers. But the commission’s chairwoman, Deborah P. Majoras, has rejected requests to elevate the inquiry to a formal investigation, which would give staff members the authority to issue subpoenas and compel testimony from executives of the companies involved.
....
Though the two companies are based in California — and their largest customers are American computer and equipment makers — A.M.D.’s complaints have received considerably more traction abroad. Intel executives said the difference between American and foreign antitrust was that Americans view it as protecting competition, while the others use it to protect competitors.
Is Tom still located in Chandler?
I think that you are addressing this to the wrong guy.
Bought some $14 Jan 08 Puts earlier today. I was not brave enough for Oct or even Nov Puts.
But the important thing is they were true quad-cores.
Don't forget, AMD is also building a large supply of Cripple-Cores with Native Defects.
The Penryn chips will get moved to product for sale after the qualification work is complete and will then have a cost of goods of zero.
The net result is a necessary accounting transaction that raises expenses today and increases earnings at a later date.
You really can't read anything into the action of the EU Commission to grant an extension of time. Extensions for a response of this character should be almost automatic. Intel's response here is far more than just an answer to a complaint in a law suit.
The response will present detailed information on Intel's business practices and arguments about how the practices are pro-competitive. It will also challenge the accuracy of at least some of the EU's findings.
The only thing surprising here is that it took so long for the Commission to reach a decision.
It's trespass quare clausum fregit... or contract assumpsit... or something or other...
I stole the line from a column by the late Mike Royko, a Chicago icon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Royko
Little yappy dogs work well on the end of a stick to dust mop under beds.
AMD reneges on NASCAR technology deal -- Barco the Pekinese too weak to compete in the big leagues.
http://www.nascar.com/2007/news/business/10/02/amd.leaves.nascar/index.html
Advanced Micro Devices, which entered NASCAR as the official technology partner late in 2005, has obtained a release from its deal and decided to exit the sport.
Travis Bullard, a spokesman for AMD, said the company's $5.4 billion acquisition of ATI Technologies last year led to a re-evaluation of AMD's marketing strategy and partnerships.
"When we acquired ATI, we about doubled in size and it brought on a whole new series of products and opened up new markets to us," Bullard said. "That required us to take a look at our business model, and we've made changes to our strategies worldwide."
AMD, a rival to Intel in the computer parts industry, entered NASCAR with grand plans to assist the sport's sanctioning body with timing and scoring, research and development, wind-tunnel testing and crash simulation.
AMD partnered with NASCAR and Tissot, the official timekeeper, to build the Mobile Technology Center, a data center hauler on wheels that houses NASCAR's timing and scoring computer system. The Mobile Technology Center was introduced in May 2006 and represented AMD's most significant impact on the sport. The company did not move forward with wind-tunnel testing or crash simulation.
Barcelona is a dog
That is an insult to canines everywhere.
On behalf of my bird dog, I insist that you retract that statement. Absent a retraction, we will file a complaint with the EU Commission for abuse of dominant species position.
I am really impressed. You have the firepower to use 76 words (per MS Word) to deliver an insult. Most Euros would use only 2 words and the standard British English "Piss Off".
Your concern for my personal efforts "keeping hygiene" are greatly appreciated. I shower first thing every morning. When I go to the health club for some sweaty exercise, I always shower again after my work out.
Please suggest better practices for me to improve my hygiene.
Oh yes, I brush my teeth twice a day and floss daily.
Here is some idiomatic American street language: You are full of Bull$hit !!
Have a nice day.
The Barco launch is actually worse than paper. The B1 stepping that AMD was waving about will never see arrive in any real volume. The Tier 1 players are waiting for a B2 or later stepping before they actually launch systems.
Otellini gives his take on AMD’s triple cores
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=42438
“We see a distinctive advantage in having all the cores on one die work.”
Are you shorting shares or buying puts?
But only AMD will have quad cores with Native Defects !!
American companies that want to earn euro's are subject to European law, it's that simple
All very true. But companies need a clear definition of the law to guide their conduct.
Global companies such as Intel – and Microsoft for that matter -- seek legal counsel from the best law firms in Europe. The problem is that the EEC law on competition is very uncertain.
The whole concept of European Economic Community law as opposed to European national law is a new and still evolving field. In the area of competition, the Trade Commission seems to be making up the law as it goes along. The law is not passed as well defined legislation and the documented regulations are vague at best. No company can comply with trade regulation law that is unwritten and unknown.
Returning to Microsoft, the fine is not a significant economic issue for Microsoft although the press is focusing on the $670 million as if it were huge. The need to produce a version of Windows without Media Player is raging stupid but not that significant economically.
The difficult part of the EEC Commission ruling is that Microsoft must open its trade secrets and source code to competitors for reasonable compensation. This goes far beyond API specifications. Assuming for the sake of argument that this is fair and IMO it is not, the Commission has determined that a royalty of 1% of product revenue is too high. That is f***ing incredible to me.
Airbus gets latge subsidies from Euro governments and is a good target for for economic sanctions. Of course, the subsidies only "level the playing field" amd allow "fair" competition with Boeing .
I definitely was disappointed that there was no euphoria bounce to set up a better price on some puts. Normally you can always depend on false hope to jack AMD shares up a couple $$ but it didn't happen this time.
After you read this article, it becomes clear that AMD's statement that el Barco is "shipping for revenue" translates to "shipping engineering samples" to IBM who insists on paying for everything, specifically including engineering samples.
Dell Builds a server with no name, that isn't even plugged in on AMD's new operton.
A true Performance per Watt King !!
The cardboard sign provides 2X the performance for ZERO power. The new ACP metric -- AMD Calculated Power -- is a real winner.
AMD considers the benchmark perfomance of el Barco as "extremely satisfactory".
You proved with these benchmarks that AMD hit a *home run* (TM mas) with el Barco -- at least in the minor league world where AMD plays.
Available today from AMD: an unstable Barfo Server that auto-fails.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/post_reply.asp?message_id=22734479
During our testing we'd occasionally get a Hyper Transport error upon reboot, but it was intermittent...
Then, at the very end (literally two hours before publication) of our benchmarking, the AMD server stopped POSTing. As of now the system will simply sit there and spin its fans without actually putting anything on the screen. A number of things could have happened, but thankfully the Barcelona system decided to die after we ran all of our tests.
So what does it mean... When they ship a 2.0Ghz product, but publish benchmarks on a 2.5Ghz product...
A little bird, who many of us remember, privately predicted the AMD con job with the 2.5 unobtainiums.
"I predict that AMD is sending special complete systems to their suckups with 2.5 to 3 GHz Barforamas - as well as the "standard" 2 GHz slugs.
<snip>
Basic cheap magician stuff - look at what we are waving in front of your eyes (and don't look at the crap we are actually manufacturing and shipping)."
Must be quiet while AMD stock runs up again for another short opportunity
Exactly !! All together now: Rah Rah AMD, Mas is right, Rah Rah AMD.
I am aiming at $12.50 Jan '08, $12 April '08 and $10 Jan '09.
I think that April is the sweet spot and those should be half of my contracts. Constructive comments welcome.
My original plan was too wait a couple days for the euphoria of the Barcelona dance to drive the stock price up a bit and then buy a boatload of puts.
My current plan is using $$ cost averaging starting Monday to load up the boat over the next week.
After AMD reports a $1/2 Billion loss for Q3 and another $1/2 Billion loss for Q4 those puts will make a nice tasty New Year treat.
I will be looking to short AMD big time on Monday.
You will have to stand in line behind me to do it. <VBG>
Welcome to new AMD metric "comparable thermal band" -- AMD innovation at its best.
What is it with you and 286 processors ? Those things have not been of interest for going on 20 years.
Maybe you could move ahead about 4 generations and start a Pentium Pro discussion group.
AMD is betting on the Phenom FX 3.0
The antitrust suit that AMD filed in 1991 was basically a continuation of the Arbitration after it became clear that the arbitrator would not award damages. Also by that time AMD had introduced transistor by transistor copies of the 386 and the 486 so the arbitration would have little impact on the commercial realities.
The antitrust suit was settled along with all other legal actions in the 1995 Settlement where AMD agreed to pay damages to Intel. The later Patent License Agreement effective in 1996 and and a renewal Agreement in 2001 required Amd to pay royalties to Intel for its X86 processors.
Both Agreements were filed in redacted form with the SEC. The 2001 Agreement is available on FindLaw.
http://contracts.corporate.findlaw.com/agreements/amd/intel.license.2001.01.01.html
The only FTC proceeding against Intel involved whether Intel could withhold technology from a company that sued Intel for patent infringement. The dispute resulted from the patent suit by Intergraph against Intel.
The FTC approved a settlement with Intel in 1999 that it touted as a big victory. As a practical matter, the settlement was a fig leaf for the FTC to cover what amounted to a total victory for Intel.
Intel was permitted to withhold technology from a patent holder who sought to stop Intel from producing the technology in question. A patent holder virtually always asks for injunction barring use of the invention when filling a patent suit. Therefore, the settlement placed the FTC seal of approval on precisely the practice that Intel followed when sued by Intergraph and before that in patent suits filed by DEC and Compaq -- separate companies in those days.
http://www.crn.com/it-channel/18801261
The settlement specifies circumstances where Intel is not obligated to supply product or advance technical information, such as when a customer seeks a court order to stop Intel from selling processors related to that information. Other circumstances include when a customer breaches an agreement regarding disclosure of the information.
What it fails to mention is that one of the cornerstones of AMD's 386 suit was the FTC found that Intel was guilty of "bundling" 286 and 386 processors.
You are way off base here.
The history lesson stretches the truth and offers many deceptions but it never asserts that bundling of the 286 was an issue in the Arbitration or elsewhere for a very good reason. It never happened.
There is an easy way to prove me wrong. Find a link to the FTC decision that found bundling of the 286 by Intel. It does not exist
The biggest laugher in the history lesson about AMD is that the 1995 Settlement Agreement gave "AMD a shared interest has in the x86 chip design". The only "shared interest" that AMD has is the obligation to pay a royalty on every AMD processor it sells.
What it fails to mention is that one of the cornerstones of AMD's 386 suit was the FTC found that Intel was guilty of "bundling" 286 and 386 processors.
You are way off base on this assertion. As you note, not even AMD made that contention.
There is an easy way to prove me wrong. Go find a link to the FTC decision that supports you assert found bundling the 286 and 386.
Intel awarded AMD a license to produce processors as a second source back in the 8080 days.
The second source Agreement gave AMD the right to earn second source rights to the 386 by providing Intel with certain AMD designs. The Arbitrator ruled that AMD did not earn the points needed to buy rights for the 386 because the design AMD offered was fat, slow and ugly. It was also commercially a total loser.