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 Intel-AMD Patent Licence covers all patents having a filing date before the end of License term. The license continues for the life of the licensed patents.
If the License is not terminated early by Intel, all patents having a filing date before December 31 2010 will be licensed for the life of the patent. If AMD has any x86-64 patents they have already been filed and will be licensed for their entire life.
So you think that AMD left a bunch of good examples on the shelf because it didn't want to make the table too large?
Intel must support the value of its shares.
Money talks and bull$hit walks. Earnings of $1.6 billion last quarter is REAL money. Continuing to deliver a strong earnings performance will best support the value of Intel shares.
I agree that this very weak motion is a good sign for Intel. If there was any merit to AMD's claim, they would ask for much more than attorneys fees and cost for their motions. AMD would ask for an evidentiary sanction of some sort to prevent Intel from challenging an AMD claim or some other strong medicine.
None of this mucking about on discovery motions goes to the merits of AMD's case. It is just a silly side show. It does tend to show that AMD is really desperate for some real evidence that will allow for its allegations.
AMD is showing signs of panic as trial gets closer and closer. Stay tuned for another extension of the 2009 trial date so AMD can keep fishing for something to present a case that passes the red face test.
After careful examination of the interview notes for 1023 Intel custodians, AMD was only able to find 50 summaries where it could nit-pick differences with the notes of the interviews.
The fact that almost nothing was found shows how truly awful the "problem" is for AMD.
I thought the music and tick-tock was the background during the waiting period in a a game show after the big question has been asked. But maybe it does represent the Intel tick-tock strategy.
Look at what is on YouTube:
Greenspan is a mainstream voice and does not have a reputation as an alarmist.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=amVkrOCQNBQs&refer=home
Greenspan Says Crisis May Be `Once in Century' Event
Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said the financial crisis that began with the collapse of the subprime-mortgage market last year ``is probably a once in a century event' that will lead to the failure of more firms.
``There's no question that this is in the process of outstripping anything I've seen, and it is still not resolved,' Greenspan said in an interview today on ABC's ``This Week with George Stephanopoulos.' Greenspan, 82, retired from the Fed in January 2006 after serving for 18 years as chairman.
A failure of Lehman could produce a financial crisis that will rival the great depression.
Read the whole article if you have the stomach for it.
http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2008/09/roubini-and-bail-in-this-weekend.html
It is now clear that we are again – as we were in mid- March at the time of the Bear Stearns collapse – an epsilon away from a generalized run on most of the shadow banking system, especially the other major independent broker dealers (Lehman, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs). If Lehman does not find a buyer over the weekend and the counterparties of Lehman withdraw their credit lines on Monday (as they all will in the absence of a deal) you will have not only a collapse of Lehman but also the beginning of a run on the other independent broker dealers (Merrill Lynch first but also in sequence Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley and possibly even those broker dealers that are part of a larger commercial bank, I.e. JP Morgan and Citigroup). Then this run would lead to a massive systemic meltdown of the financial system.
Dirk Meyer http://bigtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/09/08/re-engineering-amd/
More from the comments:
“while handing manufacturing to a company that can better keep pace with Intel’s world-class operations.”
Yeah - that’s right !
My boy Dirk gonna find us some dumb sucker of a company that will buy our albatross fabs from us for billions of dollars, spend BILLIONS of DOLLARS MORE on these fabs to upgrade them - out of the kindness of their dumb hearts - just so we at AMD can continue our Jihad against Intel.
Gotta go - I see the suckers are already lining up at Dirk’s door.
Suing and Puking-From-My-Gut, Intel Screwed Me Up ! -Bowing Down To Mecca - And Gestapo Raids At Dawn, Hector
Posted By Hector Ruiz, Austin, TX : September 8, 2008 11:39 am
The outside legal expense for a patent law suit would be a lot less than for the huge antitrust case. Probably the expense would be in the range of $25 million a year.
But what choice does AMD have? It needs cash to stretch its survival for a few more years and it needs a foundry ticket because AMD does not have the funds to build a fab for the future. The License has a crystal clear foundry limit so the only option is to structure a pretense and give Intel the finger.
The antitrust legal contest has become an emotional vendetta for Hector and crew and they are not capable of making a logical decision to settle the antitrust suit in return for a waiver of the foundry limit in the Intel License.
AMD wants in fact to spin off the fab but it will come up with a legal structure so AMD can say the fab is really an AMD fab so the Intel license applies. The argument will allow AMD to argue for an Intel license when they get sued by Intel for patent infringement.
What Dirk did was tell the truth. Hector wants to push the truth back into the bag. Later, Hector will unveil a perfumed pig and brag about the beauty queen he developed with his SmartAss Lite Plan.
So you agree that the cross-licensing agreement as it is now prevents AMD from selling off its fabs?
The License Agreement clearly has a foundry limit and Jerry Sanders acknowledged the limit in the past.
[i}Anyway, dropping the antitrust lawsuit seems like a big sacrifice for AMD given how much they've invested themselves in it.
AMD will probably engage in another legal battle with Intel on the foundry limit in the license. But AMD would be smart to stop throwing good money after bad and concentrate on the plan to become a fabless design house.
The present management is too emotionally involved with their legal battle to think about a settlement. If both Hector Ruiz and Dirk Meyer are replaced and new outside management is installed then a settlement becomes possible.
I remember Alpha and there is a ring of plausibility to that kind of scenario. It is an intriguing concept that you raise.
But here is an even easier solution and one that I think is more likely to happen. Intel changes the patent license so AMD has unlimited foundry rights and AMD dismisses the antitrust law suit. Then AMD can sell its manufacturing to Dubai or someone else.
The split into two companies would allow AMD to receive an infusion of cash and delay its demise. However, once AMD becomes a fabless design house it is totally doomed. Cases in point are Cyrix and more recently Transmeta.
AMD is going to rely on Magic Ponies to solve its problems.
has anyone here used Office on Linux using Wine?
No, but I have used Office and spilled a Stella Artois on the keyboard. The result was not good
How does one determine if the lawyers are working on a contingency basis ?
No law firm could afford to invest the $300 million plus in legal time that it would take to go from filing to conclusion in a case of this magnitude. The AMD v Intel case is just too huge for a contingent fee. Also, there has never been even a hint that there was a contingent fee agreement. Probably such an agreement would be deemed material and disclosure would be required in an SEC document
Do you estimate Intel's legal expenses to be 2x-3x AMDs, or even greater ?
That is hard to say but clearly Intel has to defend itself before the various commissions while AMD gets to sit in the bleachers and watch. Intel probably has to spend 50% plus more than AMD. An expense of 3X is way too high an estimate and 2X is probably too high.
Keep in mind that all of this is a SWAG.
AMD does not want to disclose its legal expenses. When asked the question in the conference call the reply was "we do not give that level of granularity".
AMD's outside legal expenses for its antitrust suit against Intel and related antitrust activities around the world is probably about $100 million a year. AMD does not have a contingency agreement with its lawyers.
It is a very long shot that Kroes and the Commission will look after the consumer interest.
Kroes wants a big win before her term expires in 2009 and the Commission is feeling very frisky after their big take down of Microsoft. Expect Kroes and company to make some rules with Intel. After all it is hard to say after a 6 year investigation that sorry we didn't find anything.
Unfortunately, I think Intel will not get a fair hearing with the Commission beauracracy and its first chance for a fair ruling on the law will come on appeal in the Court of first instance.
Intel changed its pricing structure in 2006 after AMD filed its antitrust suit in the US. The new pricing structure was adopted before the EU filed its charges against Intel. Apparently Intel changed its discount schedule to eliminate loyalty discounts that AMD was complaining about.
I think that the EU may find that Intel can not use the old discount schedules but it can use the new 2006 pricing structures. A relatively small fine would probably be included. This result would look a lot like the result in Japan.
The EU could score a victory, AMD would cheer, mas and friends would warble and nothing would change for Intel.
"Decision first, then a trial" said the Queen to Alice.
Neelie Kroes seems to follow the same procedure. It is incredible that the EU Commission concludes higher prices -- i.e. no discounts -- are better for the consumer. That principle certainly not in the written words of Article 82.
If Kroes does not obtain the increased market share for AMD that she wants, will she order Intel to raise prices so her weakling client AMD can better compete?
An interesting point that few Intel followers are aware of is that Intel publicly favors a national health plan. The reason is that the cost burden for companies like Intel that have good health plans for their employees would go down. Ditto for the auto companies, airlines and other big corporations.
The economically troubled auto companies have perhaps the highest health care burden and are about ready to sign on the idea of universal health care. Toyota recently declined big subsidies to build a plant in the US and chose Canada because its universal health care provided a cost advantage.
Europe on average spends 7% of GNP on universal health coverage while the US spends 15% of GNP and provides no coverage for 49 million people. Europe also has better metrics on health care quality and patient satisfaction. Setting aside the question of what a "good" universal system for the US would entail it would cost Intel and all other corporations less for their operations and improve their bottom line.
The important point is not to address the difficult debate on universal health insurance -- which I favor for both economic and social reasons -- but to note that Intel supports universal health insurance because it will lower costs and help its bottom line.
Obama's anti-trust position has direct and immediate implications for Intel.
Nonsense. Obama indicated in his speech that mergers were his interest in the antitrust field. Even if there was an interest to pursue Intel, it would take several years to change the composition of the FTC. Even then the law is solidly on Intel's side and several Supreme Court opinions, particularly the Brooke case, will not get overruled by any president.
The ability of the next president to manage the economy is far more important to Intel than antitrust policy. McCain's policy to fund the Iraq war for basically forever will definitely have a negative impact on the economy.
Edit: My pointon that the economy is the major driver for Intel is better said by Tenchu.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=29456113
It is unlikely that AMD will get the jury trial they have requested. Most antitrust cases are tried before a judge whether or not the plaintiff likes it.
http://www.antimonopoly.com/jury_deprivation.html
The reason generally given is that the antitrust cases involve an application of the law to a set of undisputed facts. The Agreements that Intel had in place with its customers to set the terms and conditions of sale are the key facts in the case and no one will dispute that those are authentic documents. The question is what is the legal effect of those Agreements. Other documents will be used but those will too will not have challenges on authenticity. The rest of AMD's "evidence" is just verbal outrage and a bunch of arm waving.
A major portion of AMD's case will constitute opinion testimony from experts who will testify that they looked at all kinds of documents and AMD was screwed. A bunch of charts, fancy formulas and magic wands will be used to establish how AMD was damaged. The worst of the experts will be labeled "economists" aka high $ whores who will literally be paid millions of $$ and will generate AMD damage numbers in billions of $$ using coulda, woulda, shouda math.
You make an excellent observation. Immediately before your quote, Intel quotes AMD where AMD used the phrase "efficient competitor". The costs of an "efficient competitor" standard was used by the European Commission in its charges that Intel was selling below cost so it appears that the Commission has swallowed AMD's position hook, line and sinker.
Unfortunately, the European Commission is making its law of unfair competition - not actually antitrust in the US sense -- as it goes. The Commission does not have a developed body of law to examine as do the courts in the US. The Commission goal as sometimes candidly expressed by Neelie Kroes is to control market share and it feels unconstrained by a developed body of law as it mucks around to achieve its notion of "fair" competition to protect the whiners.
That is a tough question but my SWAG is if AMD loses it would have to pay $15 to $20 million in costs to Intel. Relatively speaking this is not a lot of money compared to the amount of attorneys fees AND is paying.
You are not going to like this but under the Clayton Act a winning antitrust plaintiff gets treble damages and costs of suit including attorney's fees.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/usc_sec_15_00000015----000-.html
If Intel wins its law suit, it will be awarded "costs" but not its attorneys fees. The "costs" include court fees, copy costs, court reporter fees for depositions and other out of pocket expenses.
The "costs" will amount to millions of $$ but will not come close to the the attorney fees.
Intel is currently in a class by itself with the best defect densities and die yields.
The result is that Intel defines world class and the rest of the semiconductor world is in a group of classes called deficient. AMD is in a class titled "Worse Than Most".
For the most part, Intel issues stock options on an annual basisas part of the focal review process in April. An exception is that new employees are issued stock options when they join the company. So what you see issued in the first quarter is close to the total for the year.
The best short description of the Hector and Hillary strategy is the Tonya Harding approach to victory.
The author is an idiot who can't read. The news article he cites says that "PC makers will sell" a second generation version of an Intel designed Classmate PC. It does not say Intel will sell.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080320/tc_nm/intel_laptops_dc_7
BOSTON/SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Intel Corp (INTC.O) said on Wednesday sub-$300 laptops initially designed for poor children will soon be available to U.S. and European consumers in a move that could further push down computer prices.
PC makers in the United States and in Europe will sell a yet-to-be-unveiled, second-generation version of the Intel-designed Classmate PC for $250 to $350, said Lila Ibrahim, general manager of Intel's emerging market platform's group, in an interview with Reuters.
Lower prices are solid proof that competition is alive and well for microprocessors in the semiconductor market. Under a rational system of law -- the U.S. for example -- AMD has a real loser of an antitrust law suit.
Under the vague legal system in use by the EU Commission as led by Neelie Kroes, who knows what result you get. The meaning of "abuse of dominant market position" is whatever you want it to mean said the Queen to Alice.
Perhaps it means that lower prices by an efficient Intel hurt the weak and stumbling AMD. Under such an Alice in Wonderland system, Intel should pay money to the Commission to support its life style and European consumers should pay more for PCs.
Buckle up
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/104627/Most-Economists-Say-Recession-Has-Arrived-as-Outlook-Darkens
Most Economists Say Recession Has Arrived as Outlook Darkens
The U.S. has finally slid into recession, according to the majority of economists in the latest Wall Street Journal economic-forecasting survey, a view that was reinforced by new data showing a sharp drop in retail sales last month.
"The evidence is now beyond a reasonable doubt," said Scott Anderson of Wells Fargo & Co., who was among the 71% of 51 respondents to say that the economy is now in a recession.
The AMD's BONG plan (tm elmer phud) was designed by Tommy Chong with help from Cheech Marin.
http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/4028.html
Intel Wins Court Support In Fight Over AMD Study
This is the study commissioned by AMD that concluded Intel earned monopoly profits. AMD loudly reported to the world the conclusions but wants to hide the details and methodologyof the study. Initially, AMD did not reveal that it had funded the study.
http://competition.law360.com/Members/ViewArticlePortion.aspx?Id=49448&ReturnUrl=..%2fsecure%2fViewArticle.aspx%3fId%3d49448
Portfolio Media, New York (March 7, 2008)--Intel Corp. is one step closer to getting its hands on a damaging report commissioned by rival Advanced Micro Devices Inc. after a court official overseeing discovery in the pair's antitrust battle recommended its release.
Dismissing AMD's claims of confidentiality, Special Master Vincent Poppiti has recommended that the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware grant Intel's motion to compel production of the study....
[i}how many times has [Gorgon Moore} been awarded additional shares compared to his original allotment ?
NEVER !! Gordon Moore started with his founder shares and did not receive stock options.
Most of his shares were used to found the Gordon and Betty Moore foundation.
http://www.moore.org/
Established in September 2000, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation seeks to improve the quality of life for future generations.
The Foundation’s science-based, results-driven orientation stems from the principles and interests of Gordon and Betty Moore. The Foundation operates proactively in three specific areas of focus—environmental conservation, science, and the San Francisco Bay Area—where a significant and measurable impact can be achieved. Distinct Initiatives have been created within these three Program areas. An Initiative employs a portfolio of grants that are expected to help achieve targeted, large-scale outcomes in a specific time frame.
A big patent win by Intel is allowed to stand by the US Supreme Court
http://www.iplaw360.com/Public/Default.aspx
High Court Won’t Hear Patent Dispute Against Intel
Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 --- The U.S. Supreme Court has decided not to get in the middle of a drawn-out $500 million patent infringement battle over microprocessor technology brought by a now-defunct Canadian computer company against Intel Corp.
Mers Kutt, founder of All Computers Inc., had spent more than a decade trying to force the Santa Clara, Calif.-based computer chip giant to pay patent royalties for allegedly using his microprocessor patent in its Pentium and Celeron products, but his long-running fight came to a dead end Tuesday when the high court denied All Computers’ writ of certiorari.
The refusal to hear the dispute lets stand a May 2007 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upholding a lower court’s dismissal of All Computers’ suit.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia concluded in February 2005 that Intel did not infringe All Computers’ patent, which spurred All Computers to appeal that decision and subsequent rulings to the Federal Circuit.
The appeals court, however, ended up rejecting All Computers’ appeals for lack of jurisdiction in May 2006 and October 2006 and then affirmed the court’s dismissal of the case in May 2007.
All Computers initially tied Intel into a $500 million patent infringement suit in May 2004 after Intel refused for years to enter a license agreement.
The EU may be digging for new information because they realize, after reviewing Intel's submission, that they have a weak case against Intel. The issue of the German retailer was raised some time ago by AMD and it sat on the shelf for quite a while before the EU proceeded with a vigorous investigation.
AMD is learning that it is one thing to entice the bear into your tent but it is a lot harder to keep the bear happy.
And a lot of grief when the bear tears things up as he leaves.