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.
FCGuy,
There is an interesting comment on e-mail evidence on
Bloomberg this am.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aPY_XmE_u9CA
The author is Ann Woolner titled:
"Bear Stearns Case Shows E-mail Isn't Everything"
Thanks for sharing that. It is very telling and seems to validate Elmer's and other poster's claims about AMD's email evidence against Intel.
IMHO
Elmer,
what makes you think that a settlement today, will make AMD and it's cult following ease up with rhetoric and future complaints against Intel?
Not much.
Exactly. I am not sure that Intel has much of a choice in this matter. It probably feels it must take the risk, and clear the air.
IMHO
Elmer,
The point is that AMD has absolutely nothing to lose. They are driving the Volkswagen while in the final stages of terminal cancer. What Intel stands to lose if they find themselves in front of a jury as gullible as our favorite antagonist here is impossible to estimate. They let O.J. go, they could find Intel guilty.
Let's look at a, not so timely, timeline of events.
1) The EU fines Intel
2) Abu Dhabi and AMD form an alliance to "take on" Intel
3) Hector Ruiz becomes the chairman of GF alliance.
4) Intel/AMD CPU licensing issues remain.
5) EU ombudsmen finds EUC was not upfront with their case
6) Hector Ruiz gets caught leaking insider info and resigns
7) Rumor the FTC is going after Intel
8) NY State files suit in Delaware...FTC is absent (so far)
9) Oracle gets bitch-slapped by EU. Google, Apple, USA.COM next.
10) DOJ in a public row with EU concerning Oracle/Sun.
11) There is rumor of a settlement.
Three things come to mind. First, it may well be that the case for AMD has blown up, somehow, due to Hector Ruiz. I am guessing, AMD knows what the governement is about to find out. Second, given the "rich uncle" Arabs that AMD has, why could they not continue this Jihad until Intel is crippled?(maybe Mas can comment on this?) After all, "what do they have to lose?", just the poor Arabs money. I mean why settle now? Thirdly, what makes you think that a settlement today, will make AMD and it's cult following ease up with rhetoric and future complaints against Intel?
Conclusion: It maybe that it is Intel, who has nothing to lose.
IMHO
morrowinder,
Why does Ruiz keep getting a pass...
Cuomo just looks the other while Hector gives out insider information yet jumps on the gravy train of Intel billions for new york.
Very good question.
I think there is considerable damage that has been done by Ruiz to AMD (beyond the embarrassment), but it will not come out in public. What Ruiz was doing was classic "pump and dump". What he was pumping, to Wall St, was his company AMD. What he was dumping was the Fab's. The people who he was dumping to, were from Abu Dhabi. Remember he was in negotiations at the time and the eternal optimism about quarterly earnings, in retrospect, was contrived and part of the sell. After the deal was announced, many here questioned the wisdom of the Arabs. It is my opinion that the Arabs have now been enlightened, at least privately. They can not admit to being "suckered", because someone high up will have to take responsibility. What they can do is become more apprehensive towards AMD. Bottom line, the 50/50 board of AMD has now become a lot more polarized. Thanks to Ruiz.
IMHO
rudedog,
Dell will "show" that they were "forced" to exclude AMD, despite "sales and customer demand", and THAT is why they lost their leadership position.
Link? I think this is just wishful thinking. :^)
I know this has become an established Dell position - a friend who was at Dell in this period claimed that Dell's exclusively Intel product line cost them thought leadership and took them from "Invincible" to "Also Ran".
Really? I bet you I can find a friend at Dell who will claim that the reason Dell went from an "Also Ran" to "Invincible" was because they chose to be exclusively Intel.
IMHO
rudedog,
re:re: Apparently, the FTC has looked over the NYS AG suit that has convinced you of Intel's guilt and decided it was not enough to bring charges, at this time.
Link? I think that is wishful thinking and that the FTC will go forward with some kind of action, based on all I see in the press.
I have no link to the FTC admitting anything, and you can't be serious about asking for one. It is my opinion based on the fact that it was known at least a week ago, that the FTC was about to do something to Intel. They have been cooperating and so far NYS has, and the FTC has not. My guess, that they may not feel as strong about the case as NYS, is as good as any.
There is no wishful thinking. I clearly state "at this time" and I fully expect the FTC to follow suit and not because they have a good case. Governments do not always do the right thing. Ruiz should be charged, for instance, but so far, he has not. The NYS AG motives are questionable. The EU's motives, if you accept the conclusion of their own ombudsman, are also questionable. I think Intel will win in the end.
IMHO
fastpathguru,
Because AMD would take share, make money hand over fist, use it to build capacity, and become an even larger threat to Intel.
AMD did take share, made money, and....... over paid by billions to buy ATI.
You have been proven wrong. Next.
IMHO
savantu,
You should slow down in your rush to judge Intel. That is all we are saying. For example,
Even Intel, instead of disputing the authenticity of the texts ( not even daring to touch their interpretation because they are so obvious ), claims " no consumer done, market works".
You probably meant, "no consumer HARM done, market works". See what happens when you rush through things. Haste makes waste. Hope this helps.
IMHO
savantu,
No matter how much you don't like the way the situation has developed, fact is that Intel stepped across the line and engaged into illegal practices. Be prepared for another $2-3B fine in the US...
LOL. Which line is that? Is that the illegal practices line? Oh, OK.
IMHO
Chipguy,
More like Cuomo will get his face on TV a few times decrying evil Intel to help launch his run at the governor's office next year while this lurid, pimped for public relations, complaint grinds its way through the system to nowhere over a period of years.
True, and if you read the comments in the Wall St Journal article, the vast majority of people see through his shady attempt for public office. It is backfiring on him and it will backfire on AMD. Ruiz and Cuomo; with enemies like these, who needs friends?
IMHO
Ritz,
Expect the FTC to file suit shortly:
http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE59M4UX20091023
LOL. That article is Oct 23. Shortly should have been today, especially if the evidence is so overwhelming. Listen, I am not denying that the FTC may come after Intel. I am asserting that there are still issues the FTC needs to address. The NYS and the FTC have been communicating on this issue. The fact that the FTC and NYS did not share the podium, is real news. Clearly this is not an open and shut case, as you make it seem.
IMHO
Ritz,
AMD is not going anywhere. Time for Intel and its fans to face up to that reality
AMD is already gone. There is nothing left but the name. Intel fans were correct all along. We said back a few years ago that AMD in its then current form will not exist. That is exactly what has happened. Even its then CEO is gone, something about illegal insider information knowingly given to a hedge fund.
Here is the real news. Apparently, the FTC has looked over the NYS AG suit that has convinced you of Intel's guilt and decided it was not enough to bring charges, at this time. Think about it. The FTC did not stand shoulder to shoulder with NYS given all this damaging evidence. That is the real news.
IMHO
Saturn V,
Some of the other defendents like the IBM VP or the McKenzie consultant also did not directy trade in AMD, but were still charged for inappropriate disclosure of information
After reading the WSJ article, it looks like they were charged with conspiracy. The question is: conspiracy to what? It could not be to profit directly, so I guess it must have been something else.
As for Ruiz, if the investigation uncovers other leaks by him to Wall St, then perhaps the leaks were intentional to affect AMD's stock and perhaps the AMD stock (its behavior, price or perception by analyst) was a key component to having the deal go through? I don't know. This is clearly deep speculation on my part, but hey you never know.
IMHO
mas,
think he just likes to be proud and talk and probably didn't realize the significance of what he was doing.
I tend to agree with you here. He has made some "off the cuff" remarks in the past. Also, as FCGuy pointed out, he was leading on the outside world with the "deal is imminent". He just cracked.
It's not going to be much of a defence but it's probably the truth.
As of now, he has not been charged. It is just an embarrassment.
IMHO
mas,
Ex-AMD CEO Ruiz Was Galleon Source
Wow. Why, oh why would he do this? I mean what could he have possibly gained from this? Surely he must have known that the information he had must be kept a secret, especially from Wall St, where the sharks roam. In any event, it was a dumb, stupid move. No wonder AMD has been decimated through his leadership.
[ edit: just saw your message to Golfbum and I agree ]
IMHO
smooth2o,
re: AMD informant -
By definition, the holdup means that it is someone very high, close to the deal. Ruiz comes to mind :)...
I am inclined to believe you. (If true)This would be a huge embarrassment for AMD and GloFo, not to mention the politicians in NY State. Imagine pictures of NY State politicians in handshakes with a man who may wind up behind bars!
However, it may be even worse for AMD. I think most everyone knows that the GloFo deal is a financial and accounting gymnastics routine that also passed the legality test. Intel has raised concerns but not objected to the deal. The concern I am raising is that the investigation into the insider trading may uncover documented, "off the record", remarks about the deal that may strengthen Intel's objection to the deal. This is really going out on a limb, but the delay by AMD is what is puzzling.
IMHO
mas,
re: Intel's informant ..."
Care to speculate on what is holding up AMD's investigation into "their" informant. I am sure the authorities know. I find it strange that this persons name has not been made public. I also find it strange that of the handful of AMD people with information about the GloFo deal, at that time, AMD is "still investigating". Do you think there are some "dead skeletons" AMD is attempting to shield from the authorities, the public, Intel, or the courts?
IMHO
tatertot,
Joanne Feeney offers her congratulations on a "great quarter", and she is quite surprised by AMD mobile strength.
"Terrific news!"
Not surprising at all. She may have worked for AMD, at one time. Here is her bio from:
http://www.nanobusiness2007.com/speakers.php (scroll to bottom)
"...Before moving into equity research, Dr. Feeney served as Senior Business Strategist for Albany NanoTech, New York’s flagship center for nanoelectronics innovation and commercialization located at the University at Albany, State University of New York. Albany NanoTech hosts collaborative research into advanced semiconductor manufacturing by industry consortium, Sematech, and by industry leaders, IBM, AMD, Infineon, Micron, Tokyo Electron, Applied Materials, Veeco Instruments, and a host of others. While at Albany NanoTech, Dr. Feeney..." etc,
A very AMD-collaborative background, I'd say
IMHO
smooth2o,
Do you detect any change in Intel procedure now that Bruce is gone?
My take on Bruce's move to Apple. While the negative side views this as Bruce jumping a faltering ship, let's not forget the positive side. Seems like Apple sees itself as a target of future antitrust and EU-like witch hunts and figures Bruce has guided Intel to a potential win, therefore they grabbed him when they could.
As for changes, I get the feeling Intel has become more inclined to take on AMD in the court of public opinion recently. Not sure if this was a point of discourse that may have led to his departure.
IMHO
mas,
AMD need the money and Intel don't need anymore bad publicity, their brand has taken enough of a battering already
Let me get this straight. Intel's brand is taking a beating so they will settle by paying off AMD?
ROTFLMAO.
In your dreams. The damage, if any, has already been done. If there is any payoff, it will be AMD doing the paying (which is why the Abu Dhabi/AMD deal came just in time, for Intel). Any settlement will be initiated by AMD and it will be based on Intel's terms. I know you don't agree, but that is OK. The alternative is it goes to court. Either way AMD will lose.
IMHO
Elmer,
It is good to see some of these articles finally come out. The writers could further enhance their point by mentioning Nellie's off the cuff "Intel, sponsor of the European taxpayer". The arrogance and totalitarian attitude of the EUCC is now evident to anyone without a surname of "droid". I think Intel's case has legs.
IMHO
chipguy,
That's the problem with making a bunch of large die
45 nm "home run" chips and selling them as doubles
and triples
I am still puzzled why AMD does not take Mas's advice and simply raise prices? LOL.
IMHO
Duke of URL,
Microsoft will offer Windows 7 without IE in Europe
Too funny. I assume that Microsoft will not offer any of the competitors browser either. So now the European taxpayer will get a brand spanking new Windows 7 computer with no browser. They simply have to download their favorite one from the net. Ha ha. No problem... ;)
IMHO
fastpathguru,
willco: "Foreign governments and now the EU in Europe have long used their laws to help their own businesses and thwart U.S. businesses. The U.S. has not."
Contradicted by the many EU businesses that have run afoul of the EC. ... against other EC businesses.
Not contradicted at all. Most of the time the EC went against its own, it was to protect another of its own.
You seem to be wasting a lot of time discussing a topic which will not be resolved any time soon.
1) The EU fine is in escrow and has "no financial impact" on Intel ;)
2) Your baby AMD will get nothing out of this. Intel will continue to pummel them ;))
3) The EU consumer will get nothing, except perhaps higher prices ;)))
4) And last but not least, why don't you come back and reopen this topic when the EU finally publishes it's "redacted" proof. Because otherwise, you know, you have no proof. Just a decision by the EU and your opinion. Your BIASED opinion ;))))
IMHO
Sarmad,
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Intel-lawyer-uphill-battle-to-apf-15305522.html?.v=2
SANTA CLARA, Calif. (AP) -- Intel Corp.'s top lawyer says that fighting the European Union's record $1.45 billion antitrust fine will be an "uphill battle."
Is there anyone on this thread that thought Intel would say anything else? This is the proper and correct response.
Now I am not a lawyer, but this is how I understand it. The issue before the court will not necessarily be about Intel v. AMD. My understanding is the issue before the court will be Intel v. EU Competition Commission. Intel's complaint is that the EUCC made the decision without examining all the evidence, even when Intel was ready to present it. The question is, did the EUCC violate EU Law in coming up with its decision and fine. This indeed will be an uphill battle and will be the crux of the case. If Intel can convince the court that the EUCC does not have "carte blanche" with its decision, and EU Law states or implies ALL evidence unconditionally must be heard, then it should be rather easy to demonstrate evidence was ignored. Taken together, I think Intel wins. If the court believes EU Law gives the EUCC the flexibility to pass judgment any way it likes, then Intel will lose. It is also possible that the court will take on the whole Intel v AMD case from scratch, but that will take a long time and I doubt they want to do this.
It will definitely be a tough battle, but I think it will be a battle over EU Law (or lack thereof) than anything else.
IMHO
Ritz,
re: Intel v AMD IP dispute
You didn't look very hard. I don't have all that many posts.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=36313303
You are right, my bad. Now looking at your response:
It's one thing for AMD to die as a result of the recession or it's own failures, quite another to be put under as a result of an IP dispute.
Wait a minute now. The IP dispute is a result of AMD’s failures. Because AMD failed (bought ATI, Barcelona bugs etc) it seeks to underhandedly push off its costs to Global Foundries. In doing so, we have the dispute over the IP.
Neither the EU nor the Obama administration is going to allow AMD to be put out of business and x86 turned into a monopoly like this, period.
First of all, you need to stop thinking in terms of administration this or administration that. It is the USA and it’s laws we are talking about. I agree that no one in the government wants to see a monopoly, and they may try to keep that from happening. But they will try and do that legally, not by going against the laws. So the USA may well have no choice but to allow AMD to kill itself. Clearly the EU is a different animal, but even there, they may not want it but they may have no choice.
IMHO
tecate,
IMHO.. don't worry, I read Krows still has it on her agenda.. I read it yesterday
Ms. Kroes will be gone by the end of the year, she is irrelevant. I tend to agree with you that the US DOJ and FTC, no matter what the party affiliation, is not nearly as arrogant and stupid as the EU competition agency.
IMHO
Ritz,
As for the FTC, it's a different FTC
Yeah, I guess that is why they decided to drop their pursuit of RAMBUS, today!
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090514-710151.html
BTW, since you are an avid follower of litigation and such, care to tell us how Intel's threat of pulling the x86 license will play out? I hope you remembered to include that case in your assessment of the Intel/AMD battles, because I do not recall seeing it in any of your posts.
IMHO
Ritz,
I wouldn't short Intel or any PC related stock right now. I think the sector is in for a fairly strong recovery over the next year, and I think that could very well more than cancel out the anti-trust pain Intel is likely to face going forward and the stock could very well move higher.
How do you rationalize this? You start posting incessantly from May 10 to the present...
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/profile.asp?user=138595
...with the clear belief that Intel is in "trouble", and now that you have seen the market ignore the news, you are bullish on the sector and neutral on Intel.
This board still, however, seems to be under the impression that AMD is going away sometime soon and Intel will be able to reap monopoly profits as a result.
The board was correct. AMD, as we knew it a few years ago, is done. They are essentially bankrupt already. However, instead of doing it the public way, which is to file for Ch.11 and seek protection under a judge, they have chosen the private way and have sought protection under Abu Dhabi. You do realize that companies that are bankrupt (the normal way) continue to operate and do business. And so, that is what AMD is doing. They are continuing to operate and do business under protection from Abu Dhabi. The board and all who predicted this are correct. It is you, who can not figure this out.
IMHO
Ritz,
Are you joking here? The news was leaked on April 21, Intel closed that day at 15.36, AMD at 3.36. Which has performed better since the news came out??
So the news was leaked 24 days ago, in which time AMD has gone up and Intel is flat. Now that the balloon has popped, why don't you wait another 24 days before you do your comparison and call people out?
IMHO
This probably is not the first or the last...
http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/05-13-2009/0005025569&EDATE=
TechNet Statement on European Union Ruling Regarding Intel
WASHINGTON, May 13 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- TechNet, the bipartisan political network of CEOs that promotes the growth of the innovation economy, today released the following statement from acting CEO Jim Hawley regarding the European Union's decision of a record fine against the Intel Corporation.
"I have great concerns over today's decision by the European Union, its impact on innovation and the troubling trend of targeting of American high tech firms. The central threshold for anti-trust violations should be consumer harm as defined yesterday by U.S. Assistant Attorney General for Anti-Trust Christine Varney. But in this case, the average price of microprocessors has fallen dramatically in the last decade. My fear is that this ruling will lead to higher prices for computers and information technology equipment, a problematic result particularly in the current economic environment. And I'm concerned that this will divert research and development dollars that otherwise would have been spent on new cutting-edge discoveries here in the United States instead being sent to Europe to pay exorbitant fines."
About TechNet:
TechNet is the national, bipartisan network of CEOs that promotes the growth of technology industries and the economy by building long-term relationships between technology leaders and policymakers and by advocating a targeted policy agenda. TechNet's members represent more than one million employees in the fields of information technology, biotechnology, e-commerce and finance. TechNet has offices in Washington, DC, Palo Alto, Sacramento, Seattle, Boston, Austin, and Orange County (California). Web address: www.technet.org.
IMHO
Joey Smith,
This EU decision looks more and more like a pre-determinded witchhunt. I hope Intel starts battling this in a forum of public appeal..I'd start with that quote from Nelle herself. Splatter it everywhere.
I agree.
IMHO
Tenchu,
re: Kroes joke "Intel is now sponsor of European taxpayers"
By the way, the AP must have edited their article, for that quote from Neelie the Terrible no longer appears
Someone should tell the AP that the internet has "memory", LOL.
BTW, Why would the AP take that out? If the author thought it appropriate to put in originally, why the change of mind? Unless it was non-factual (and it was factual, because you can find it by searching on the internet), it suggests third party interference. I wonder who? <g>
So much for ethics in journalism.
Either way, the quote looks damaging in the court of public opinion, but not sure if has the same affect in a court of law. Is it admissible?
IMHO
Latest news:
Intel CEO: We Do Not Offer Conditional Rebates
Intel CEO: Company "strongly disagrees" with EU
Intel: Some Customer Statements Were Not Allowed In EU Case
Intel CEO denies offering conditional rebates
Intel CEO: 'Hard To Imagine' How Customers Were Harmed
Intel CEO: Market Conditions Will Not Change Due To Ruling
Sorry, I have no links. Trust me :)
IMHO
Sarmad,
Intel will be able to increase its revenues by a $billion/year, ...
You also may need to remind Mas that it will be at his (i.e. Europeans) expense. :)
Ouch indeed. LOL
IMHO
mas,
Thanks for the article. So where is the news?
Where did the $1.3 billion figure come from? Not long ago "experts" were sure to emphasize it could be as much as 10% of 37 billion in annual revenues? The article still mentions this, but this is old news. Now it "could reach as much" as $1.3 billion. Looks like a little back-tracking, if you ask me.
More important than the speculating "experts" is this portion of the article:
A person with knowledge of the commission’s deliberations said the agency was planning to highlight specific instances of suspected illegal discounting and order an end to those practices
No mention of a fine, of any size, is noteworthy. Could it be... Naahh ;)
edit: I expect a rather mild fine. If not mild I expect Intel to fight it and win.
IMHO
As if this matters? Abu Dhabi will just dig a new well :)
5:11PM Advanced Micro downgraded to 'CCC+' at S&P; Outlook Negative (AMD) 3.33 -0.03 : S&P removed its ratings on Advanced Micro Devices from CreditWatch and lowered its corporate credit and senior secured ratings on the company to 'CCC+' from 'B'. The outlook is negative. "The rating action reflects our view of the risk that current liquidity, at both AMD as a stand-alone entity and the consolidated group, may be insufficient to adequately fund expected near-term operating losses and debt amortization requirements."
http://finance.yahoo.com/marketupdate/inplay
IMHO
As if this matters? Abu Dhabi will just dig a new well :)
5:11PM Advanced Micro downgraded to 'CCC+' at S&P; Outlook Negative (AMD) 3.33 -0.03 : S&P removed its ratings on Advanced Micro Devices from CreditWatch and lowered its corporate credit and senior secured ratings on the company to 'CCC+' from 'B'. The outlook is negative. "The rating action reflects our view of the risk that current liquidity, at both AMD as a stand-alone entity and the consolidated group, may be insufficient to adequately fund expected near-term operating losses and debt amortization requirements."
http://finance.yahoo.com/marketupdate/inplay
IMHO
RobertG,
But Walters said AMD may be exploiting a "loophole."
"The implicit assumption" is that if AMD puts in 50% worth of assets, it will own 50% of the spinoff, he said. "It seems to be some gaming of the system by AMD"
A "loophole" and "gaming" are just a couple of ways of describing it. "Crafted" is another. A "scheme" is still another. I think that in a court of law, this will not go over well. Can't wait to see how much it will cost AMD and Abu Dhabi.
IMHO
mas,
By declaring war on Abu Dhabi by proxy they have sealed their fate, they are toast now, Abu Dhabi will bury them now with masses of cheap chips
You forgot to add, "Allahu Akbar" to your little prayer.
Enjoy !!
You sound a little angry, mas. Calm down.
IMHO