Is Pliny the Elder, the guy who first predicted the demise of Itanium processors?

;-P

Is it Nas100 or Composite?

A good question that I had look up. It is the NASDAQ Composite index.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=%5EIXIC

ami, what's IXIC?

The NASDAQ index. I wouldn't have a clue what the symbol was except that I checked NASDAQ for the chart... and I knew what that was.

This sure looks like Sun is going down to me.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=5y&s=SUNW&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=dell&c=%5EIXIC

The relevant market issue will be a big battleground. AMD will argue that the relevant market is X86 processors. Intel will argue that the market is "general purpose processors". This definition will bring cell phone processors, embedded controllers into play.

The reason that Intel is careful to refer to "market segment share" when discussing its X86 processor sales becomes clear. It leaves open the question of the definition of relevant market for antitrust purposes. This practice demonstrates how sophisticated and rigorous Intel is in its antitrust compliance activities. Intel is indeed run by adults.

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=7580392

A good discussion of how the definition of relevant market changes the equation is here:

http://www.techreport.com/etc/2005q3/intel-response/index.x?pg=1

There is no separate market for x86 microprocessors and no barriers to entry
One reccurring theme in Intel's brief is that there is no separate market for x86 microprocessors. By denying AMD's claim that such a market exists, Intel is subsequently able to deny AMD's allegations regarding Intel's monopoly, market share, and total profit.

Alternatively, Intel admits that it competes with AMD in the sales of "general-purpose microprocessors," but offers little guidance on what criteria it uses to define this market. Read broadly, the general-purpose microprocessor market could include cell phones, PDAs, embedded systems, game consoles, and the entire gamut of PC computing, from budget systems to supercomputers.

By denying AMD's allegation that a separate and specific x86 processor market exists outside the general-purpose microprocessor market, Intel is obviously attempting to position itself as one supplier out of many, rather than as the dominator of a single, separate market.

This notion isn't as far-fetched as it might sound. In the booming cell phone industry, Texas Instruments is by far the largest player. Of the more than 680 million cell phones shipped in 2004, over half of them were powered by a TI-designed chip. Intel, in contrast, plans to ship at least 30 million cell phone processors this year. That's a substantial step upwards for Intel, but it also demonstrates a "general microprocessor" market where Intel is anything but the dominant player.

That's the ticket, attack the victim.

AMD is the victim of its own incompetence. How can AMD attack itself?

If I want to buy a new Chevy, I can't shop at a Ford Dealer. But that does not mean that I am locked out of the Chevy market. All I have to do is travel to a Chevy dealer

If an End User wants to buy an AMD product they can try HP or IBM or Sun or Acer or a white box outfit among many others. That is what you did for the AMD severs in your shop and the AMD PC at your desk. Isn't that correct Dan?

So try again to explain why an AMD product is "unavailable" if you can't buy it at Dell.

What quota do you and AMD think should be assigned to each OEM for AMD products?

If AMD can not manufacture enough parts to fill the quota must the manufacture halt sales of Intel products until AMD can catch up with its quota?

Order your [Turion] here, today:
http://store.shopfujitsu.com/fpc/Ecommerce/buildseriesbean.do?series=S2

Rock solid proof that an AMD notebook is available for the end user and the only thing AMD lacks is end user demand.

The fact that you announce the use of 50 Opteron servers in your shop is also proof that Opteron servers are available if the end users wants the products.

So perhaps you can explain again how evil Intel keeps AMD products unavailable for the END USER.

Adding a third view, I think the most important factor favoring Intel is the infrastructure Intel established including, chipsets, reference designs, validation testing, compilers, engineering support etc. Think platform plus lots more.

The first example of the usage of the platform designation was Centrino technology. Watch for more platforms soon.

For all generations of K6 and prior AMD was able to "steal Intel sockets". The language about stealing Intel sockets originated with AMD who used the phrase in an Annual Report in about the early 90's.

I agree that AMD's legal fees are on the order of $5 M a month which is how I came to the $10 to $15 M per quarter estimate.

However, I must disagree on Intel's cost. Intel has at least 2 major US law firms plus firms in other countries for the EU and Korean investigations. Most of the legal work will be done by outside firms. The in house litigation group, a small portion of the Intel Legal staff, will only perform a small part of the work.

One thing that makes it more difficult for Intel is that it is a much larger company than AMD. So it has more documents and more places to search for documents worldwide when AMD makes unending and oppressive document requests. Intel also has many more employees for AMD to harass with depositions.

I would expect Intel's legal fees to be at least 2 or 3 times those of AMD, perhaps even more.

And AMD may be happy to let them [drag on the law suit]

As long as the antitrust case is pending, AMD can continue to spend about $10 million a quarter. Intel will spend more.

The legal fees for AMD will take a good bite of the tiny profits or more likely add to their once again to arrive losses.

The aggravation factor for the lawsuit will be high for Intel but the affect on earnings negligible on its ~$2 Billion per quarter earnings.

The simple answer to your question is yes. Some countries use antitrust law to protect competitors and some use the antitrust law to protect consumers. Unfortunately that over simplifies the law which is never simple.

The competition issue also gets confusing because legal advocates argue that protecting competitors in the end protects consumers. In the US, see the Microsoft case and of course the AMD suit against Intel.

All of the antitrust claims of Intergraph were rejected as a matter of law and dismissed. The FTC issues were settled in an agreed order with favorable terms for Intel. The Settlement Order is available from the FTC although Dan the YMCA-night-school lawyer thinks the Order is secret ;-P

The Intel settlement with Intergraph was entirely related to patent infringement claims. Intergraph went on to assert its patents the industry and many -- including AMD -- paid Intergraph for a license.

I recently asked a partner in one of the flagship law firms in Silicon valley what the buzz on the legal network was concerning the AMD antitrust law suit against Intel. The answer: "This is just another round in the legal war AMD has going with Intel. Intel has been governed by adults for a long time and its business practices are almost surely clean."

BTW, this law firm has represented the opposition against Intel in several law suits and has never represented Intel. The firm has no love for Intel but no hatred either. It is just business.

Dan: Last time I checked, Intel did not sell tobacco products.

Your point is ??

that lawsuit has been sworn to and filed in court - it's for real.

You raise an interesting point. Nobody from AMD signed the Complaint. Only the attorneys for AMD signed the complaint.

The failure of AMD to verify the complaint is unusual. Perhaps the load of lies was just too much of a burden for Hector, or anyone to risk the penalty for perjury.

the lawsuit will give [AMD] $10 Billion on top of their other profits

I guess now that AMD has filed its complaint, Intel will not even reply and should just write a check.

Does your wife the attorney agree Dan?

Meanwhile AMD holds a big chunk of the server market, and is growing that highly profitable segment at a high rate.

You have to get your story straight Dan. Remember that AMD is doing bad because evil Intel is preventing AMD from doing good so AMD filed an antitrust law suit.

You -- and AMD -- have to find a consistent theme.

The use of SOI brings higher cost and lower yields as IBM and its little sister AMD have discovered.

Those that can do, those that can't take pictures

Intel shows running demos of 3 new 65 nm processors -- mobile to server. Meanwhile, AMD is showing a picture of a 65 nm die of undetermined type or origin.

In addition to being really tight with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, you and your nihilist compadres have the headgear advantage.

http://zapatopi.net/afdb/

You really don't want to know why the FTC waived the white flag against Intel Dan... But I will tell you anyway !!

The FTC had an econimist expert that was going to be used to establish that Intel was a monopoly. When Intel deposed the FTC expert, (s)he was forced to admit that in many ways Intel sure didn't look like a monopoly !!

This pretty much destroyed the FTC's case and thus the favorable settlement for Intel.

One of the reasons that Intel was not a monopoly according to the expert was that when AMD produced a competitive processor(ie the K6) instead of a poor processor(ie the K5) AMD's market share almost tripled to ~ 22%.

Discovery of a non-party uses subpoenas and related document requests and they are being used by AMD. Discovery allows the other side to see the documends, attend and ask questions.

One question that you cna ask is: "Hey, dude are you getting paid to do this?"

Soliciting evidence in this something else all toether. And as the article says it is highly unusual.

My wife is not an attorney but this is how it works -- the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

http://www.priweb.com/fedrcivproc.htm

Would you like to be a consultant? This sounds like AMD is "soliciting" testimony and if you have some good stuff then AMD will hire you on.

This can be described as as buying testimony and it really upsets some Judges.

How dense can you be? The Order is not secret because it is posted on the FTC website.

http://www.ftc.gov/os/1999/03/d09288intelagreement.htm

The FTC absolutely must publish a Settlement Order so it is ridiculous to even think otherwise.

CFO Andy Bryant believes the company's cash holdings are "a little high"

Q When was the last time that AMD believed it's cash holdings were too high?

A Never. AMD is always busy borrowing other people's money

unless you can find a link to it somewhere

The sun rose in the West this morning... Unless you can find a link somewhere to the contrary

Conisder the source of these "facts" when you evaluate cedibility.

Remember that Dan maintained the Settlement Agreement between Intel and the FTC contained secret and bad things... even though the Agreement was published on the the FTC website.

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=6885550

Doug is charge of design for a different kind of chip -- the Cow Chips he throws here. It makes better use of his skills.

http://www.roadsideamerica.com/attract/OKBEAchip.html

I dont't know the actual date of the last inspection of Intel or anyone else.

The "last time for that" question seemed to suggest that the inspection was an unusual practice. The point that I was trying to make is that inspections are a regular practice when the EU has a pending trade practice investigation per the EU press release.

This suggests that an inspection of Intel is not an unusual practice.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050712/eu_intel.html?.v=8

A statement from the European Union head office said the inspections involved officials from the EU's antitrust department and national competition authorities. It said they visited several Intel premises in Europe.

EU regulators regularly conduct unannounced inspections of companies under investigation in competition cases.

"Investigations are being carried out in the framework of an ongoing competition case," the statement said.

the details of the settlement were kept secret as part of the settlement.


The Consent Decree was indeed secret Dan, unless you count the fact that it was published by the FTC.

http://www.ftc.gov/os/1999/03/d09288intelagreement.htm

The Consent Decree specifically affirmed that Intel could continue its practice of withholding Advance Technical Information when Intel faces an Intellectual Property Dispute by a customer seeking to stop Intel from manufacturing or selling a microprocessor. Intel had withheld AT Information from Intergraph after it sued intel for patent infringement.

The Agreement allows Intel to withhold AT Information for "any Intel microprocessor that the customer has asserted is infringing its patent, copyright or trade secret rights unless that customer agrees in writing not to seek an injunction against the manufacture, use, sale, offer to sell, or importation of all Intel microprocessors that are based upon the same core microarchitecture."

The Agreement went even further and allowed 5 broad business practices by Intel, see B1-5. The net result of the Consent Decree is that the FTC gives its legal seal of approval for the business practices of Intel. The whines of competitors aka AMD were specifically found to be lawful and fair competition.

What a victory for Intel !!

A counter claim by Intel is not a real possibility in this situation.

What you will see is a general denial by Intel. Intel will admit that it is a Delaware corporation and will deny just about everything else.

You demonstrate a total lack of knowledge in Damages 101 and can not possibly be a member of the bar. Perhaps you are an assistant working in a law office, but no state would ever issue you a license to practice law given your misunderstanding of the law.

Treble damages are a special type of damages specified in particular statutes. Under the antitrust statutes -- and for the Droid sophists, certain other statutes -- the jury determines the amount of the plaintiff's actual damages. The Court then enters an award for three times the amount of damages found by the jury.

Punitive damages are based on a finding of "special circumstances" by a jury. After determining actual damages and finding "special circumstances", the jury determines the amount of the punitive damages and includes this in its award. Personal injury actions, product liability actions, libel or slander actions and other torts often seek punitive damages.

Let me help you out. I mentioned treble damages in my original post.

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=6839717

"Punitive damages are NOT available in an antitrust law suit. They are available for ambulance chasers (something within your level of expertise?) in personal injury cases.

Antitrust cases -- by statute -- provide for treble damages."

It should be noted that the Intel platforms are optimized for Intel processors. Clearly this is a dastardly violation of the antitrust law.

AMD whines in its complaint that Intel compilers are optimized for Intel processors. What a hoot !! AMD thinks "fair competition" and a "level playing field" means that Intel must spend its R&D dollars to optimize Intel compilers for AMD processors.

Way back in the '70s, Memorex and a whole bunch others filed antitrust suits against IBM because they had trouble selling IBM-compatible disk drives for IBM main frames. IIRC there were 8 or 10 of these suits.

IBM cranked up the legal machine, supplied huge $$s for fuel and fought those cases to the bitter end taking most all of the suits to trial. In the end IBM won every one of the actions.

Duke is correct: jury verdicts are a difficult thing to predict but the pictures of the private jet and limos -- one for Beverly Hills and one for Silicon Valley -- that were dedicated to Jerry "Where's Mine" Sanders should help

BTW, Intel has never had a private jet or a single personal limo for its executives.

PS For the Droid sophists: a ride in an airport limo aka shuttle to catch an airplane does not count as a personal limo.

With apologies to GE, Sophistry must be your most important product.

Perhaps you can point to an allegation in AMD's complaint that accuses Intel of "oppression, fraud, or malice". Those are the triggers for punitive damages under the CA Code section that you cite.

Legal Practice Note: If you want to seek punitive damages you need to plead a cause of action that allows punitive damages.

You may want to consider asking for a tuition refund from the unaccredited YMCA School of Law you attended.