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.
Couple of new articles
Here:
http://www.devx.com/amd/Door/16009
Better to focus on AMD now that the competition is "dead man walking"
Some Lawsuit Comments
1) O'Melveny & Myers are about as high profile as you can get, and one of the most feared legal shops. They don't make mistakes, period. Every document is poured over before it leaves their office. This is not true of many attorney firms, even high profile ones in Century City - O'Melveny & Myers is the real deal. Trial court judges just about roll over and sign the order when they see a brief from these guys.
2) The amount of damages is set at 3x actual damages by statute. This is not a slip & fall where the jury has to set the amount so it cannot be reduced on appeal ("shall" is the word). The wiggle room will be small. Once Intel is found guilty, and it will be as sure as eggs is eggs, it is then a matter of AMD filing its damages. I'm not sure if any of the causes of action will ADD to this amount extra punitives but I believe the 3xactual will just about clear out Intel's cash anyway and I suspect any Sherman Act reparations will be more in the way of preventing further abuses.
3) This will not drag on and on. Statements from AMD and the quick off-the-mark letters that the Inq has published indicate to me that AMD is not going to settle, that is wants no delay. Once interrogatories are served there is 30 days to respond, then AMD will serve demand for inspection of the actual documents identified in the interrogatories - another 30 days. Failure to comply will be met with a motion to compel - another 30 days from filing to hearing. In short, Intel has very little room to delay the process.
4) Even using such a high profile legal firm the costs of this suit are negligable for AMD, less than $20m I suspect. Claims that it will be $15m per qtr (UBS) are nonsense. Even at $20m AMD will get the very best that money can buy.
5) Looking at Otellini I can't but help feeling that he will make a very unsympathetic witness. He looks to me like a nasty schoolteacher.
Nice try. Wall Street ignored the news of the suit. If you knew anything, you'd know that Intel discontinued the pension program about 17 years ago
Well that proves:
a) I don't work for Intel (but I bet they wish I did for reasons I won't go into)
b) Wall Street hasn't got its legal opinions in yet.
Now what about those jobs?
Its business until it violates the law.
Then, if the law is broken (and I must say that AMD has as solid a case as anyone could want) the amount of damages is totaled.
Then multiplied by 3.
And then SHALL be levied.
Its really simple.
BTW I popped over to the Intel thread and they have a guy giving legal opinions who spells it as alledged. Go figure.
Reminds me of an attorney who once briefed the Court using the spelling judgement.
Thermonuclear.
That's how I read this lawsuit. Wall St doesn't quite understand yet. They're waiting for the legal opinions and the lawyers are pouring over the complaint to see if there are holes or a legal theory that could get Intel out of this enormous, slimey, disasterous situation that they have got themselves into. Maybe they will but I don't see one. The caselaw is pretty sown up as far as I can see. Companies have done a whole lot less and yet gone down the tubes on the basis of similar suits.
If I were an Intel employee I would be very worried about my job, my pension, everything.
Ah contract law!
If the contract was entered into on an illegal basis that contract is unenforceable. I presume you are asking if the customer e.g. Fujitsu, would still be able to claim treble damages.
Without doing a legal search I cannot point you to a specific case but it would seem if the customer can show actual damages then they could recover those + punitives even if they entered into a contract with the wrongdoer. Let's say that Fujitsu wanted to market a range of Athlon desktops but Intel said "if you do that we may not be able to supply Xeons". Why not contract with us for all your CPU needs and we can guarantee supply? Clearly the damage is there even though a contract was entered into and "unclean hands" would not apply, moreover the contract is a nullity.
Fujitsu would have to show actual damages however, not just lost opportunity it may have had. If there were a customer waiting or even a line that hd been developed and had to be terminated then there is a good case for actual damages.
I'm sure there is a similar case somewhere.
Increased my AMD holdings significantly
based on the lawsuits. I'll wait a bit before shorting Intel, let the big players pump it up to allow themselves to get out.
Third party damages
The important thing that has come out is that AMD's customers and would-be customers can also get damages - treble damages - for Intel's anticompetitive actions. It will take a bit of time for them to realize but not too long. HP will already be onboard on that. Via too, and the mobo makers.
Interesting tack the Intel people are taking. They are arguing the MSoft FTC case, and the 1998 case, based on monopoly status or lack thereof. I can see Otellini now screaming at his legal team "WE WON BEFORE, WE'LL DO IT AGAIN!" and a timid voice from an inhouse lawyer "but Mr Otellini, sir, it isn't quite the same this time, er, we have an itsy-bitsy problem if you don't mind me saying so, sir, er let me try to explain . . ."
Penal v. Punitive
Thx, yes I see where he is not understanding.
The 17082 statute is stronger than the 3452 Civil Code where the former is a "shall" recover triple damages whereas the latter is a "may" recover exemplary damages. That's a very common thing, certainly in CA code, that was clarified very early on in published opinions.
Did you read Helm v. Bollman?
17082 are punitives that go beyond "fraud, malice & oppression" and are penal in nature. I hadn't worked with 17082 so I did not immediately know about the *mandatory* puntive aspect.
Did you read 17082? The punitive aspect goes beyond 3x actual damages to the plaintiff and allows 3rd parties to get triple damages too if they assign them to the suit. There must be a feeding frenzy going on in Silicon Valley right now. I wonder what Via, NVidia, ULI are doing - let me guess adding up their damages. And Transmeta, and HP/Compaq, Gateway and on and on.
It will be the new sport - carving up Intel's assets.
Treble damages Mandatory under CA law.
Here, let me help you out. Review the discussion on exemplary damages in: C.H.I.I. v. MTS, INC. [ 147 Cal.App.3d 256 ]
"As appellants concede, the settled rule in California is that statutes which provide for recovery of damages additional to actual losses incurred, such as double or treble damages, are considered penal in nature (Helm v. Bollman (1960) 176 Cal.App.2d 838, 843 [1 Cal.Rptr. 723]"
Where treble damages are specifically called for under Bus & Prof 17082
17082. In any action under this chapter, it is not necessary to
allege or prove actual damages or the threat thereof, or actual
injury or the threat thereof, to the plaintiff. But, in addition to
injunctive relief, any plaintiff in any such action shall be entitled
to recover three times the amount of the actual damages, if any,
sustained by the plaintiff, as well as three times the actual
damages, if any, sustained by any person who has assigned to the
plaintiff his claim for damages resulting from a violation of this
chapter.
In any action under this chapter in which judgment is entered
against the defendant the plaintiff shall be awarded a reasonable
attorney's fee together with the costs of suit.
The amendments to this section adopted at the 1959 Regular Session
of the Legislature do not apply to any action commenced prior to
September 18, 1959.
There are quite a few cases under the 17045 statute and the settled law mirrors very nicely the alleged actions by Intel.
The part "as well as three times the actual
damages, if any, sustained by any person who has assigned to the
plaintiff his claim for damages resulting from a violation of this
chapter." makes interesting reading for it means that OEMs could assign their damages on this part of the suit and also receive treble damages.
Punitives
Here's the Code section that authorizes punitive damages under CA law:
3294. (a) In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising
from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence
that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice,
the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages
for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.
. . . [portion omitted]
(c) As used in this section, the following definitions shall
apply:
(1) "Malice" means conduct which is intended by the defendant to
cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried
on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the
rights or safety of others.
(2) "Oppression" means despicable conduct that subjects a person
to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's
rights.
(3) "Fraud" means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or
concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the
intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person
of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.
I know the Civil Code & CCP rather well
"Not as well as you think that you do"
Interesting attack. Why do you say this?
<The damages will be substantial. I estimate, before punitives, $10bn>
Your response "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."
Ah, but as I have pointed out this is not only about antitrust, there are 3 causes of action: 1) Sherman Act (antitrust); 2) Clayon Act (federal unfair business practices); 3) CA Bus & Prof Code (tortious interference with bus relationships). Where there is fraud, malice & oppression there certainly are punitives and you can see them claimed in the Complaint's prayer, section C. I do think however that the Complaint will have to be amended to allege, explicitly, the fraud, malice & oppression.
Now if you can point me to some caselaw that prohibits punitives in the 2nd & 3rd causes of action I would be willing to debate this. I don't know the Clayton Act since its federal, not state, and I don't have access to federal caselaw on an easy basis. However I will not argue the Codes for that is the job of published opinions and I think you ought to do some work before you challenge any analysis.
Certainly punitives are not limited to personal injury cases, in fact there they are quite rare I would think. I successfully guided a nuisance case where the Complaint demanded punitives (that's also a tort by the way).
Wow 9 matches!
Gee you do legal analysis by wc?
Here's the relevant CA Code section:
"17045. The secret payment or allowance of rebates, refunds,
commissions, or unearned discounts, whether in the form of money or
otherwise, or secretly extending to certain purchasers special
services or privileges not extended to all purchasers purchasing upon
like terms and conditions, to the injury of a competitor and where
such payment or allowance tends to destroy competition, is unlawful."
Where's the monopoly in that?
Now take a look at the Clayton Act, you'll see the same thing.
I find it hard to justify a $3.2bn award, maybe under Clayton Act 3x3.2bn = $10bn
I think you may find my estimate well worth it. Bookmark it.
Its not about monopoly!
Intel got off the 1998 FTC investigation because the commisioners were unsure if the monopoly label would stick. It was close.
This time you're talking about Clayton Act violations and breaches of the CA Business & Professions Code. THESE DO NOT REQUIRE A FINDING OF MONOPOLY.
Get it clear, if AMD has even 1% of what I think they have they can walk this case through a jury. IMHO Intel is in dire jeopardy here and I see no defense (and I know the Civil Code & CCP rather well)
The damages will be substantial. I estimate, before punitives, $10bn
Good luck listening to Intel senior management.
Not just antitrust.
What's not being said is that antitrust - monopoly and predatory pricing = is only part of the suit. In 1998 the FTC was unhappy at declaring Intel a monopoly and hence accepted a settlement rather than go to a judge.
This time the suit also applies Clayton Act & CA Bus & Prof. Code which don't require the finding of a monopoly status.
While Intel has skirted FTC before on that issue by claiming not to be a monopoly that will not be sufficient this time.
I believe the FTC would have a harder time this time around not finding monopoly status. In addition the JFTC did find violations and the EU probe is ongoing.
Otellini is telling half-truths, but its what I would expect. No biggie.
So the lawsuit is worth $20/share as far as they are concerned.
Yes, that's what Wells Fargo believes.
I think they're a little light given the 3x damages of the Clayton Act plus punitives - that they account to $8/share. I see it as more than that, more likely $6-$10bn in 3x damages then add punitives.
Then they put the forward value at $8-$12/share, probably about right if x64 wasn't coming.
AMD has been lining this up for years. There was so much bad blood even after the x86 suit years ago this was almost bound to happen. I have little doubt that AMD could go for a summary judgment on what it has already. Tom McCoy, legal counsel at AMD, had something up his sleeve years ago. Nice to see your competitor doing the work for you and then the courts triple the profits. I'm also sure they have kept a careful accounting of their damages from the earliest point they can pinpoint anticompetitive behavior. This is not something Hector dreamed up last week.
I should also add that this will dry up the # of shares short in AMD very quickly. Nothing like the uncertainty of a big win or an unexpected settlement.
Wells Fargo is estimating . .
$8/share in damages plus another $8-$12 from the relaxation of Intel's anticompetitive measures.
So the lawsuit is worth $20/share as far as they are concerned.
Seems a little bit low but that's their opinion.
Wells Fargo Securities said there is "a high degree of likelihood" that Intel (nasdaq: INTC - news - people ) will be found guilty after Advanced Micro Devices. . ."
More at:
http://www.forbes.com/markets/2005/06/28/0628automarketscan14.html?partner=yahootix&referrer=
So Wells Fargo agrees with me, pleased to see that.
Buy as much AMD as you can
That's a pretty fair assessment and good advice. I hope you take it too.
Certainly any analyst should be upgrading based on todays events. AMD will go up on the complaint. INTC will go down based upon its court filings in response.
Lawsuit is off balance sheet asset
Think of the effect of this lawsuit as an asset that doesn't appear on the balance sheet.
Its cost is ~$25m. Its has a chance, a very good chance IMHO, of dwarfing the market cap - as much as 3x todays cap, say $20bn.
On the basis of this lawsuit along I would buy into AMD at the current price. Its much better odds than the lottery.
This analysis ignores the value of AMD on the basis of sales, future profits, cash & fixed assets.
Claims of AMD
Your analysis of the AMD action is:
"1. prove the allegations are true (I think this is not going to be that hard).
2. they are illegal for a monopolist (this is a legal quadmire).
3. prove Intel is a monopoly (this is a legal quadmire).
4. prove consumers have been harmed (this is pretty easy)."
You may like to note that only one of the three claims in the action relates to monopolistic practices, that is number 1 (Willful Maintenance of a Monopoly In Violation of Sherman Act, Section 2). The other two do not require AMD to prove that Intel is a monopoly.
Therefore AMD only has to prove 1) & 4) from your list and you state they are not hard. I agree with you.
I know a lot about the Civil Code. I have argued cases before Courts many, many times - including Appellate.
If you think this is anything but a Major disaster for Intel and one that is going to cause them enormous grief, then I think you should reread the complaint, the code sections and the caselaw.
KeithDust2000
And if we've been through this before you're just not reading what I'm saying. You misunderstand the Sun business model. Its not about selling hardware, its not about selling software.
Its about providing the computer service.
And Sun is qualifying its Galaxy servers on offsite installations now and already probably has test units in onsite installations as we speak.
The "retail" Galaxies are but a small part of the business. Volume business has started. Its not in development.
I know they are operational. I spent several hours drinking beer with a senior manager,
So what else do you want?
DUplicate, sorry
I don't think you see what's really going on. Sun is multiple entities. SSG is the SPARC group: big, slow-moving, old & mature tech.
NSG is the Opteron group: small, fast-growing, ambitious. NSG is getting the attention of senior management. Jim Newton is the head of NSG.
It may be that SSG wanted the tape biz. I don't know
I found their focus compelling. There is a supreme confidence. I must disagree with the Solaris/Linux situation. Seems like Solaris is the taking the mantle of Linux and delivering it into the enterprise.
When you see Sun in that perspective I think their actions make a lot more sense.
Sun
I don't think you see what's really going on. Sun is multiple entities. SSG is the SPARC group: big, slow-moving, old & mature tech.
NSG is the Opteron group: small, fast-growing, ambitious. NSG is getting the attention of senior management. Jim Newton is the head of NSG.
It may be that SSG wanted the tape biz. I don't know
I found their focus compelling. There is a supreme confidence. I must disagree with the Solaris/Linux situation. Seems like Solaris is the taking the mantle of Linux and delivering it into the enterprise.
When you see Sun in that perspective I think their actions make a lot more sense.
Sun Workstation
At $895 this "workstation" fills a major hole in Sun's lineup I think. I have long advocated that Sun offers a "PC" as a desktop client to complement its server business. Looks like they're doing that now.
Call it what you want but this is a major product line from Sun and should see big volume sales into enterprises. I will be interested to see the specs on this. I anticipate that this would be a good branded system to spec into the small-biz jobs even when there is no Sun kit already on site.
Sun Galaxy is not slipping
As I posted a month or so ago, after my meeting with a Sun exec, Glaxay is already in use. When contracts involve offsite placing of the kit Sun is already using Galaxy servers.
For Sun its more important to get their servers fully qualified and tested in customer installations than it is to make some announcement. This is not like consumer marketing and getting kit on the shelves.
READ THIS
Solaris 10 Operating System on Sun's x64 platform-based Sun Fire(TM) Servers Yields Strong Performance Gains and Lower Total Cost of Ownership at Global 500 Financial Institutions
"SANTA CLARA, Calif., June 21 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Sun Microsystems (Nasdaq: SUNW - News) today revealed that over 40 new Solaris(TM) 10 Operating System (OS) "proof-of-concept" trials with financial services firms from around the world have produced significant performance results on Sun's latest systems. Customers with processor-intensive environments, including Mitsubishi Securities, SunGard, Philadelphia Stock Exchange (PHLX), Kasikorn Bank (Thailand), ABN AMRO (Singapore), D.E. Shaw, JP Morgan Chase (recently announced) as well as the largest securities company in Japan, were among the latest to work with Sun. In all, more than 40 customers contributed to this effort, which delivered performance improvements of up to 400 percent."
And it goes on, getting better at:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050621/sftu100.html?.v=16
Thx to niceguy at SI
Freebie?
I think so, aren't all of the web broadcasts. Though I must agree with you that the Passport thing sucks.
I get a few spams from MSoft but not too many.
Can't you use the SDK compiler to distribute code? I agree that a released compiler is really needed but are you selling code? I suspect that the codegen is fine, maybe a few tweaks in the IDE and the wizards and examples.
Any luck building x64 firefox yet?
Something I don't understand.
Can anyone explain to me why Microsoft is pushing out Windows 2000? Companies are sticking with it. Microsoft should just continue to improve it. XP is too consumerish. Why not make Win2000 the last business for 32-bit, adding in the need to register each copy with an SP.
Then Longhorn could be a clean move to 64-bit.
I think they would sell a whole lot more Win2000s if they carried on supporting it, with a whole less effort, than their current strategy of trying, unsuccessfully, to move businesses to WinXP.
XP looks like a bit of a dead end to me.
Mike Wall Webinar—AMD64 and x64 Windows: Optimizing for Maximum 64-bit Performance
Mark your calendars, June 22 at 11:00Am PST
http://www.msreadiness.com/wscart.asp?eid=2358
One that Mmoy might enjoy methinks.
What the resolution on that 24 in LCD?
Cheers
Don't take it too seriously . . . yet
Intel Pentium D Stress Test
Trying to stop laughing . .
I mean its the funniest thing I've seen for years. I am almost weeping.
The Intel system went critical and poured out tons of smoke!!
I saved a jpg but it might be off soon.
Look out below - maybe this is the end of Tom's as we know it.
When developers have to choose . .
So there are seemingly a lot of Mac developers who are upset and now have to switch. What will they switch to?
Their options are:
An uncertain OSX x86-base.
A saturated x86 Windows market
The new AMD64 - XP64 Windows market.
At least some will dump OSX as too risky and look toward XP64 and longhorn.
Then the traditional Mac users will have to consider too. Will they jump to Intel or AMD??? My guess is that this is good news for AMD. Remember the Metropolis commercial.
AAPL: Intel+$$$
Well the most heavy-handed Osborne I've ever seen. Given that the PPC Mac is a dead product from today I must ask what Jobs did to ensure that AAPL will even be around a year from now?
Apart from stupidity, and I don't think he is stupid, I can only conclude that Intel is putting up $$$ to support AAPL during the transition.
In which case isn't this a secret takeover? I mean this really smacks of anti-competitive activity.
HD constrained.
For the most part I agree that PCs are normally constrained by their HDs. Its not true when you are doing video rendering and gaming and you have enough memory.
I actually use quite an old PC for my normal office work but it does have a good disk system. The main drive(s) is a 120GB RAID mirror using a pair of WD drives on a 3Ware controller - an excellent board and the best $129 I ever spent - no more HD head crashes!
Then I have a "scratch drive" which is a high-speed SCSI Seagate Cheetah resued from a defunct Dell server. That drive hosts the temp files, spooler dir, pagefile, logfiles, event files, temp internet files - in fact anything that is unimportant and would be otherwise written to the RAID system. I really don't want stuff written to my system drive unless really necessary.
I recommend splitting drive storage between system, data & scratch - it improves performance, reduces fragmentation & wear on the drives.
Also do a search on power protected caching and the Microsoft utility dskcache. Make quite a difference if you have a UPS or a laptop.
Prescott: The Last of the Mohicans Part Deux
Analysis of the "replay mechanism"
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/print/netburst-2.html
Thanks to the Inq at:
http://www.theinquirer.org/?article=23699