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.
Latest post from Gary aka stratertele
1:17 pm The criminal cartel is lining up. In JW's court the doors were always open to come and go. We're locked out till 1:30 I guess.
I wonder how is works for these lawyers like Price and Nissly, et.al. After they lose a big case like this, providing there is no settlement, does that make a difference in their career? Not that they will be hurting financially, particularly if they invested their millions of legal fees in Rambus stock prior to losing or settlement?
Gary aka stratertele - I get these emails because I'm registered with this group:
From: Gary <emailgarym@aol.com>
To: RambusInvestors@yahoogroups.com <RambusInvestors@yahoogroups.com>
Per Gary: Re Mil 6
JK---I do not want to make a complete preclusion ruling on this issue.
Ruling granted in part and denied in part
no evidence will be admitted in regard to Rambus inappropriate activity without my prior notification and evaluation.
Nothing in opening statements on R behavior at JEDEC. More later
Per Gary:
Re Mil 1:
Tentative ruling to grant motion
JK--I'm not sure I want to preclude this completely
I do not believe allegations against Rambus about JEDEC has anything to do with this case.
My inclination is to grant the motion and allow only relevant information in the trial..."only after alerting me in advance" on how the information is relevant.
Nissly--for example...Tabrizi Rambus killing email was only related to his anger (poor guy) at Rambus at Rambus bahavior. It was all about what R did at JEDEC that made him angry...on and on bla bla bla.
JEDEC will be all over this trial...lots of discussion here.
JK--Tentative ruling is I don't want to issue a blanket ruling.
Perry--Passing out the June 2000 Tabrizi email (some fun for a change!). In May of 200 Dell wanted to get lower P for RDRAM, if not Dell would change their road map. Tabrizi says to Sang Park Dell expects X$$$ for RDRAM or they will not buy RIMMs in volume. Tabrizi says why would we want to make RIMMs to help R. We should close R's income stream to shut R out. Lert me go back to our old mode of RDRAM kiling.
JK asking Nissly abouthe Tabrizi memo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mil 1 cont: JK---This is not an incoherent anger email...that is the description of a battle plan
[gotta love this...the pigs are being taken to the slaughter].
Nissly--This is a guess smart guy...sounding really stupid right now.
Update from Gary:
R MIL #3--Denied as being moot. Signed order.
R MIL #12--JK...Tentative order is to grant motion. JK..the setting of Trebled damages is for the judge to decide, not the jury.
Price--jury will be prejudiced...we will present evidence that R changed their business because the RDRAM chip failed, we will present evidence INTC did not have support, bla bla bla.
JK--the question is would you have a claim for any anti-competitive behavior. So you don't really have anything that points to a business plan to collect treble damages.
Back and forth..........back and forth............
Rambus--There is no evidence that Rambus knowledge of treble damages caused them to abandon RDRAM. The Nuclear Winter memo/scenario is a privileged document. Price theory that R was better off getting royalties for DDR is also in error.
JK--theory is "wholly speculative"...decision on MIL #12. R Motion Granted.
emails from Gary:
11:00 am Perry: R motion MIL #3 is resolved with a signed stipulation
10:55 am Kramer: might redact a copy of licensing agreement and bottom line economic aspects of Intel's issues in motion papers
10:51 am Perry: how to handle 3rd party confidentiality needs to be addressed.
Per Gary email:
Hearing first week of February
[Tessera?]
per Gary:
H...long winded bull shit...beyond me to explain.
Kramer said they can only supplement with a reply briefing "without adding new legal theory or new legal arguments." 3 pages approved ...JK said he wants to avoid any possible appeal related issues. All info has to be related to the proper subject of the original reply briefing.
=======================
When I tried to access Investor Village I just got:
Microsoft OLE DB Provider for SQL Server error '80004005'
SHUTDOWN is in progress.
/NewGlobal.asp, line 215
Hate to think that.
rtq 24.10
per Gary:
Tessera arguing that H should not have the opportunity to file a rebriefing of the motion for summary adjudication.
Tessera wants their case to follow Rambus.
Green.
24.01 RTQ
He can borrow mine.
Hi everyone. 9:30 am now and waiting for news.
win +22
lose -12
winning 87%
Since anything that is going to be introduced as evidence has to have been revealed in discovery, what is there that Hynie can bring up that can be a surprise?
Dividends?
I see that in our future.
What better to do with that great big pile of cash that's coming our way?
Here are the players that have real power at Micron. These are the ones who are ultimately going to have to decide what to do with regard to Rambus. They are about to be handed a huge defeat in Delaware. What's next?
What did they EACH know about the price-fixing and attempt to drive Rambus out of business and what did they do about it? Curious minds want to know.
The big five:
Steven R. Appleton - Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer, and President
Appleton joined Micron in 1983 and has held a series of increasingly responsible positions, including Production Manager, Director of Manufacturing, and Vice President of Manufacturing. In 1991, Appleton was appointed President and Chief Operating Officer of Micron Technology, Inc. In 1994, he was appointed to his current position of Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, and President. Appleton currently serves as the Chairman of the Semiconductor Industry Association, is on the board of directors of National Semiconductor, Inc., and is a member of the World Semiconductor Council. He also serves on the Idaho Business Council and is a trustee of Boise State University.
Gordon C. Smith - Director from February 1982 until February 1984 and from September 1990 to the present.
Smith has served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of G.C. Smith L.L.C., a holding company for ranch operations and other investments, since May 2000. He served in various management positions, including Chief Financial Officer and President and Chief Executive Officer, with the J.R. Simplot Company from July 1980 until his retirement in March 1994. From September 1996 until September 1999, he served as President of Wesmar, Inc., a food service company.
Robert A. Lothrop - Director from August 1986 until July 1992 and since May 1994
Lothrop served as Senior Vice President of J.R. Simplot Company, an agribusiness company, from January 1986 until his retirement in January 1991.
James W. Bagley - Director since June 1997
Bagley became the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Lam Research Corporation, a supplier of semiconductor manufacturing equipment, in August 1997, when the company merged with OnTrak Systems, Inc. He also serves on the board of Teradyne, Inc.
William P. Weber - Director since July 1998
Weber served in various capacities with Texas Instruments Incorporated and its subsidiaries from 1962 until April 1998, including President of Texas Instruments’ worldwide semiconductor operations and Vice Chairman of Texas Instruments Incorporated.
==========
The others:
Lawrence N. Mondry - Director since April 2005
Mondry joined CompUSA as Senior Vice President in 1990 and has served as the Chief Executive Officer since 2003. Before that he served as Vice President and National Merchandise Manager at Highland Superstores.
Mercedes Johnson - Director since June 2005
Johnson most recently worked for Lam Research Corporation, serving for seven years as its senior vice president of finance and chief financial officer. Prior to joining Lam Research, she spent 10 years with Applied Materials, Inc., where she served in various senior financial management positions, including vice president and worldwide operations controller. She also serves on the board of directors for Storage Technology Corporation.
Robert Switz - Director since ??
Switz is currently President and CEO of ADC Telecommunications, Inc. Prior to his current position, Mr. Switz served ADC as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. He joined ADC in 1994 from Burr-Brown Corporation where he had held various positions since 1988, including Vice President of European Operations, Ventures & Finance (CFO). Prior to Burr-Brown, Mr. Switz held senior financial management positions at PepsiCo, AMF and Olin Corporation. Switz also serves as a director on the boards of HickoryTech Corporation and Broadcom Corporation.
Dr. Teruaki Aoki - Director since ??
Dr. Aoki is Advisor of Sony Corporation, President of Sony University, and Managing Director of Sony Foundation for Education. Dr. Aoki joined Sony as Semiconductor engineer in 1970. He became general manager of Sony's semiconductor group in 1983 and went on to management positions in corporate planning, research and development strategy, recording media products, and consumer audio/video products. In 1998, he became President and Chief Operating Officer of Sony Electronics, a U.S. subsidiary. He returned to Tokyo in 2000 to serve as Senior Executive Vice President of Sony, in charge of information systems, intellectual property rights, technology standardization and alliances.
I asked this on the Yahoo board earlier and hardly anyone noticed.
Any thoughts here?
Considering that JW has already rendered Hynix summarily guilty of infringement on multiple claims, isn't it the case that unless Hynix can find a defense that invalidates or causes the patents to be unenforceable, the other claims that Rambus is seeking to prove are also infringed really don't matter?
Unlike the revised WSJ story, there's no mention of Rambus in the NY Times story.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/02/technology/02hynix.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1141363654-1+vI1aPNmR...
4 to Plead Guilty on Chip Pricing
By LAURIE J. FLYNN
Published: March 2, 2006
SAN FRANCISCO, March 1 — Four executives of Hynix Semiconductor, a South Korean supplier of memory chips, have agreed to plead guilty and serve prison time in the United States for their roles in a price-fixing conspiracy, federal prosecutors said on Wednesday.
The guilty pleas are the latest development in the Justice Department's three-and-a-half-year investigation of Hynix, along with its rivals Samsung of South Korea; Infineon Technologies of Germany; and Elpida Memory of Japan. They were suspected of conspiring to fix prices of dynamic random access memory chips from April 1999 to June 2002.
DRAM chips are the most common type of computer memory products, used in personal computers, printers and electronics devices.
The Hynix executives are the second group of individuals to agree to prison sentences in the investigation.
Thus far, nine individuals and four semiconductor companies have been charged as a result of the investigation, with fines totaling more than $731 million. Hynix agreed to pay a $185 million fine in May 2005.
D. S. Kim, Hynix's general manager for worldwide sales and marketing, agreed to serve eight months; C. K. Chung, Hynix's director for global strategic account sales, will serve seven months; K. C. Suh, Hynix's senior manager of memory product marketing, will serve six months; and C. Y. Choi, a general manager for Hynix's German subsidiary, will serve five. Each executive also agreed to pay a $250,000 fine.
The Justice Department had named six American computer companies that were harmed by the price fixing — Dell, Compaq Computer, Hewlett-Packard, Apple Computer, I.B.M. and Gateway — all of them buyers of DRAM chips.
In October 2004, Infineon agreed to a $160 million fine. In December of that year, four Infineon executives pleaded guilty to price fixing and served jail terms ranging from four to six months. Each executive also paid a $250,000 fine.
In November 2005, Samsung agreed to a $300 million fine. In January, Elpida agreed to a fine of $84 million.
Do we remember that Micon is supposed to be explaining everything to the grand jury in SF?
Are they?
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=2027465
It's not only price fixing that is being reviewed.
Guess what "LIMITATION OF MANUFACTURING CAPACITY" is being investigated by a San Francisco Grand Jury?
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB107282630414122700,00.htm...
Micron Technology Is Seeking
Amnesty for Aiding Inquiry
Justice Department Focuses
On Suspected Conspiracy
To Fix Prices of Chips
By DON CLARK
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Micron Technology Inc. is seeking amnesty from prosecution by the U.S. Justice Department in exchange for helping the agency's antitrust investigation of the memory-chip industry, people close to the investigation said.
The agency has disclosed that a grand jury in San Francisco is investigating a suspected conspiracy to fix the price of dynamic random access memory chips, or DRAMs, sold in the U.S. The probe began in June 2002, and is believed to focus on companies that include Micron as well as Infineon Technologies AG, based in Germany, and the South Korean manufacturers, Samsung Electronics Co. and Hynix Semiconductor Inc.
Under the government's amnesty program, a company suspected of conspiring to fix prices can avoid criminal sanctions by assisting the Justice Department in prosecuting other companies. As part of such agreements, a company must admit to violating the law. Bloomberg News reported late Monday that Micron was in talks with the agency to seek amnesty in the DRAM investigation.
Dave Parker, a spokesman at Micron's Boise, Idaho, headquarters, would not confirm or deny any negotiations but said the company has actively assisted the government's investigation from the beginning. He added: "We do not anticipate being subject to a fine or a penalty from the Department of Justice."
Justice Department officials wouldn't comment.
Earlier this month, the Justice Department announced that a Micron sales manager, Alfred P. Censullo, had pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice for altering and concealing handwritten notes pertaining to telephone conferences among Micron sales managers. The agency said the managers discussed price recommendations for DRAM sales to major computer makers and prices at which competing chip makers would sell their products. Mr. Censullo's accounts included the server division of International Business Machines Corp., the agency said.
Micron said Mr. Censullo had resigned from the company, and that his actions "do not pertain to Micron." Mr. Censullo's attorney said his client "has accepted responsibility and is cooperating fully with the government."
The investigation was originally prompted by a brief but dramatic price increase in DRAMs in early 2002, and IS BELIEVED TO FOCUS ON ACTIONS BY CHIP MANUFACTURERS THAT INCLUDE LIMITS ON MANUFACTURING CAPACITY. [<--- that wouldn't be of RDRAM, would it!! ]
Separately, shares of Rambus Inc., a high-profile maker of technology used to make memory chips, rose sharply on speculation that it might reach a settlement of litigation with Micron. Rambus, Los Altos, Calif., has been battling the Federal Trade Commission, Micron and other companies, which contend that Rambus misled an industry standard-setting organization into adopting technology that was covered by Rambus patents. Rambus denies violating the law. An FTC judge now is considering that issue after a recent trial.
Micron's Mr. Parker wouldn't discuss any settlement discussions with Rambus, but he said Micron's suit against that company is entirely separate from the Justice investigation.
Rambus shares rose $3.27, or 12%, to $29.77 in 4 p.m. Nasdaq Stock Market trading. Micron shares slipped 22 cents to $13.73 in 4 p.m. New York Stock Exchange composite trading.
Write to Don Clark at don.clark@wsj.com
Updated December 31, 2003
ok, deckhands, not rats.
rats was my quick rejoinder.
it's just that anybody associated with micon get tarred with the same smelly excrement in my book.
but that's just how I really feel.
Rat leaving a sinking ship.
Summary of Rambus's in Limine motions and results:
12. Rambus's Motion in Limine to Exclude Conduct Evidence from Patent Trial.
The court grants the motion under Rule 403.
13. Rambus's Motion in Limine to Preclude Testimony of Inventors to Argue Invalidity.
The court denies the motion.
14. Rambus's Motion in Limine to Preclude Hynix from Presenting to the Jury in the Patent Module any Evidence or Argument Relating to Hynix's Prosecution Laches Defense.
The court defers ruling as to whether the laches defense will be tried as part of the Patent phase or the Conduct phase. However, if the defense is tried in the Patent module, the court grants the motion but limits its holding to barring Hynix from offering exhibits in front of the jury solely to prove that Rambus engaged in prosecution laches.
15. Rambus's Motion in Limine to Preclude Hynix from Presenting Argument or Evidence that Accused Products Do Not Meet Claim Limitations that the Court Already has Determined are Met and that Hynix Does not Dispute.
The court grants the motion as unopposed.
16. Rambus's Motion in Limine in Limine to Preclude Hynix from Presenting Evidence Relating to the Settlement Agreement with Infineon.
The court grants the motion under Rule 403.
17. Rambus's Motion in Limine to Preclude Hynix from Arguing that the Rambus Patents, or Their Claims or Inventions, are Limited to a Narrow, Multiplexed Bus.
The court denies the motion with the understanding that Hynix will abide by the court's claim construction order.
18. Rambus's Motion in Limine to Preclude Hynix from Introducing Evidence Relating to Unrelated Litigation.
The court grants the motion as limited to the Alberta suit.
19. Rambus's Motion in Limine to Preclude Hynix from Presenting Evidence Regarding the Practice of Drafting Claims to Cover Competitor's Products.
The court grants the motion.
20. Rambus's Motion in Limine to Preclude Hynix from Referencing or Presenting Evidence on Inequitable Conduct Allegations in the Presence of the Jury.
The court grants the motion to the extent it seeks to preclude Hynix from mentioning its inequitable conduct claims but denies it to the extent it sweeps more broadly.
21. Rambus's Motion in Limine to Preclude Reference to Foreign Proceedings.
The court grants the motion.
22. Rambus's Motion in Limine to Exclude Hynix Trial Exhibit No. 2310 and Preclude Any Argument Disputing that Rambus Owns the Patents in Suit.
The court grants the motion.
23. Rambus's Motion in Limine to Preclude Hynix from Introducing Evidence About Rambus's Document Destruction or Retention.
The court grants the motion as unopposed.
Summary of Hynix's in Limine motions and results:
1. Hynix's Motion in Limine to Exclude Argument and Evidence of Infringement Under the Doctrine of Equivalents.
The court denies the motion on the "delay locked loop" issue but grants it with respect to the
"access time register" issue.
2. Hynix's Motion in Limine to Exclude References to Hynix's Counsel's Prior Representation of Rambus.
The court grants the motion as unopposed.
3. Hynix's Motion in Limine to Exclude Argument and Evidence Regarding Post-Invention Publications Referencing "Delay Locked Loop" and "Variable Delay Line."
The court denies the motion.
4. Hynix's Motion in Limine re: Rambus May Not Offer the Opinion of Robert J. Murphy on Certain Legal Issues or Claim that the Written Description Requirement Has Been Found To Be Met.
The court precludes Murphy from offering an opinion on legal standards... However, the court does not bar Murphy from opining on whether a legal test has been satisfied...Finally, the court grants the motion on the issue of whether Infineon or the PTO found that the claims met the written description requirement...The court finds that Murphy's statements
that he "agree[s]" with the PTO that the claims comply with the written description requirement,
Murphy Report ¶¶ 239, 253, 256, 261, 264, 270, 274, 279, 282, 286, 291, give the false impression
that the PTO has rendered an additional opinion on the patents' validity. The court excludes
Murphy's statements for that reason.
5. Hynix's Motion in Limine to Exclude any Rambus Claim or Expert Opinion Regarding an Invention Date Prior to April 18, 1990.
The court precludes Rambus from offering expert testimony but defers ruling on whether Rambus can claim an invention date earlier than April 18, 1990 until it can hear and examine the specific evidence that Rambus intends to offer.
6. Hynix's Motion in Limine to Exclude the Testimony of Robert J. Murphy regarding Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness.
The court grants the motion with respect to the "unsuccessful attempts by others" opinion.
The court denies the motion with respect to the other secondary considerations.
7. Hynix's Motion in Limine re Instructions by Court Only Regarding Summary Judgment Rulings.
The court denies the motion.
8. Hynix's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Infringement of Nonrepresentative Claims.
The court grants the motion to the extent it challenges Rambus's proposed instruction, which invites the jury to find against Hynix on the basis of claims that are not before it. However, the court denies the motion to the extent that granting it would bar Rambus from proving (1) infringement of the dependent elected claims by referring to the independent claims on which they depend, (2) what the specification discloses, or (3) in response to Hynix's prosecution laches defense.
9. Hynix's Motion in Limine re: Other Actions and Decisions.
Hynix moves to exclude evidence of (1) the Infineon decision, (2) an FTC action in which the ALJ found that Rambus did not commit antitrust violations, (3) Rambus' San Francisco Superior Court RDRAM boycott and price fixing lawsuit, and (4) criminal price fixing charges brought by the DOJ against certain Hynix personnel. The court grants the motion with respect to Infineon under Rule 403.
Rambus does not oppose barring both parties from mentioning the FTC case, the Superior Court lawsuit, or the DOJ action unless Hynix opens the door.
10. Hynix's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Alleged Spoliation.
The court grants the motion as unopposed.
11. Hynix's Motion in Limine to Exclude Portions of Expert Report and Testimony of Rambus's Damages Expert.
Hynix objects to three aspects of his testimony: his (1)"infringer's royalty" theory, (2) consideration of Hynix's worldwide sales to arrive at a royalty rate, and (3) use of the term "conservative" to describe his conclusions.
Rambus asks the court to permit Teece to refer to the fact that post-litigation licenses reflect a discount to
support the fact that his damages estimates are "conservative." The court finds that this approach is reasonable provided, as Rambus promised, that Teece will not try to quantify the discount for nonlitigation licenses.
Hynix also objects to Teece's use of Hynix's worldwide sales data to calculate a reasonable royalty...
The court denies this aspect of the motion.
Hynix notes that Teece admits that neither he nor Rambus tried to quantify indirect sales of the accused chips. Teece consistently refers to his damages estimate as "conservative" because it does not account for these sales.
The court grants this aspect of the motion. Thus, although Teece may use the word "conservative" to describe his analysis, he cannot mention indirect sales to support this adjective.
Feb 26, 2006 3:30 pm
Isn't it the case that if we win in JW's court, Hynix would have to post a huge bond even if they appeal.
And if they don't start to pay royalties, Rambus could keep infringing products out of the US marketplace by injunction.
All before the appeal is decided.
All just my opinion - not an attorney.
It's not only price fixing that is being reviewed.
Guess what "LIMITATION OF MANUFACTURING CAPACITY" is being investigated by a San Francisco Grand Jury?
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB107282630414122700,00.htm...
Micron Technology Is Seeking
Amnesty for Aiding Inquiry
Justice Department Focuses
On Suspected Conspiracy
To Fix Prices of Chips
By DON CLARK
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Micron Technology Inc. is seeking amnesty from prosecution by the U.S. Justice Department in exchange for helping the agency's antitrust investigation of the memory-chip industry, people close to the investigation said.
The agency has disclosed that a grand jury in San Francisco is investigating a suspected conspiracy to fix the price of dynamic random access memory chips, or DRAMs, sold in the U.S. The probe began in June 2002, and is believed to focus on companies that include Micron as well as Infineon Technologies AG, based in Germany, and the South Korean manufacturers, Samsung Electronics Co. and Hynix Semiconductor Inc.
Under the government's amnesty program, a company suspected of conspiring to fix prices can avoid criminal sanctions by assisting the Justice Department in prosecuting other companies. As part of such agreements, a company must admit to violating the law. Bloomberg News reported late Monday that Micron was in talks with the agency to seek amnesty in the DRAM investigation.
Dave Parker, a spokesman at Micron's Boise, Idaho, headquarters, would not confirm or deny any negotiations but said the company has actively assisted the government's investigation from the beginning. He added: "We do not anticipate being subject to a fine or a penalty from the Department of Justice."
Justice Department officials wouldn't comment.
Earlier this month, the Justice Department announced that a Micron sales manager, Alfred P. Censullo, had pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice for altering and concealing handwritten notes pertaining to telephone conferences among Micron sales managers. The agency said the managers discussed price recommendations for DRAM sales to major computer makers and prices at which competing chip makers would sell their products. Mr. Censullo's accounts included the server division of International Business Machines Corp., the agency said.
Micron said Mr. Censullo had resigned from the company, and that his actions "do not pertain to Micron." Mr. Censullo's attorney said his client "has accepted responsibility and is cooperating fully with the government."
The investigation was originally prompted by a brief but dramatic price increase in DRAMs in early 2002, and IS BELIEVED TO FOCUS ON ACTIONS BY CHIP MANUFACTURERS THAT INCLUDE LIMITS ON MANUFACTURING CAPACITY. [<--- that wouldn't be of RDRAM, would it!! ]
Separately, shares of Rambus Inc., a high-profile maker of technology used to make memory chips, rose sharply on speculation that it might reach a settlement of litigation with Micron. Rambus, Los Altos, Calif., has been battling the Federal Trade Commission, Micron and other companies, which contend that Rambus misled an industry standard-setting organization into adopting technology that was covered by Rambus patents. Rambus denies violating the law. An FTC judge now is considering that issue after a recent trial.
Micron's Mr. Parker wouldn't discuss any settlement discussions with Rambus, but he said Micron's suit against that company is entirely separate from the Justice investigation.
Rambus shares rose $3.27, or 12%, to $29.77 in 4 p.m. Nasdaq Stock Market trading. Micron shares slipped 22 cents to $13.73 in 4 p.m. New York Stock Exchange composite trading.
Write to Don Clark at don.clark@wsj.com
Updated December 31, 2003
Story out on the wires just now:
December 29, 2003 19:26 EST -- Micron Technology Inc., as part of an agreement to win amnesty from prosecution by the Justice Department, may admit it conspired with competitors to manipulate computer-chip prices, people familiar with the probe said.
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=conews&tkr=MU:US
John,
It might be an interesting Christmas season methinks.
Just heard a compelling ad from Phillips advertising 15" to 50" very flat tv's with no interest financing for 18 months with the line from the old rock song (the name of which escapes me) "you have to admit it's getting better, getting better all the time" singing in the background.
I think it'll sell a whole bunch of 'em.
bwdik.
Barry
John,
Thanks, I will. I've been here since you pointed me to this place. Just haven't had much to say.
The other space seems to have self-destructed.
Barry
Elmer,
Oh, that Carl.
I'm not that old - or retired.
Barry
Elmer,
No. I'm not Carl. Who is he?
I'm Barry.
bg
ps to Fowler - You know who.
John,
My guess is that he is looking at more niche products, with high margins. I think the days of undercutting Intel by 25% on comparable products may be over,
I recall that we discussed this about 5-6 years ago as the only viable long-term strategy open to AMD. Too bad they didn't consider it then. Competing with the Intel behemoth was a Jerry ego thing for them and not really rational IMO. OTOH, having the competitive pressure from them has pushed Intel technology faster than otherwise would have been the case and I don't think that's a bad thing.
bg
I know not what that SD resident was referring to in particular, but every time I see that power-hungry politico he has some negative thing to say about the President. My observation was simply that there are still some SDakotans who recognise Dashle for what he is.
South Dakotan Sanity
http://www.argusleader.com/editorial/Sundayarticle4.shtml
Shame on Daschle
Mark A. Lewis
Sioux Falls
published: 11/3/2002
After recently watching Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., trash President George W. Bush on C-Span, I was dumbfounded. He either despises or fears him to no end. This went beyond any political action I've seen. This is personal, unless he is using these attacks to belittle all Republicans.
Whatever the reason, South Dakota needs to balance this out. I thought that first tantrum he had was just a bad moment, but after what I saw on television, if Rep. John Thune, R-S.D., doesn't get elected, we're in trouble.
We need a Republican-controlled Senate, if for no other reason than to put Daschle back in his place, which is working for South Dakota, not attacking the president for his own political gain.
The economics of many of today's major industries will be turned on their heads. Few will survive in their present form. By making the availability of their products into the force driving all of mankind into a new world, Intel is leading us into a future far different from the not too recent past - most of our lifetimes.
Here's Andy's prediction: "You know that saying, 'The Internet changes everything'? People now are backing away from it, but I say, Just wait five years. Hundreds of billions of dollars we now spend on voice telecommunications will become a freebie--just like [Cisco CEO] John Chambers has said. That's Moore's Law at work. The entire entertainment industry will be digitally distributed over broadband networks. [Media companies are] going to tip over, because one of them, with its back to the wall, will make the transition, and the others will have to follow. That's Moore's Law at work. Houses will be wireless, broadband will be delivered wirelessly, and home and portable computers and consumer electronics are going to be built to facilitate all of the above. Okay, it hasn't happened in the first five years; it's going to take ten. And there will be a lot of pain for some. But it will happen, and we'll all benefit."
That's why, at a time when other chipmakers fear that living up to Moore's Law might be a bridge too far, Intel still believes it's the only way to go.
a little nitt..
But remember, this underutilization reduces EPS, but it does not eat into cash since the cash has already been paid in capital expenditures.
lower eps eats into the cash that would have been there had the eps been higher, so to that extent underutilization does eat into cash