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.
AMD filed an arbitration against Intel seeking the right to act as a second source for the 386 processor. The arbitrator ruled that AMD had not EARNED the right to receive the the 386 technology package from Intel under the second source Agreement
AMD chose to make a transistor for transistor copy of both the 386 and 486 processors. A later court ruling found that all of the units were unlawful copies because of the presence of the ICE that violated Intel's copyrights.
AMD continues to this day to pay royalties to Intel for every X86 microprocessor that it sells. See Section 4 of the AMD Intel patent License Agreement. In addition, Intel gets to use all of AMD's patents free of charge.
http://contracts.corporate.findlaw.com/agreements/amd/intel.license.2001.01.01.html
Intel was the one who sued AMD, not vice versa.
AMD has been far more litigious in intiating the legal wars between it and Intel. Most of the legal actions in the have been filed by AMD. Intel filed only 4 suits against AMD that I recall while AMD has filed about a dozen legal actions against Intel.
Intel filed a 386 trademark suit against AMD and lost. Intel filed an ICE (in circuit emulator) microcode law suit against AMD and won. Intel filed a 386 microcode law suit against AMD, won the first trial and lost the second trial.
AMD forced Intel to sue over the MMX trademark and a settlement was reached with AMD agreeing to the same terms that Intel had offered to AMD before the suit. That dispute was mostly Jerry Sanders trying to prove that he had a bigger Johnson than Andy Grove. The law suit was pointless and brief, lasting ony a couple months.
All you need to know about the American Antitrust Institute:
"The watchdog admitted it received financial contributions from AMD. The letter was sent to us by AMD."
So [Hector] gets credit when they get it right, but it's not his fault when they get it wrong. Sounds like a CEO's dream job.
It sounds like Ken Lay at his trial.
New and Improved AMD Barcelona Logo
Another Try:
New AMD Barcelona Logo
You have identified the start of trademark awareness by Intel to establish brand awareness at the end user level. Prior to the 386 era, the OEMs were considered the focus of marketing efforts.
At the time, AMD was making 386 and then 486 processors that were direct copies of Intel designs. OEMs knew the difference between AMD and Intel as a source. Intel wanted to distinguish its processors in the minds of the end users to develop a brand preference for Intel processors.
The first attempt involved trying to establish trademark rights in 386. However, the name had become generic to identify the processor and the efforts failed. This led to the Intel Inside logo campaign to place the logo on PCs where a brand recognition and preference was established with end users.
An Intel coop marketing plan provided incentives to OEMs to place the logo on their products. Absent the coop plan Dell, Compaq, IBM and others had no self interest in affixing the Intel Inside logo but the money offered the logo was sufficient incentive to get space for the logo.
The next step in the developing awareness was Pentium, then Celeron and the rest is history.
AMD followed a somewhat different path using K6 and K7. The trademarks Athlon, Duron, Opteron and Sempron followed for AMD.
AMD marketing suggested somewhat disingenuously, that the K6 was a sixth generation processor vs the fifth generation Intel Pentium processor. Intel stopped using designations such as P5 and P6 for processor designs and began the use of code names. This impaired the ability of AMD to compare generations.
Remember when they tried to claim the letter 'i' as a trademark?
I guess I could play your troll game and ask a short silly question.
Instead it is easier to state "It never happened."
ATI driver flaw exposes Vista kernel to attackers
http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=438
The Barcelona launch on September 10 is nicely timed to mask the report of the Q3 earnings disaster that will follow a few days later. A classic AMD behavior pattern.
AMD did not say "patch" but it did say a new BIOS would be used. A BIOS change that fixes a problem in a chip is often called a patch and that is precisely what I called the change. A patch is a patch whether or not AMD chooses to call it such.
You have NO identification of the defect in the graphic card.
Your silence -- like that of AMD -- speaks louder than words.
Different card designs from a large number of different manufacturers have a common and identical element: the *AMD graphics chip*. The diagnostic and validation software software does indeed test the *AMD chip*.
A Bios patch -- the same for all graphics cards -- will fix the problem in the *AMD graphics chip*, the common element contained in all the graphics cards.
If there was a defect in the graphics card design other than the *AMD chip*, you can rest assured that AMD would point to that card design defect to show the problem is not a defective chip. AMD is silent -- like the hound who did not bark.
Is that so hard to understand ??
This is the first time that I have seen this. Perhaps, because the amount of the payment is so small, it received litttle reporting.
The only thing Intel did was agree to refrain from using the practices that the Japanese Commission. Intel could have challenged the contentions but considered ending the practices was harmless.
Intel paid NOTHING to the Commission, nada, zip.
There is a very good analogy for litigation experts.
When you make a deal with a high-price hooker, you pay and then get the service you paid for. Litigation experts work the same way.
Litigation experts know that they will not long be part of the team if their opinion conflicts with what trial counsel wants.
There are some rare experts who will render honest opinions unwanted by the client. They are called consulting experts and they only communicate confidentially with trial counsel. They never testify in court and their reports are never waved around and provided to the press.
Intel says it used a loyalty discount plan from 2003 through 2006 that rewarded higher levels of product use by an OEM. The European commission, advocating on behalf of its German company AMD, concerns AMD's complaints about the discontinued plan.
Today, Intel is using a different discount plan. Today, AMD is *losing* $600 Million a quarter.
Perhaps AMD should request that Intel return to its discontinued discount plan where AMD was earning money and gaining market share.
The information available right now on the Commission chargesis very shaky. We need to wait until we get something that is solid like the actual Statement of Objections that the Commission delivered to Intel to analyze the positions. However, the Statement is confidential.
We will probably have to wait 10 weeks or more until Intel files its response with the Commission but that too may be confidential.
AMD will hold a presser on Monday mid-morning EDT with Hector Ruiz and Tom McCoy that will be available on a webcast. I don't expect much new information but there may be something. You will hear strong statements about Intel's misdeeds but they will probably be fact free.
Tom McCoy was formerly a trial lawyer with O'Melveney who was lead counsel for AMD in the copyright wars in the '90s. He joined AMD as General Counsel and then was elevated to Executive VP. McCoy will do an excellent job for AMD, advocating their position in a way that will not allow any legal opening that can damage AMD. You will see a shrewd trial lawyer at work not an uneasy and befuddled speaker like Hector.
The efficient competitor standard does not require any disclosure of AMD's cost. Most likely the efficient competitor cost is defined by an economic model put together by an AMD expert and offered to the European commission.
I think that AMD executives did not not realize that they were releasing the key to yield data. AMD was desperate to build a picture of good news and numbers that sounded good. Increased margin increased, market share etc.
Some half smart doofus submitted the DD number and the executive crowd did not realize the significance of the disclosure. Those with the technical smarts -- if they knew -- just just stayed on the side lines and kept their mouths shut so they would not get run over by the train.
It was just a coincidence that the release was on the same day as the Commission charges.
Jerry Sanders was smart enough to avoid this. Remember, Jerry once claimed that yields were greater than 95% and they analysts ate it up. But that was line yields and not die yields.
Ha! AMD will have to prove that they are an efficient competitor.
Almost certainly AMD will not have to prove that it is an efficient competitor. The harm to competition is measured with reference to an hypothetical "efficient competitor" not to AMD in particular. The "efficient competitor" could be a secondary competitor, a new entrant or whatever.
The European Commission states that it is concerned Intel's practices "would be very bad for competition and bad for consumers". The Commission of course is focused on these lofty ideals and most certainly not the protection of a single company.
In fact, Intel is going to get royally screwed by a Home Town Referee working for the home team -- good German citizen AMD.
The "selling below cost" charge is confusing grammar in this statement. Does "their" refer to Intel or AMD. Common sense would make you assume that it means Intel's costs but that is apparently wrong.
In another report, it was stated that Intel was charged with using discount prices that forced its competition to sell below the cost of an efficient competitor. This standard is different even than AMD's costs
It was pretty clear that this was the theory of AMD and the European Commission bought the standard. The efficient competitor standard would not allow the counter attack that AMD (the primary competitor) had horrible yields and high costs.
The only standard that has ever had legal significance in the reality world is when a company sells below *its* cost. If this is done by an importer dumping may be the legal problem. If it is done by a company with market power to harm a competitor then it raises antitrust issues.
The cost defintion is an area of big contention even when looking at an actual company. Does cost mean marginal cost? Marginal cost plus share of other expenses? What is included in other expenses?
When you try to determine the cost structure for an imaginary compny the whole inquiry is a total free for all. AMD can contend that the costs of an "efficient competitor are whatever it wants it to mean.
Edit: Here is a report of the "efficient competitor " position of the European Commission.
http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto072720071818006747&page=2
A spokesman for the European Commission said: "The rebates offered by Intel were of such a quantity, of such an amount, that an efficient competitor would be forced to price below cost and we think that would be very bad for competition and bad for consumers who would be buying computers."
The practices charged by the EU have already ended.
"Regulators said Intel's abusive behavior started in 2003 -- two years after the EU opened an antitrust probe triggered by an AMD complaint -- and went on for approximately three years"
The EU complaint is about past conduct that ended in 2005 or perhaps 2006 not current conduct. When the questioned occurred AMD was gaining market share. Now that the practices have ended AMD is losing market share and operating at a loss.
"In the EU's view, the problem is pricing, not market share."
The EU thinks that discounts that produce lower prices for the consumer are bad. Screw the consumer says the EU, we have to protect the German company.
What is the consensus nember for World Class or even good defect densities
Any comments of MSS gains?
No comment on MSS. Ottellini left that call for those that do the market share estimates, presumably IDC etc.
Another way to look at the situation is that the minimum return is TWO X 17.6% for a fantastic return of 35.2% in six months. The balance in your account starts at zero and grows to $100, for example, over six months for an average money balance of $50.
Edit: I see that ChipGeek explained this in even better detail.
The best moderation is self-moderation assisted with a bit of peer pressure here and there.
IMO this is the best moderated board going. A nice spicy salsa with no habanero peppers, suitable for all tastes.
There was a lot of discussion on trademarks and all of it missed the legal mark. So here is a bare bones Trademarks 101.
First, the whole area of what constitutes a valid trademark and trademark infringement is pretty subtle. But it makes for great conversation fun over a beer or two.
A trademark is a word or symbol that designates the source or quality of goods. A trademark is a noun and "trademarked" is not an appropriate verb. You take actions to make a valuable trademark and protect that mark. An invention is patented and a trademark is protected and enhanced.
A coined word makes a very good trademark. It starts with no descriptive meaning and the effort of the owner establishes the meaning as aource or symbol of quality. Examples are Kodak, Xerox, and Pentium.
Good trademarks can become descriptive if they are widely used as a name of the product. Aspirin was once a trademark of Bayer but it came to mean the product -- acetylsalicylic acid. Kimberly Clark works hard to maintain the usage Kleenex (R) brand facial tissues so the mark does not become generic.
Purely descriptive terms can not become trademarks. Examples are yellow for bananas and fast for a processor.
Words that have a meaning can become a trademark if they have secondary meaning that allow them to serve the function of a trademark.
The standard for trademark infringement is likelihood of infringement. The same mark can be used on different goods if there is no likelihood of confusion. 'Total' for a mainframe data base can coexist with 'Total' for a cereal.
The sophistication of the buyer is also a factor. Buyers of a nuclear reactor for generating electric power have much more product relevant knowledge than retail consumers that buy TV sets. A relevant situation here is that server OEMs who buy Xeon processors and fortune 500 companies who buy Xeon powered systems are more sophisticated than retail buyers of laptop computers.
Famous marks are entitled to more protection than ordinary marks. The buyer is more likely to have knowledge of the famous mark than an obscure mark. The use of Chevrolet on most any product -- not just automobile stuff -- would likely confuse many consumers.
A corollary to famous marks are weak trademarks. Dictionary words that have common usage and little secondary meaning provide limited exclusive rights.
The R in a circle symbol designates a registered trademark that has superior rights. The TM symbol means that the owner "asserts" trademark rights. The owner may have trademark rights, limited rights or no rights at all. Use of the TM symbol for Yellow on bananas does not generate any rights -- it is merely descriptive.
Intel is a a famous and very strong trademark. Pentium is a coined word and a very strong trademark. Core is a very dodgy trademark. The statement that a processor has 4 cores is a purely descriptive usage. The usage Intel (R) Core (TM) 2 Duo processor uses two trademarks for a product. The association of Intel with Core enhances the secondary meaning and strengthens the Core trademark. The usage Core (TM) 2 Duo has a growing secondary meaning. Notice that "2" and "Duo" are purely descriptive.
one thing the PEF could do is to also renegotiate the cross-licensing agreement with Intel.
One reason AMD may have initiated the antitrust lawsuit against Intel so it could use the suit as leverage to renegotiate the Patent License. Particularly, AMD likely wants to eliminate the foundry limit so it can move toward becoming a fabless company. This would fit the "asset light" model that AMD is pursuing. This path is forced upon AMD because when you don't have money and can't borrow any more money then you can't build a $3 billion fab.
I am sure that AMD would also like to reduce the royalty that it must pay to Intel for selling X86 microprocessors.
AMD already had a patent license from the time when they did the AMD64 emulator deal with Transmeta so it didn't need to buy a patent license.
Transmeta has a patent suit pending against Intel and has almost no cash left to run a very expensive patent lawsuit that is probably costing $2 million plus a year to run. It is quite ppossible that the investment is intended to provide cash for Transmeta to pursue its patent law suit against Intel.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Here is some cash go make war on Intel.
Most, if not all, of the Agreements concerning AMD, AMD Saxony and the German authorities -- the banks and the government -- have been filed with the SEC. Some of the details have been redacted but the nature of the relationship is clear.
AMD basically leases the fabs from the German authorities. If AMD goes BK then the Germans get rights to the designs and can run the semiconductor business. That leaves AMD with no fabs rto manufacture microprocessors and no microprocessor business. It is a good thing that AMD bought ATI so it can reorganize in BK into a second rate GPU company.
German law makes it hard to discharge employeees and if unemployed the company still has to pay about 90% of the wages. The whole deal was about jobs in a depressed area of former East Germany as far as the German government was concerned.
he made references to sex lives of Intel investors (which I tried to clear up on RWT ;)
Was the conclusion that Intel investors have satisfying sex lives ?? <VBG>
I read the chain of discussion and the De Vries rant sounded just like a crazy logic discussion on the SI AMD thread. At one time I thought De Vries was a knowledgable fellow particularly when he was writing about whether or not the P4 had 64 bit capability based on an examination of the die.
What does De Vries do for a living these days? Is he a paid shill for AMD?
A later comment by De Vries indicates that he is either illiterate or drunk.
http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-10533-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=35813&messageID=659506&st...
WSJ adds [sic] with benchmarks where [sic] in April.
The WSJ adds [sic] where [sic] in April with the introduction of the SE2222.
They where [sic] correct at that time. You can not blame them for not advertising June Xeon results from a new compiler, let alone calling them criminals for not doing so.
Did you're [sic] source told [sic] you the adds [sic] where [sic] in April? probably not. Since you give the impression that the [sic] where [sic] just recent.
Did you're [sic] source told [sic] you that these benchmarks are old and where [sic] correct at that time? unlikely, reading you're [sic] statement: "this latest round of deceptive benchmarks is so outrageous that it’s criminal"
Don't trust the intentions of you're [sic] source. This was all
deliberate, and seen before.
Regards, Hans
And he can't even get it right after several later tries.
http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-10533-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=35813&messageID=659510&st...
AMD does not allow employees to post on boards from what I've heard.
You heard correctly. If AMD learns that you are posting they will make you stop assuming that you are pro AMD. If you are negative on AMD they will fire your ass.
Or at least a live demo...
How about Task Manager?? That should count.
Speaking of bankruptcy...
http://www.digital-daily.com/editorial/amd_bankrupt/
AMD: on the verge of bankruptcy, or at a twist of a death spiral?
Something is totally messed up with this report.
Howrey LLP and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher filed objections to subpoenas Intel made against them in late May.
Both Howry and Gibson Dunn represent Intel in the antitrust case, so they would not file objections to Intel subpoenas. They would issue subpoenas FOR Intel. My guess is that O'Melveney sent a subpoena to Intel's law firms in retaliation for Intel's subpoena to AMD's DC lobbyist shill.
It is totally out of bounds for a party to subpoena the other sides trial counsel.
The official AMD Barfelona schedule per double secret sources is:
1 Announce in August
2 Paper launch in October
3 Parts available in Q1
The largest Washington lobbying firms are headquartered on K Street in D.C. Hence the name the K Street Crowd
See discussion of the K Street Project run by Tom Delay for a discussion of the influence of the K Street lobbyists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Street_Project
"The project is named for K Street in Washington, D.C., where the largest lobbying firms have their headquarters. Lobbyists are, in some circles, referred to as the "fourth branch of government," as some have great influence in U.S. national politics due to their monetary resources and the "revolving-door" practice of hiring former government officials."
Wow. From almost zero to a million dollars per year in 2005 and 2006.... I wonder what services AMD contracted. This could be *very* interesting....
That is what Intel wants to find out with its subpoena among other things. Law suits are supposed to be handled in the court house and not by using special interest pleading in the halls of the US government.
Note that these fees are only the publicly reported US government lobbying fees. Public relation, general communications and foreign lobbying fees would not require reporting and are not included in the database.
Some of the activities of AMD in Japan, Koream and Europe to encourage antitrust investigations may get uncovered.
Glover Park Group is a heavy duty and politically well connected communications/lobbying firm. They are part of the K Street crowd.
Publicly reported lobbying fees show that AMD's fees soared in 2005 and 2006.
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/clientsum.asp?year=2006&txtname=Advanced+Micro+Devices
AMD's own claim is they will be in production on 45nm in Q2 of next year.
My trusty bird dog claims he will win the Power Ball lottery next year... but I am thinking it might not happen.