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.
A performance improvement by a factor of 64 for Nehalem will not match the Virtual Machine performance of Shanghai in dynamic load moving, specially designed benchmarks.
AMD wins again !!
Come July that warm Arizona sun will heat you up to 120 degrees or so... unless you head to the California coast.
The statement was "up to 235 million" shares. The actual number will depend on the value calculation plugging in the actual market value of the stock on the grant date for the exchange that will serve as the strike price which will be plugged into the Black Scholes formula.
So the 235 million is indeed the upper limit and not the actual number of shares.
Learn how to use Google:
http://www.intel.com/intel/company/corp1.htm#anchor1
Intel's mission statement, values, and objectives
Our mission
Delight our customers, employees, and shareholders by relentlessly delivering the platform and technology advancements that become essential to the way we work and live.
What a WATB.
Why don't you just sell your stock. And give it a rest.
The Message: AMD should stop spending $50 million plus a year on trial lawyers and spend some of that money on getting its buggy products to work. More engineers fewer $600 an hour lawyers should do the job.
Does that mean the public, e.g. shareholders, "should have no say whatsoever in contracts between employee and employer"?
You think autoworkers are getting paid $762 K per year after taxes? Members of Congress steal way more than that for their campaign contributors but they don't get to put the bribes in their pocket.
One correction is necessary to what Otellini said, at least according to the transcript. The License Agreement allows a party to request a one day meeting with an impartial mediator. An arbitration proceeding is not required. If mediation is not successful then litigation is an option. See section 9.9, Dispute Resolution.
http://contracts.corporate.findlaw.com/agreements/amd/intel.license.2001.01.01.html
You are making the fatal assumption that the only measure of an employee's performance. There is a lot of good and extremely productive work that benefited the shareholders that took place after 2004. Fine examples of this performance are the design and release of the Core, Core 2 Duo and i7 architectures.
Absent the extraordinary global market collapse, Intel would have increased its share value. It is hard to measure quantitatively but the excellent Intel certainly caused Intel to retain more of its value than than market indexes as was previously mentioned.
If the Patent License Agreement is terminated by Intel because of a default by AMD, then AMD would lose the license to Intel patents while Intel would keep the license to AMD patents. The patent license to AMD only continues for the life of the licensed patents if the Agreement is not terminated for cause.
http://siliconinvestor.advfn.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=25408579
Yes, AMD is paying royalties to Intel for every microprocessor it makes but not because it uses or needs any Intel patents. AMD is just being generous to its good friend Intel.
AMD is just making noises to confuse the issues surrounding the License Agreement. AMD is correct that there is no technology agreement that licenses trade secrets or a mask set as there was in the old days of second source agreements with AMD that allowed AMD to make copies of Intel's X86 designs. But The technology agreement is a straw man argument.
However, AMD needs a patent license use Intel's patent portfolio in order to make and sell microprocessors. Probably the most important part of Intel's patent portfolio are the semiconductor process patents. Many of the basic X86 patents have expired but Intel continued to file patents on various microarchitecture designs that may be used by AMD.
The absence of a patent license would allow Intel to assert patent infringement against AMD and after many years of litigation, Intel could get a court to stop AMD from manufacturing microprocessors. In the meantime AMD would just pay the lawyers. When AMD loses the patent suit it will say oh by the way we changed our process so lets start over again with a law suit against the new generation process.
You don't have even a tiny clue what is in the Intel/AMD License Agreement. You should at least read the Agreement before you offer opinions on the meanings of the License.
If Intel cancels the Agreement because of a breach by AMD, then AMD loses its license and Intel keeps its license for AMD's patents.
http://siliconinvestor.advfn.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=25408579
Kudos to you Tecate. I guess you did wet the panties of the fanbois.
Great find. But don't tell the Droids at SI... they will just get their panties in a twist.
Geek it Up !! Celebrate National Pi day.
Yesterday, Congress designated this Saturday, March 14, as National Pi Day, in honor of the Greek letter pi, which is used in mathematics to represent the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter.
http://www.piday.org/national-pi-day-2009
How does the latest leaked build of Windows 7 (7048) compare to the beta 1 (build 7000), Vista SP1 and XP SP3 in terms of performance?
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3789&tag=nl.e589
I thought this was the Intel thread. Instead my browser took me to the propaganda thread for right wing trash talk.
Here are the Treasury yields per Bloomberg. They range from 3% for 10 year maturity to 3.7% for 30 year maturity instruments.
http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates/index.html
Change 4% to almost 4%
I understood eventual turn around to mean a turn around in a reasonable time like 1 or 2 years. If it is long time to money, buying a Treasuries fund and collecting 4% is a safer bet. And if you stick to a fund with 5 to 10 year maturities, your principal will be protected fairly well too
There is a third alternative that is really scary and more realistic than a permanent depression IMO. An L shaped severe recession where things stay very bad for a decade. It happened in Japan during the 90s and there is a possibility that it could happen on a global basis now.
Where do you find these political nuggets? A quick check with Mr.Google shows that Sam Wurzelbacher had a judgment lien filed against him in the state of Ohio for nonpayment of income taxes.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Vote2008/story?id=6047360
The best German sausage in Silicon Valley is available at Dittmer's in Palo Alto. Great place for lunch too.
http://www.dittmers.com/
Aid for AMD, investigations -- and penalties to come -- for Intel.
Sounds like a "level playing field" under European Commission rules.
Toshiba's counsel succinctly states the reason that AMD is continually seeking more documents from Toshiba and many others:
"AMD now seeks to require Toshiba to conduct duplicative searches because AMD has failed to unearth the smoking gun it desperately seeks from Toshiba and the dozens of other customers it has attempted to subpoena."
The survey sounds good. And another reminder on how to find the survey so I can find it to vote.
Got me. I forgot to say "within the Bill" although that is what I meant.
A prize of a pork chop dinner for 2 -- with candlelight -- for anyone that can do a word search and find a San Francisco Bay salt mouse
Protecting the salt marsh mouse of San Francisco bay is an example of things that were rammed into the bill
There is no such provision in the bill. The salt mouse was a contrivance used by Republican opponents in the debate that is totally false.
The Stimulus Bill does have funding for wetlands protection but there is no funding for a San Francisco Bay project let alone the salt mouse.
AMD has not said they will not meet but I expect that is the path they will follow. So far AMD has loudly proclaimed that they are right and Intel is wrong.
I don't recall reading anything in the Agreement that says a meeting is required.
I think that AMD did indeed make a tactical mistake with an almost knee-jerk response that "Intel is wrong" when after AMD announced the TFC deal, Intel suggested that there were perhaps license problems. Intel in its initial said that it would study the situation and needed more information to consider the issue but that it had doubts -- a very reasonable position.
AMD will probably make an even bigger mistake when it refuses to meet with Intel and discuss the dispute. The failure to even discuss the issue with Intel and reveal information on the transaction in a confidential setting supports an inference that AMD is unreasonable and acting in bad faith.
As I recall, there was almost no public information on the terms of the License Agreement. Intel and nVidia did little more than announce the signing of a Patent and Technology License Agreement.
The nVidia filing is a good indication of the action that Intel will likely take against AMD on the issues it has raised concerning the attempt by AMD to extend its License Agreement to TFC.
The good part about the Declaratory Judgment action is that it can be filed now to resolve the license interpretation dispute based on the action of AMD's statements telling others that TFC is licensed. There is no need to wait until a product is on the market and then filing a patent suit.
An action to interpret a contract is a lot cleaner and less complex than filing a patent suit containing all that messy technology that Judges with a liberal arts degree can't understand. Judges have lots of experience interpreting contracts and a good understanding of contract law. Defense attorneys are not nearly as successful with the deception and baffle-them-with-bullsh*t techniques that are standard fare in a patent lawsuit.
You are hearing wrong about the $250 K cos-per-job because you are reading the official Republican talking points and listening to the Leader of the R's -- Rushbo the Great
The true cost per job is less than $70,000 if the stimulus bill strengthens the economy as predicted, because this will lead to higher tax receipts that should be accounted for in cost-per-job estimates.
Be careful with the statement that SSD's have no moving parts. If you are not careful, he who we can not name from the SI board will show up with a long post asserting that SSD's do indeed have moving parts.
Hint: his name begins with p
Dell had a flyer in my newspaper today pointing to some great President's Day deals on their website.
http://www.dell.com/content/products/features.aspx/laptops_great_deals?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs&dgc=DM&cid=28146&lid=1043593
I am lusting after an Inspiron 1525. Is the T6400 a Penryn processor? How about the T4200?
This would make an excellent replacement for my embarrassingly old but still serviceable laptop.
Spansion says it paid more than $8 million in back taxes
Constables posted tax seizure notices on Austin properties before company wired money
http://www.statesman.com/search/content/business/stories/other/02/13/0213spansion.html
Travis County authorities posted tax seizure notices on Spansion Inc.'s buildings in Austin on Thursday as part of an effort to get the troubled chipmaker to pay its back taxes quickly.
The License Agreement would remain in force during the BK proceeding and continue after a reorganization under Chapter 11 is completed and the BK terminated. Basically the BK just erases the termination clause.
If AMD is liquidated under Chapter 7, then the License Agreement becomes an historical artifact because AMD will cease to exist. AMD would not be able to assign aka "sell" the License during the liquidation.
The "termination upon filing bankruptcy" clause in the Cross License Agreement is almost certainly unenforceable. None the less, this type of bankruptcy clause is often included in Patent License Agreements under the no harm in trying rule even if the clause is probably just a waste of printer ink.
http://bankruptcy.cooley.com/2007/09/articles/business-bankruptcy-issues/are-termination-on-bankruptcy-contract-clauses-enforceable/
[T]he more financially stable party may insist on a one-sided provision allowing it to get out of the agreement upon the weaker party's insolvency or bankruptcy....
These termination provisions may be common, but are they enforceable? The short answer, which may be surprising to some, is generally "no."...
<quoting statute>
11 U.S.C. §541(c). Translated from bankruptcy-ese, this statute means that a clause that terminates a contract because of the "insolvency" or "financial condition" of the debtor, or due to the filing of a bankruptcy case, will be unenforceable once a bankruptcy case has been filed.
*************************************
For the curious:
Why Put Ipso Facto Clauses In Contracts In The First Place? If these termination provisions are generally unenforceable, why do parties seem to include them in almost every contract? There are three main reasons.
Force Of Habit. One reason is that under the old Bankruptcy Act of 1898, replaced by the Bankruptcy Code in 1979, these ipso facto clauses were enforceable. Over the years, lawyers and businesses got used to including them in their contract forms and they have continued to write them into many agreements. Since it's always possible that the Bankruptcy Code could be changed to reinstate the old rule, lawyers often see little reason to take them out.
It Takes An Actual Bankruptcy. Another and perhaps more important reason is that the rule applies only if a bankruptcy is actually filed. If an ipso facto provision provides that the agreement terminates upon a party's insolvency, and no bankruptcy case is ever filed, it's possible that the solvent party could terminate the agreement using the ipso facto provision. But be forewarned: if a bankruptcy case is later filed, an insolvency-based termination made before the bankruptcy filing may not be enforced in the bankruptcy case. This means that the debtor may still have a chance to retain the rights under the contract, including assuming or assigning an executory contract during the bankruptcy case.
A Limited Exception In Bankruptcy. A third reason is that an important, albeit limited, exception to the rule applies even after a bankruptcy is filed. The exception stems less from the ipso facto clause itself and more from the rules governing assumption of certain types of executory contracts, including intellectual property licenses (at least in some circuits).