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.
The Golden Gate entrance to the SF Bay is a relatively narrow opening compared to the large area of the Bay. Any wave entering the Bay would quickly dissipate.
Those aren't hills between Silicon Valley and the Pacific. They are the Santa Cruz Mountains
The San Andreas fault runs more or less along the Ridge Line and elevations are well over 2000 ft up to a max of 3786 ft for Loma Prieta Peak.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Cruz_Mountains
Dual Core Processors at work -- Dilbert Style
Intel should install a check on all X86 Processors to detect an attempt to run Oracle software. If detected, a screen should post stating:
Oracle Sucks Swamp Water
Program Terminated
Buy Enterprise Strength Software
Or Go Buy an Arm System to Run Toy Software
I "refudiate" that.
I would suggest that Intel got what it wanted when nVidia decided to exit the chipset business entirely, including both Intel and AMD compatible products. That would have cost nothing if Intel had at least waited until nVidia has a QPI product. Instead, Intel chose to file a law suit when nVidia had done nothing but talk about the possibility of a QPI product and make a statement to customers that its license would cover such a product
What Intel did get with its "fire first, aim later" approach with a law suit was the opportunity to write a check for $1.5 Billion.
I stated in my first post that Intel started the law suit. Reports confirming that fact are everywhere, even in the reports of the Settlement.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE7095U120110110
Intel sued Silicon Valley neighbor Nvidia in 2009 and Nvidia counter-sued in the fight over chipsets, which are groups of integrated circuits that connect to the microprocessor in a PC.
I never said that it was folly for Intel to compete with nVidia. I said it was folly for Intel to file the law suit against nVidia.
You might note that nVidia chose not to compete with Intel the new generation chipsets with QPI. No product was on the market when Intel filed suit and nVidia never did put a QPI chipset on the market.
nVidia did at one time consider whether to expand its chipset business to QPI but instead chose to exit the chipset business entirely.
If so, Intel's position will be this is just business as usual. Nothing to see here, move along
I think today's Dilbert may be relevant to the departure of Dirk Meyer
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2011-01-11/
I think there is some major story behind this settlement that is not clear at present. Your idea to wait until the smoke clears sounds good to me.
The Capture Period in the Cross License covers patents having a first effective filling date prior to March 31, 2017. The license grants a life of patent license
The 2004 Cross License extended into the future and covered patents filed during the term of the License. The License term is unknown but was probably at least 5 years and perhaps as much as 10 years. So the original Cross License probably captures patents filed in 2009 that have not yet issued.
It sounds like the renewed Cross License extends for a long time into the future.
Edit: I discovered a redacted version of the Cross License is available on the Intel website with the exception of a Confidential section and will be available at the SEC.
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110110006740/en/Intel-Announces-Patent-Cross-License-Agreement-NVIDIA
The Intel PR spokesman stated that nVidia's graphics patents were included in the 2004 Cross License.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,1729927,00.asp
"the cross-license does include the patents Nvidia holds on its graphics and video cores, Intel's Mulloy said.
You demonstrate an impressive misunderstanding of the Patent Cross License transactions between Intel and nVidia.
Intel already had a license to all of nVidia's graphics patents in the 2004 cross license. No money changed hands in the 2004 cross license.
Presumably, the Settlement extended the term of the cross license. Don't forget that Intel gave nVdia a license to all its semiconductor patents and other patents excepting X86 and some related products. The value of an Intel semiconductor license for a company selling high performance logic is enormous. With this exchange of value, it is amazing that Intel had to pay $1.5 Billion when a similar license was obtained at no cost in 2004.
It is likely that a renewed no-cost Cross License could have been concluded before Intel chose to start a law suit before nVidia even had a product to challenge. The case was so weak that Intel had to pay nVidia $1.5 billion so it could walk away from a law suit and avoid a trial. A few more "wins" like that might suggest that Intel should pick fewer fights or at least smarter ones.
One thing that is worth remembering is that Intel chose to start the fight with nVidia when it filed a law suit asserting that nVidia did not have a license for certain chipset products that nVidia was not making at the time and never did make. This was such a great idea that Intel had to pay nVidia $1.5 Billion to end the fight it started.
A second point is that Intel ended up paying more to nVidia than it paid to AMD for their antitrust claim. The comparison shows both the folly of Intel's strategy to start a fight over the chipset business and the weakness of AMD's antitrust claim involving a microprocessor market that is orders of magnitude larger than the chipset business.
The latest in Cloud Computing
What a great business plan you have there. Low ASPs and negative margins on your latest and greatest new product.
What a great business plan you have there. Low ASPs and negative margins on your latest and greatest new product.
Employees also receive salaries as compensation for their work. Do you think that employee should receive salaries only if shareholders also receive salaries?
That approach might not work very well to keep the wage slaves pulling on the oars of the galley to please their shareholder overlords.
Maybe you and Tenchu should remember a basic rule: Don't feed the Trolls
Definition of "code... should execute": probably will work but may not work in all situations.
What this means in plain language for the comprehension impaired is: while the code works on Intel processors, if it doesn't work on the other stuff you want to use, go see the other guy and don't come whining to us.
An Urban Legend bites again.
Apple says Steve Jobs Ninja incident is “pure fiction”
I second the idea that back-lighting for the keyboard is a must have.
Give Toshiba a try. They have i3 and i5 laptops that are nicely priced. I purchased an i5 powered 14" laptop directly from Toshiba a couple months ago and am very happy with the unit.
The actual model I purchased is no longer available but the successor model M 640 similarly configured with an i5 processor, 4G of memory and integrated graphics costs about $800.
http://laptops.toshiba.com/laptops/satellite/M640
Units with bigger screens are of course also available.
Definitely not. The point is that the US tax rate is not a good metric to determine the actual US taxes paid. In fact it produces a false picture of the actual level of taxation for companies doing business in the US. The US tax code is complicated and contains lots of deductions, credits and corporate welfare. The tax rate alone does not reflect any of those factors.
Oil companies are huge recipients of corporate welfare and pay little or no US taxes. Exxon-Mobil had earnings of more than $40 billion last year and paid no US taxes -- zero, zippo, nada. In fact, Exxon-Mobil actually received a check from the US -- about $150 million IIRC.
It is not unusual for small or medium oil companies to pay little or no US income tax and get a check from the US. But for a behemoth like Exxon-Mobil to pay zero and get a check is extraordinary.
Some companies, particularly US retailers without foreign operations do pay taxes approaching the top tax rate. These companies have not purchased lots of Congress Critters. On the other hand the Oil, Energy companies, Wall Street and other Big Corporations own Congress. High tech companies in general have gone about their business of designing manufacturing and selling products. High tech companies have obtained R&D tax credits and favorable laws on transfer pricing but have not spent enough to buy any CCs -- they just rent them occasionally.
The use of the US corporate tax rate is often used by advocates for reduction of corporate taxes but using the "tax rate" as a metric presents a calculated distortion of the actual taxes paid by US corporations.
http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.nsf/Articles/FE9DCA58402875D7852573680064DA50?OpenDocument
The background paper reports that the United States has the second highest combined (federal and state) statutory corporate income tax rate among the 30 member countries of the OECD. At 39 percent, the U.S. combined statutory corporate tax rate is reported to be 8 percentage points higher than the OECD average....
Although the United States has the second highest statutory corporate tax, the background paper reports that U.S. corporate income tax revenue (federal and state) as a percentage of GDP paradoxically is much lower than the OECD average — 2.2 percent in the United States versus an OECD average of 3.4 percent — over the 2000-2005 period. In short, the OECD data present a conundrum — the United States has the second highest combined statutory corporate tax rate among OECD countries, yet is tied with Hungary in raising the fourth lowest amount of combined corporate income tax revenue relative to GDP in 2004.
This Renee James or this one
If PCIe is not a bus what is it and difference does the naming protocol make?
The University of Texas consistently ranks in the Top 10 party schools on all the lists. And this year UT ranks Numbah 1 on Playboy's Party School List.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/18/playboy-party-schools_n_542049.html
Hook 'em Horns.
Perhaps your student might spill a pitcher of beer on the laptop
Stay prepared.
Microsoft buying Via? Now that would be a hoot. Microsoft knows less about running a semiconductor company than a pet rabbit.
A real threat to Intel would be Samsung acquiring AMD. Samsung does know how to run a semiconductor company -- unlike AMD -- and has all the money it needs. If it runs low on money, it just goes and gets more from the Korean government.
Your research skills served you well in analyzing the decision denying class certification. Only a quibbler like FPG would suggest that the very complex decision could be summarized with a single line. If he would simply read the bold section headings then he might understand why the plaintiffs failed to obtain class certification and are also doomed to even establish harm of any kind for a PC buyer.
I read the entire decision and the Forbes magazine claim is totally false.
All the class action cases are contingent fee cases, just like shareholder class action cases. The attorneys don't get paid unless they get a recovery by wining or settling the class action case.
The out-of-pocket costs for experts, travel, copies etc. are advanced by the attorneys and are recovered when they is a recovery from the defendant. If there is no recovery the attorneys will have to eat the costs.
The amount that any individual claimant can recover is trivial compared to the cost of litigation. The class action aggregates the claims of many millions of PC buyers and now the contingent fee attorneys have a big pile of money to chase after.
When there is no money the attorneys have no interest. If you total up all the representative class members and all the PC's they bought you might have a few hundred PC'S. Even an expert that uses junk science can not fake an injury of more than a few thousand $$ in damages. That is not enough to cover the cost of photocopies.
Problem number 2, is that the plaintiff's attorney took their best efforts to manufacture an injury and they failed. The Special Master found a number of fatal errors in the expert report and refused to admit the report in evidence.
expert's report contained so many failures in methodology that the report was refused admission as evidence
The ruling that PC buyers were not harmed is incredibly significant. It means that the class action suits suffer a bad case of death. The whole antitrust claim suffers a fatal flaw if there was no harm for the plaintiffs. And if in some alternate universe there is an antitrust violation, there is no harm suffered by the handful of named plaintiffs and the class action attorneys recover ZERO damages.
Keep in mind that the suit by NY AG and candidate for Governor Andrew Cuomo is a class action for PC buyers in NY and an action for PCs purchased by state agencies. The NY AG is separate from the combined class action case but if the ruling if no harm stands the NY AG also gets Zero damages.
What you say makes a lot of sense but patent issues before the ITC have a surprising and different outcome. Here is a good explanation:
Did You Know . . . Determinations Of Patent Issues At The ITC Are For Purposes Of Section 337 Only And Do Not Have Res Judicata Effect?
http://www.itcblog.com/20090319/did-you-know-determinations-of-patent-issues-at-the-itc-are-for-purposes-of-section-337-only-and-do-not-have-res-judicata-effect/