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.
remember........
April 28, 2005 12:36 PM PDT
Intel's big hiring day
Employees come and go, but Intel had a particularly good hiring day back in April 1974. On a single day, incoming employees included Paul Otellini, the incoming CEO; Tom Dunlap, an engineer who later became general counsel; and Harold Hughes, who helped jumpstart Intel Capital and is now the CEO of Rambus, Hughes recalled.
Hughes wasn't too familiar with the company, but noted it was in California. He lived in Michigan.
"There was a mimeograph sheet with Intel and a funny 'e' in the recruiting center," Hughes said.
Posted by Michael Kanellos
========================
May. 16, 2005
Intel's new boss leads by example
NON-TECH EXEC TO FOCUS ON CHANGING MARKET
By Dean Takahashi
Mercury News
Paul Otellini becomes Intel's chief executive Wednesday, the first non-engineer to head the world's largest chip maker. But that doesn't mean he can't bond with the technologists responsible for Intel's innovation.
During a team-building exercise, the soft-spoken Intel veteran led rampaging engineering executives through a cluster of cubicles, firing paint-ball guns at cornered opponents. ``We were all out there charging the flag. He would take the bullet. He would pull together a team,' recalled Cadence Design Systems CEO Mike Fister, a former Intel executive, of the paint-ball battle six years ago.
For Otellini, that ability to marshal the support of Intel's engineers will prove crucial as he tries to retake the high ground in microprocessor design from rival Advanced Micro Devices and outdo competitors such as Broadcom and Texas Instruments. It is this leadership skill -- not his origins as a numbers guy with an MBA -- that won him the top job.
Otellini, 55, is taking the helm at a momentous time. Intel dominates the market for personal computer chips but has faltered in its bid to expand aggressively into semiconductors for communications, cell phones and consumer electronics.
The bottom line
Still, Intel remains hugely profitable, raking in more than $2 billion in net income a quarter. Its sales exceed $9 billion a quarter, surpassing those during the peak of the dot-com boom in 2000.
Otellini declined to be interviewed for this article. Those who know him describe Otellini as quiet and modest, at least compared with Intel CEOs like the blunt Andrew Grove and the sometimes sarcastic Craig Barrett.
``Paul was less confrontational,' said Bill Davidow, a former Intel marketing executive who worked with Otellini in the 1970s. ``He was very smart, energetic and unflappable. I saw Andy Grove as a great manager, but I see Paul as a leader, someone more like David Packard.'
Said Jim McGregor, an analyst at In-Stat, ``He was born and bred in the same `only the paranoid survive' culture that Andy Grove created. So it's not a huge change.' But as the company matures, ``It's better for Intel to be run by someone with a business perspective, not a technical perspective.'
While Barrett concentrated on transforming Intel into a manufacturing powerhouse, Otellini is focused on making Intel into a market-driven company. Otellini is reorganizing the company around platforms -- packages of chips and electronic components plus the marketing needed for customers to launch new products.
For instance, Otellini led Centrino, a successful campaign that pulled together all the technology needed to get consumers to use laptops to access the Internet wirelessly.
Raised in a religious San Francisco family, Otellini was an altar boy as a youth.
But Otellini had a mind for business. As a teenager, he sold hot dogs at Candlestick Park. He received an economics degree from the University of San Francisco in 1968 and an MBA from the University of California-Berkeley four years later. During school, he worked at a clothing store and in the purchasing department of a slaughterhouse. When he left Berkeley, he wanted to break into the tech industry.
He accepted a job from Intel in 1974 and started in the company's finance department on the same day as Harold Hughes, now CEO of memory-chip designer Rambus.
In the beginning
The two men bought a house together in San Francisco. For a time, Hughes said, ``I thought it would bankrupt us. But we wound up making money on it.'
Otellini had a knack for making money -- and for finding important projects within Intel. He moved to Intel's fledgling microprocessor group in the late 1970s at the start of the PC revolution. His work attracted the attention of Intel co-founders Gordon Moore and Andy Grove.
Otellini kept moving up the Intel food chain. He started Intel's PC chipset business, which has grown into its second-largest business behind microprocessors.
Grove began grooming Otellini and in 1989 made him his technical assistant. Others teased Otellini about the seemingly menial job -- Otellini had to make sure the chief executive's speeches went off without a hitch and teach him how to use a personal computer. But Grove wanted to assess Otellini.
He passed the test and continued his rise through the ranks. Otellini ran the microprocessor products division, helping to launch Intel's enormously successful Pentium processor in 1993.
``In those years, he moved beyond being just a finance guy. He understood the business from one end to the other,' said Atiq Raza, a former AMD president.
Barrett, then Intel's president, asked Otellini to move to head sales and marketing.
All the while, Otellini continued to commute from San Francisco to Santa Clara. He once bought a house in Los Altos Hills but eventually moved back to the city. He met his second wife, Sandra, at Intel. She worked as a lawyer in legal and management positions until she retired in 1995.
After Intel's board of directors named him CEO-elect in November, Otellini reorganized the management team around five technology platforms.
Change for better
``Paul has carefully thought through the platform strategy and cajoled and encouraged conversation in the management team,' said Sean Maloney, senior vice president of the mobility group at Intel. ``I've never seen such a big organizational change carried out this well.'
Intel recently reported stellar financial results. But among the challenges Otellini faces is the need to re-ignite the company's growth. Indeed, the word ``growth' has been posted in every Intel building to drive home the task at hand.
``Otellini knows where he has to take the company,' said analyst McGregor. ``At Intel, he has operated in the background behind some very big personalities. Now it's time for him to step forward and show his.'
William Davidow Ph.D.
Director Emeritus
Dr. Davidow was a director since Rambus's founding in March 1990 through May 4, 2005 when he was appointed Director Emeritus. He served as chairman of the board until January 2005. Since 1985, Dr. Davidow has been a general partner of Mohr, Davidow Ventures, a venture capital firm. From 1973 to 1985, he held a number of management positions at Intel Corporation, including Senior Vice President of Marketing and Sales, Vice President of the Microcomputer Division and Vice President of the Microcomputer Systems Division. Dr. Davidow holds A.B. and M.S. degrees in Electrical Engineering from Dartmouth College, an M.S. degree in Electrical Engineering from the California Institute of Technology, and a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University. He also serves as Chairman of the Board of Directors of FormFactor, Inc.
INTERVIEW like that takes days/weeks to come together for publication.
Not like a call set it up today and it happens tomorrow.
Esp. so w/ a public company.
I suspect this is just a piece of a PR rollout.
Hard to tie it timing-wise to "an" event in the litigation, although 1/4/06 has no doubt increased the energy level at Rambus HQ.
JMHO
smd
========
Not sure; from a market perspective I thought it might have been more related to the Hughes interview. As is often the case, the investors on a Board often get information (in some cases) before the general market; so although we were up in the morning slightly it seems that the 3pm rise might have been from the story getting wider distribution.
The Hughes interview had some significant info; the $1B of revenues; Intel; Rambus IP in cell phones. Where is the follow thru in the media here??? Could it have been intentionally given to a more obscure publication; will it resurface in another form in a few days? Why wasn't it picked up more widely?
Good luck longs and thank you for all the dilligent and informative postings!
PS3 - today's article
credit elixe
http://www.digitimes.com/print/a20060217A8039.html
Sony to definitely launch the PS3 this year, says company official
Kelvin Hsu and Kaddy Chung, Taipei; Steve Shen, DigiTimes.com [Friday 17 February 2006]
Sony will definitely launch its new PlayStation 3 (PS3) game console this year, though the company still has not decided on a launch date nor pricing for the console, said Tetsuhiko Yasuda, managing director of Sony Computer Entertainment Asia, on February 16 at the Taipei Game Show.
While stressing that the earlier launch of Microsoft’s Xbox 360 did not add pressure on Sony, Yasuda told reporters that the company wants to be completely prepared when it begins marketing the PS3.
Accumulated global shipments for the PS3 are expected to exceed 100 million units, a record that was set by Sony’s earlier games consoles, the PS and PS2, despite the fact that the PS3 will be priced higher than the PS2, Yasuda said.
To the disappointment of attendees at the show, Sony only displayed three mock-up versions of the PS3 and demonstrated some functions of the new console through a video. This raised doubts if Sony can really bring the PS3 to the market in the spring of this year as expected, according to market sources.
The PS3 will lag the Xbox 360 more in market share if Sony delays launch of the PS3 to the end of 2006, the sources said, noting that Microsoft predicted global shipments of its Xbox 360 will reach 4.5-5.5 million units by the end of June.
Yasuda also told reporters that Sony is expected to follow its previous experience in the production of the PS and PS2 by outsourcing production of the PS3 to contract makers a few months after its launch, according to a February report in the Chinese-language Commercial Times.
Taiwan makers are expected to benefit from Sony’s outsourcing policy and win orders for the PS3 in 2007 since local makers have been producing the PS2 and PSP (PlayStation Portable) for the Japanese vendor, the paper said.
The postponement has no effect on fact discov cut off (unless the postponemt order said so, which it did not as far as I saw)
smd
TJ - that is AMAZING - I copied from the digitimes article not the yahoo post. Digitimes just did a correction btwn last nite and this a.m.
smd
LOTSA UNITS--
CREDIT - utneflyte1 on yahoo
Sony expects strong PS3 shipments in 2006, may work with Microsoft
Kevin Hsu, Taipei; Carrie Yu, DigiTimes.com [Thursday 16 February 2006]
Sony expects to ship over 100 million PlayStation 3 (PS3) game consoles globally this year, according to Tetsuhiko Yasuda, Sony Computer Entertainment Asia’s corporate executive managing director and senior vice president of Asia. He also said Sony may work with Microsoft in the future.
Sony has not finalized the specific time frame for the PS3 launch, as well as pricing, he said. The company aims to launch the PS3 at the same time throughout Asia. However, not all the regions in the global market will see the same launch day, as the Internet infrastructures differ in each individual market, Yasuda said.
Sony has shipped over 100 million PS1game consoles and similar amount of the PS2 game console, with Taiwan and Hong Kong accounting for 10% of its PS2 sales in Asia, Yasuda indicated.
Sony does not regard Xbox as a competitor. Rather, the company may even consider working with Microsoft to develop games together, Yasuda noted.
The company is currently showcasing the PS3 at the Taipei Game Show (TGS) 2006, which is taking place from February 16-20.
http://www.digitimes.com/print/a20060216PR206.html
I think the order would come from CA appeals ct.
Please don't misunderstand my meaning:
Whyte will proceed 2/23 irrespective of the Sammy notice.
My concern is Kramer.
A stay is a stay is a stay.
If it comes from the CA appeals court, Kramer's obligated to "stay" the proceedings in accordance with the terms of the stay order from the CA appeals court.
smd
Must be. I have tried a few times too.
Piling one speculation on another:
"Stay of proceedings" must mean the CA appeals court has accepted the Sammy appeal of Kramer's "no arbitration will commence" ruling. Will that stop the 2/23 proceedings? Likely so.
smd
no, FEB-15-2006 NTC OF STAY OF PROCEEDINGS FILED BY DEF.SAMSUNG
Ascending Date SequenceDescending Date Sequence <br>Date Proceedings Document Fee <br>FEB-15-2006 NTC OF STAY OF PROCEEDINGS FILED BY DEFENDANT SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,INC. SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. <br>FEB-15-2006 REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE FILED BY PLAINTIFF RAMBUS INC., <br>FEB-09-2006 POS OF SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION; DECLARATION OF MONA SOLOUKI; APPENDIX OF NON-CALIF AUTHORITIES FILED BY DEFENDANT SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,INC. SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.
docrew VA update?
Don't believe the yahoo categorical statement.
JMKel
There are only so many ways to cut up the available resources.
Say what you will about Tate, 1998 was not the time to assert the patents against phone mfrs.
smd
You refer to the going forward obligations of parties to a settlement agreement.
Yes the patentee can agree to charge same or more, but not less, in future agreemets w/ other licensees relating to the same patents.
====================================
As part of a settlement agreement, can a party to that agreement write into the agreement, that subsequent parties will not have a lower negotiated rate in any future agreements?
Do you have a link?
============
RAMBUS can now prove that JEDEC assured RAMBUS that disclosure of patent applications was not required.
I'll say this, you're consistent on this "no AT liability" point re Hynix.
What is your reasoning?
Have you seen Kramer's string/record of settlements?
smd
===============
The question is, can they settle on the issues of infringement but continue to litigate against Hynix on AT?
Sure they can; although it is unlikely Hynix would settle without global peace everywhere. With that said, Hynix has little to no exposure in the AT suit, AFAI am concerned, so they may not care.
Da Greek
Don't know WHY Hynix looks inept consistently, but they do. I mentioned maybe too many cooks w/o a QB.
Nice mixed metaphor, eh?
I expect no better in the March trial.
smd
http://www.royepstein.com/epstein-marcus_jptos.pdf
is the link I think
Cal,
There was a notion by some longs that a one claim win will still get them ~5% royalty. It may well, or it might not; depends on which claim and the results of analysis under GA-Pacific. http://tinyurl.com/ba77k
Pretty much all our calculations at iHub are seat of the pants. of course
And that's when he conducted the analysis; right after the patents pretaining to DDR and SDRAM were issued. Do you have problems with that? My understanding is that the report of Tate's analysis did not break each respective claim down. Might be wrong on that.
-------------------------------------
The royalty rate for damages purposes is not determined by a mechanical formula of
3.5% divided by 6 = ~.6% per invention
Implying that it is so determined is sophistry.
There was a notion by some longs that a one claim win will still get them ~5% royalty. This was the basis of the discussion. Pretty much all our calculations at iHub are seat of the pants. If you want to razzle and dazzle us, please be my guest.
An analysis like Tate's would have to be done AS TO THAT INVENTION as of the time of the infringement. What Rambus was asking as a rate long before the infringement in question is of little probative value.
And that's when he conducted the analysis; right after the patents pretaining to DDR and SDRAM were issued. Do you have problems with that?
2/10/2006 8:54:38 PM was your first post montana2
Have you just been lurking?
Who are the propagandists you are citing as objectionable? Let's call 'em out so the mod can take appropriate action.
Just, that's a good point.
The royalty rate for damages purposes is not determined by a mechanical formula of
3.5% divided by 6 = ~.6% per invention
Implying that it is so determined is sophistry.
An analysis like Tate's would have to be done AS TO THAT INVENTION as of the time of the infringement. What Rambus was asking as a rate long before the infringement in question is of little probative value.
smd
==========================================
One of the many deficiencies cheerleaders have is that they can’t read straight. They read what they want to hear. Nothing else. Nic’s and cal’s opinion on fair royalty rates don’t jive at all. Your (and other cheerleaders residing here) attempt at cal’s character assassination isn’t going to work. Only by making a honest assessment of the pros and cons of rmbs can one make an intelligent decision whether to buy sell or hold. You, my dear friend got your head stuck deep in sand, leaving your ass extremely vulnerable. That’s not the position cal wants to be in, nor does any intelligent investor.
I had used the logic that if Rambus thought 3.5% royalty was fair for the 6 inventions contained in DDR, and if the court finds only one invention valid then it could be argued that one invention is worth <1%.
Let’s take your data and your approach. You state each invention is worth 2 to 5%. This means Hynix has a 2 to 5% savings in this one claim win scenario. The law states Rambus can’t claim this total savings. They can only claim a fraction of the savings. We’ll use Tate’s analysis to determine the correct factor we can apply. At the unclean hands trial Tate stated he calculated the savings Rambus IP had on SDRAM was ~10%. If Rambus was asking for 2% on SDRAM, then the factor is 2/10 = 20%. Therefore if one invention provides savings of 2 to 5%, then Rambus should be able to claim 2% * 20% = 0.4% to 5% * 20% = 1%.
Either way we calculate the royalty rate for just one invention, it comes out to less than 1%.
Nic, before further extending the disc on the issue of admissiblity and damages, please clarify your position in answer to these (explain in any case a Y/N is pointless in your view):
Y/N - The likelihood of admissibility of the Hynix agreement w/ Rambus is high
Y/N - The likelihood of admissibility of the IFX settlement w/ Rambus is low
Y/N - The likelihood of Hynix ATTEMPTING TO ARGUE Rambus's financial size as a factor in the assessment of damages is low
Y/N - The likelihood of Rambus ATTEMPTING TO ARGUE Hynix's financial size as a factor in the assessment of damages is high
thanks, that's what I thought
Nic,
I think everyone "gets" what you are saying ad nauseum.
See if you can go 20 posts w/o using the words/phrases
party line // tout // regurgitate // looney
Thanks,
smd
This accurate?
Re: NJ/Rambiskit- Hynix trial pushed ba
by: rambiskit 02/13/06 12:37 pm
Msg: 900674 of 900715
The only thing I know of that has moved is that a Payne/Samsung hearing that was on 2/21 is now moved to 3/16.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 900631 by cdowning0412
I respect your posts, and the "vouch" thing was in fun (see your line I quoted).
The point about Nic is this: DO go after "what he says," but the "what he is" issue is probably just a distraction.
regards,
smd
JA on the fool has a solid rep (former FBI guy, retired 20+ years), and he's told me he has confirmed that Nic is a patent lawyer in private practice.
My antennae lead me to the same conclusion. (Don't know if Nic is a solo practitioner, or with a big firm or an ip boutique.)
Do you have someone to vouch for you? LOL
smd
PS - Obviously, you see Nic giving crap to lots of posters, perhaps no one MORE than myself. I try to give it back when I think he deserves it, and I try NOT to give it back willy nilly.
Take care.
==========
But nic's supposedly a lawyer, and I'm supposedly not.
Based solely on ihub posts by Cal and by Nic, they are vastly different IMO.
Cal is very precise.
JMKel and Cal outta cut the crap - IMO - it's enough already.
smd
===========
But Cal's argument is just as wrong.
Sometimes, you just can't even play in the market if you don't license the patents.
I have maintained since observing Cal's behavior during the evidentiary hearing that he was in essence just another Nic.
It looks like that perception is becomming universal.
I know he claims to have had some position in Rambus. But I find that quite incredible given his aggressive negative attitude towards RAMBUS and its patents.
just
DAMAGES IN PATENT SUITS
SEE STATUTE BELOW, AND THIS EXCERPT FROM
http://www.bromsun.com/media/When_Lost_Profits_Are_Lost.pdf
NOTE 6 ON PAGE 3:
Note that patent licenses negotiated in settlement of pending or threatened litigation have been found to be of little or no weight in determining a reasonable royalty, or are inadmissible under Rule 403 or Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Deere & Co. v. Int'l Harvester Co., 710 F.2d 1551 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (licenses admissible but of little probative value); Hanson v. Alpine Valley Ski Area, Inc., 718 F.2d 1075, 1078, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (even if exclusion of license offers was error, it was harmless because offers were of little relevance); Pharmastem Therapeutics, Inc. v. Viacell Inc., 2003 WL 22387038 (D. Del. October 7, 2003) (license agreements negotiated when “litigation was threatened or at least probable” inadmissible under Rule 408); Donnelly Corp. v. Gentex Corp., 918 F. Supp. 1126 (W.D. Mich. 1996) (licenses inadmissible under Rule 403 because prejudicial effect outweighed slight probative value); Century Wrecker Corp. v. E.R. Buske Manuf. Co., 898 F. Supp. 1334 (N.D. Iowa 1995) (finding licenses
admissible only to the extent relied upon by plaintiff's expert).
===============
35 U.S.C. 284 Damages. - Patent Laws
35 U.S.C. 284 Damages.
Upon finding for the claimant the court shall award the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the infringement but in no event less that a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer, together with interest and costs as fixed by the court.
When the damages are not found by a jury, the court shall assess them. In either event the court may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed. Increased damages under this paragraph shall not apply to provisional rights under section 154(d) of this title.
The court may receive expert testimony as an aid to the determination of damages or of what royalty would be reasonable under the circumstances.
(Amended Nov. 29, 1999, Public Law 106-113, sec. 1000(a)(9), 113 Stat. 1501A-566 (S. 1948 sec. 4507(9)).)
Nic,
I think you are sending a mixed message:
the reality is it must be measured objectively within the context of what value it provides to the licensee.
-----------------------------------
if anyone thinks Whyte/jury is going to equate Rambus with IBM they are going to be severely disappointed. ... If anything, showing this "evidence" to a jury of what the largest company in the world charges for their entire massive portfolio is going to backfire IMO.
What are you saying, that the size of the patentee matters, or is it the value to the licensee that matters?
================================
r: NicdaGreek | Date: 2/12/06 12:40 PM | Number: 122837
Think about it: Rambus' "limited patents in a narrow field" are far more important to its survival than a boat-load of patents from decades back from a "technological collossus".
You remind me of the SNL skit some years ago, where the pawnshop paid "
Full sentimental value" for all used goods. Its nice to think something is critical to you, but the reality is it must be measured objectively within the context of what value it provides to the licensee. The value to a party to have a full license from IBM covering a hundred different technologies is an order of magnitude greater than the comparable value they get from Rambus in a limited field. I don't see the "IBM" angle helping them at all.
Da Greek
===========================
Author: NicdaGreek | Date: 2/12/06 12:11 PM | Number: 122835
1548. The IBM Worldwide Licensing Policy sets forth royalty rates tfom 1-5% of sellng price:
I'm sorry, but, if anyone thinks Whyte/jury is going to equate Rambus with IBM they are going to be severely disappointed. One is a young upstart with limited patents in a narrow field (DRAM/memory controllers) and the other is a technological collossus with thousands of patents covering almost every aspect of software and hardware made in the past 50 years.
If anything, showing this "evidence" to a jury of what the largest company in the world charges for their entire massive portfolio is going to backfire IMO.
Da Greek
Here is what I posted on the fool:
I started this thread in the hope I was wrong about Jordan, but I have concluded that the "best" we can hope for is a disclosure by Rambus (per the JJ order), followed by a Rambus CE-based motion to dismiss the Micron unclean hands defense, at least to the extent that defense is based on the same allegations re spoliation as Hynix made. That will force a briefing on why CE should/should not apply. [The "worst" would be a replay, in front of Jordan, of the Oct-Nov minitrial.]
The issue I had was why last week's order by JJ was necessary at all.
Can someone coherently explain Jordan's decision of last week? Seems to me it means he is giving MU their own shot at Rambus on unclean hands, i.e., no CE.
smd
TJ, different lawyers are handling Alberta.
you see no distinction?
smd
Do you think for a moment Whyte is going to say, oh, yeah, its ok for Rambus to introduce evidence of THAT contract for DRAM, but keep out the IFX agreement?
do we have a poster in/near Wilm DE????????
also pp 25-55
http://www.slwk.com/CM/PhoneSeminars/damages.pdf
this may help w/ perspective on damages.
||
||
||
||
||
||
\/
http://tinyurl.com/ba77k