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 Obama administration has not attacked Intel. It would be fair to blame or credit the Obama administration for antitrust enforcement by the DoJ but not enforcement by the current FTC. All four of the current FTC Commissioners were appointed by Pres George W Bush to the FTC. Pres Obama elevated Commissioner Leibowitz, an original Bush appointment, to the Chairmanship.
http://www.ftc.gov/commissioners/index.shtml
The Obama nomination of Judith Brill for the 5th seat is still pending.
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/11/obama-names-two-lawyers-to-ftc-slots.html
The DoJ and the FTC have overlapping antitrust enforcement authority but they use different trial procedures. The DOJ uses the US District Court for and the FTC uses an administrative law Court. The areas of enforcement are worked out through informal agreement often on industry lines. An appeal from either trial court can be made to the US Circuit Court of Appeals and then the US Supreme Court
The FTC handles enforcement on Intel and originally it also handled enforcement with Microsoft. However, when the FTC decided in a 3 - 2 decision not to take action against MS the DoJ took another look and decided to take action against MS. This presented a classic case of a difference in opinion on antitrust law between the DoJ and and the FTC.
You should take the Thomas Sowell discussion over to the Freepers site. The environment will be much much better over there for this kind of thinking.
You clearly not bright enough to understand that the FTC charged a violation of Section 5 but mentioned nothing about Section 13. The real benefit of your troll bait is that there is nothing like some deceptive highlighting to reveal your lack of understanding
Intel said that the GloFo License did not include the right to make X86 products for others. GloFo could of course make X86 products for AMD who has a license from Intel including the right to have any foundry -- not just GloFo -- make its products.
The GloFo License is not public but it probably gives GloFo a right to make semiconductor products as long as the products are not X86 processors with an exception for anyone who has a foundry license for X86 products.
I guess you missed the part where I said the settlement was a big win for AMD. You really need to remove your blinders.
It is not Intel's job to satisfy you AMD. Intel's job is to satisfy its customers.
When Intel succeeds in pleasing its customers, the process of competition thrives.
Re: Asked and answered.
Like any slimy politician, you answer nothing. You just change the subject and speak gibberish.
How about a transition to the ray tracing solution for rendering graphics that Intel was pursuing? That produces some dramatic improvements.
Will ray tracing with something like a massively parallel Larabee deliver a performance boost?
Perhaps you can ask yourself why AMD settled for so little if they could have received, by your calculation, 10 times as much after trebling after a trial. Could it be that AMD knew there was a risk of getting nothing if they went to trial.
Any time there is a trial, both parties know that there is a risk of loss. Given the huge numbers at stake, the $1.25 billion payment by Intel was little more than an insurance payment to eliminate the risk of a bad result. When you add in the large benefit Intel received prevented AMD from using the fake subsidiary strategy to give GloFo a license to make X86 processors for the rest of the world -- without having to spend a dime on a law suit -- the settlement was a big win for Intel.
The settlement was also a big win for AMD who received enough money to survive for a couple years under new management and attempt to find a business plan for long term survival. Without the settlement money AMD would not have survived for long.
Isn't it interesting how a settlement has something good for both sides.
I guess that Henri Richard - just like Michael Dell - is the best friend that money can guy
Re: Patching ICC allowed AMD processors to use the SSE3 path and gain a performance benefit.
So if a user can install a patch and run the Intel Compiler to gain the performance benefit on an AMD processor, what is the problem? Obviously, using the patch would be at the risk of the user but that is the whole point.
Intel has no obligation to test the AMD implementation and does not want the heat if the compiled code sometimes fails on an AMD processor.
Imagine the loud squeals by you and the rest of the AMD fanboys if the Intel compiler caused the AMD processor even if the failure was a failure due to AMD's implementation.
AMD would run to the EU, Japan, Korea, US FTC and any other trade regulator AMD could find, complaining about the terrible harm to competition from the Intel Compiler.
We need a legal ruling here from FastPathTenchu. Tell us what is fair Honorable Supreme Regulator.
It is hard to say. If The FTC needs more time to investigate then the proceeding will certainly take longer. Don't expect a litigated FTC decision for 2 or 3 years and that does not include an appeal.
A Consent Decree would come sooner and that is the likely outcome. But it is really too early to make meaningful forecasts.
Based on the Intel Press Release it does seem there was a rush by the FTC to file the Complaint without a complete investigation. Clearly, there are political considerations behind the filing of a Complaint instead of completing the negotiations with Intel on a Consent Degree.
The administrative hearing by the FTC is not at all like the European Commission proceeding. Intel will receive full strength due process throughout the administrative hearing process under a written set of rules. Intel will also receive a hearing before an ALJ where the FTC must establish its case by presenting evidence and testimony subject to cross examination. Intel will have a fair opportunity to present its defense.
The rules of law governing fair competition are set forth in the many appellate court cases interpreting fair competition and Section 5. Intel will also have the opportunity to appeal an FTC decision to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. The DC Circuit is definitely not a rubber stamp for the FTC.
The FTC is fully aware that it will have to prove its case before an independent ALJ and justify any decision before the DC Circuit. This knowledge will have a tendency to moderate the FTC thinking in future Consent Decree negotiations with Intel and prevent demands that go beyond existing law. An embarrassing reversal of a litigated decision by the DC Circuit will not serve the political interests of the FTC.
The FTC case is not seeking money. It is seeking an order to regulate competition. See the FTC Press Release.
It is quite likely that Intel will reach an agreement with the FTC on a Consent Decree. The FTC will claim victory and Intel will state that it agreed to not do things that it was not doing in the first place.
FTC Press Release
The Complaint will proceed as an administrative hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/12/intel.shtm
FTC Challenges Intel's Dominance of Worldwide Microprocessor Markets
FTC Charges Anticompetitive Tactics Have Stifled Innovation and Harmed Consumers
The Federal Trade Commission today sued Intel Corp., the world’s leading computer chip maker, charging that the company has illegally used its dominant market position for a decade to stifle competition and strengthen its monopoly.
<snip>
To remedy the anticompetitive damage alleged in the complaint, the FTC is seeking an order which includes provisions that would prevent Intel from using threats, bundled prices, or other offers to encourage exclusive deals, hamper competition, or unfairly manipulate the prices of its CPU or GPU chips. The FTC also may seek an order prohibiting Intel from unreasonably excluding or inhibiting the sale of competitive CPUs or GPUs, and prohibiting Intel from making or distributing products that impair the performance–or apparent performance–of non-Intel CPUs or GPUs.
<snip>
According to the FTC’s complaint, Intel’s anticompetitive tactics violate Section 5 of the FTC Act, which is broader than the antitrust laws and prohibits unfair methods of competition, and deceptive acts and practices in commerce. Critically, unlike an antitrust violation, a violation of Section 5 cannot be used to establish liability for plaintiffs to seek triple damages in private litigation against the same defendant. The complaint also alleges that Intel engaged in illegal monopolization, attempted monopolization and monopoly maintenance, also in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act.
<snip>
Under the recently implemented rule expediting the Part 3 administrative hearing process, this matter is tentatively scheduled to be heard before an Administrative Law Judge on September 15, 2010, at 10:00 a.m.
Details on the nature of the FTC Complaint
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=28597&tag=nl.e589
FTC sues Intel, aims to shape the GPU market
Here is a specific citation for you:
“A Word Means What I Say it Means; no more, no Less”
--The Red Queen
Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll
Re: [HP] was confident it can grow earnings per share "significantly faster" than revenue.
I am sure that HP is really looking forward to the loss of the Intel rebates and market development funds so it can increase its earnings.
You raise a good point. And 100,000 RSU's is a HUGE grant. That is like a $5,000,000 bonus for just staying on the job with much more possible if Apple stock appreciates.
My SWAG is that Sewell also received a big batch of stock options as well.
I think that a major reason or perhaps the reason, for Bruce Sewell's departure was money. Apple is a lot more generous with executive pay than Intel. It's stock is also a much better bet for appreciation than Intel.
Your theory about a conflict on the merit of settlement at this time makes no sense to me. The decision to settle was not made by Andy Bryant. It was certainly a collective decision of executives at the highest leve, probably including Brant, and the Board.
Andy Bryant was designated as lead negotiator to replace Bruce Sewell after he announced his departure and left for Apple.
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2009/tc20091115_692400.htm
Each RSU equals 1 share of stock. When the RSU vests the grant holder receives a share of stock for each RSU and the value of the vested stock shares at time of vesting has is subject to earned income tax.
An employee stock option gives the employee the right to buy shares of stock at a grant price when the option vests at some time in the future. The grant price is equal to the stock price when granted.
Typically, options vest over 3 to 5 year. Once an option vests an employee can buy the stock immediately or at a later time before the the option expires. Options typically expire about 5 years after vesting.
An option does not generate income tax liability when it vests. However, when an option is exercised the difference between market price at exercise and the grant price constitutes income for tax purposes whether or not the stock is sold. The stock value at exercise then becomes the basis for the stock when it is later sold
For those wondering why Bruce Sewell left Intel to become GC at Apple, it was money. Sewell received 100,000 restricted stock units that will vest over 4 years. The restricted stock has a value of about $19,000,000 at current prices.
That does not include salary, bonus or stock options that were awarded to Sewell.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/000118143109044913/xslF345X03/rrd253482.xml
Your arithmetic is right on the money.
The same way 25% split five ways is 14% each.
-- Ma and Pa Kettle
I think that there has been a big change in AMD management that allowed the antitrust settlement to move forward. Hector Ruiz is gone and Dirk Meyer is now the CEO.
I don't think that the settlement would have happened if Ruiz was still around. The fact that Ruiz was pushed out the door and into GloFlo is an indication that the AMD Board recognized Ruiz's failures.
Meyer has an engineering background and wants to move forward with a new business plan. He can implement the forget the emotional baggage and act like "statesman" in the industry.
Re:{AMD} could now focus on niche, high margin markets/products where Intel doesnt compete directly
Kind of like Via does, right?
The NY AG law suit is actually just a NY consumer class action law suit plus a claim for NY government purchases. Other consumer class action cases are also pending in Delaware and a few in California.
The consumer class action cases will get settled by Intel but that should be fairly easy. The class action attorneys have been riding AMD's coat tails and do not want to take the lead in the antitrust lawsuit. Intel will have to throw some money at the attorneys to make them go away but the consumers were will get next to nothing.
You are totally off base with the estimates of billions of $$. Take a few deep breaths and relax or you're going to blow a circuit breaker
The market reaction today in response to the antitrust settlement is very interesting. INTC closed down 0.16 and was basically unchanged. The antitrust settlement had virtually no effect on the value of INTC.
AMD closed up 1.16 after it received 1.86 per share in cash from the $1.25 billion settlement payment by Intel. The increase in stock price was $0.70 less than the cash added to AMD's value. It almost seems that the net effect of the settlement was that AMD's stock value decreased in price.
My brain moves a lot faster than my fingers type
Whatever point you are trying to make, the old Agreement will be superseded by the new 5 year license Agreement the is part of the Settlement.
Correction: I meant to say "I think this a very good settlement for [both] AMD [and Intel].
The posted Agreement will probably have some redactions, at least in the License portion.
I think this a very good settlement for AMD.
It does surprise me a bit that AMD is smart enough to take the deal with all the emotional jihad that AMD had invested. However, Dirk Meyer represents a new management and the old management is gone.
The $1.25 billion buys AMD another couple years of life. AMD can also freely pursue its foundry business model using GloFo or probably anyone else.
GloFo will not have an X86 license that it can spread to the world, something that would have resulted if GF was a fake subsidiary under the AMD license. This is a big win for Intel and it was done without litigation.
Don't worry about AMD 5 to 10 years down the road. AMD will not then exist in its present form if at all. How did Netscape do after the Microsoft settlement? AMD may be around as a niche graphics chip house but it will have no more significance in the X86 business than Via.
See the lengthy wiretap recordings of Ruiz's conversations with Danielle Chiesi, the indicted hedge fund trader.
The Ruiz recordings that you said did not exist.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21176060/Insider-Trading-Complaint-Against-Danielle-Chiesi-and-Others
Re: You cannot cherry pick lines from emails..
Absolutely true if you want the true story.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=43274258
If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.
- Cardinal De Richelieu
h/t Chipguy
There is no rule for you concerning posts on legal issues. However, when people think you are a fool it is best to remain silent and not prove you are a fool.
You do not have even basic knowledge in the legal arena and common sense says you should remain silent.
NVidia claimed that its existing license covered QuickPath chipsets and Intel disputed the scope of the license asserting that QuickPath products were not covered.
I think the real dispute was that nVidia wanted a free ride under the old license where it had made a lump sum payment and did not want to pay for a license extension to the QuickPath technology.
A simple no-fee registration will allow viewing of the NY Times.
Confucius say: Don't get in a mud fight with a pig, the pig likes wallowing around in the mud.
Well maybe Confucius didn't say it, but the advice applies to the argument style of fpg.
The NY AG complaint spends a lot of time talking about the Intel rebate payments that it made to Dell. The interesting thing to note is that Dell was applying intense pressure on Intel for larger payments. On the other hand, the Intel account manager wanted to hold the line on larger payments. Dell did succeed in its demands for larger payments.
This sounds like an aggressive customer with lots of bargaining power using the threat of buying from AMD instead of Intel if Intel did not lower its price. The strategy sounds very much like the method I used on the local Ford dealer to get a lower price on my last new car purchase.
Re: a footnote says "there is evidence that Intel continues to apply pressure to Dell to minimize AMD's ability to compete effectively.
I am truly shocked.
The fair and gentle rules of competition announced by Neelie Kroes require Intel to urge Dell to buy AMD's stuff instead of Intel's processors.
Try reading this without the inflammatory comments added by the NY AG and you get an entirely different impression. Basically, Intel is saying to Dell: if you want to receive Intel marketing funds you have to use the funds to market Intel-based products. If you want to market AMD products, use AMD's money or your money
Here is how the material would read if you delete the inflammatory advocacy.
141 [reformatted] ]In an April 29 email to other top Dell executives, Michael Dell wrote: “We have been looking at the situation for a long time, and have decided to introduce a broad range of AMD based systems into our product line to provide the choice our customers are asking for.”
142 [reformatted] Craig Barrett, Intel’s Board Chairman, responded that Dell should start paying “list prices.” Barrett told Ottelini: “[T]hey have just signaled they are only interested in being a transaction based customer. I think you should reply in kind. Not a time for weakness on our part. Stop writing checks immediately and put them back on list prices asap.”
143. [reformatted] The direction Otellini gave his subordinates the next day was consistent with Barrett’s advice. “We should be prepared to remove all mcp and related programs. Post haste… then we ought to enter negotiations.”