64. Intel exacts a severe penalty from OEMs who fail to meet their targets. For example, during the fourth quarter of 2004, AMD succeeded in getting on the HP retail roadmap for mobile computers, and its products sold very well, helping AMD capture nearly 60% of HP’s U.S. retail sales for the quarter. Intel responded by withholding HP’s fourth quarter rebate check and refusing to waive HP’s failure to achieve its targeted rebate goal. Instead, Intel “allowed” HP to make up the shortfall in succeeding quarters when HP promised
Intel at least 90% of HP’s mainstream retail business.
You and your fellow droids, quote these "claims" as if they are the bible. Like they are definitive and offered as proof. They are not. There are a number of scenario's which can exonerate Intel from these allegations. You guys have your interpretation, now I will give you mine. Let's take this claim and examine it line by line. I will make several points on each. Anyone of these points, if considered by a judge or jury, can sway them to Intel's side.
Intel exacts a severe penalty from OEM's who fail to meet their targets.
1) Say's who? AMD. Big deal. "severe" and "penalty" are AMD's vitriolic description. It is AMD's opinion that this happens. There is no fact to argue about in this sentence. Just AMD's statement of hatred for Intel and a set up for the rest of the nonsense that is about to come.
2) So what? If an OEM agrees to such "severe penalties" (again AMD's words) and they "fail to meet their targets" what is wrong with this? Agreements, and targets, are sometimes not achieved and there are consequences in most cases. Nothing wrong with this. Note that this sentence talks about an OEM-Intel relationship. Nowhere is their any implication that it is linked to AMD. This is AMD's opinion on how Intel acts in its Intel-OEM contracts.
For example, during the fourth quarter of 2004, AMD succeeded in getting on the HP retail roadmap for mobile computers, and its products sold very well, helping AMD capture nearly 60% of HP’s U.S. retail sales for the quarter.
1) This is AMD's attempt to somehow link itself to Intel-HP agreement.
2) "AMD succeeded" is AMD's opinion. "it's product's sold very well" is AMD's opinion, because to HP, they may have not sold "well enough". No one from HP is quoted.
3) While it is "obvious" to you droids, it is not clear what AMD's numbers are talking about. They start out with "retail roadmap for mobile", which is a smaller market, then talk about "60% of HP's U.S. retails sales". Is this 60% retail mobile or all of retail. It makes a difference because they are trying to emphasize size and success.
4) It has been established that AMD dumped a bunch of processor for free. Is this how they got 60% of the HP's business? It could be. We do not know. If it is, then this is either a one time event or a trap for Intel. In this case, HP is not too happy about being the unwitting third party in the AMD charade. Further, this would be a distorted view of the relationship between Intel and its OEMS, because AMD does not normally operate by giving its CPU's for free.
Intel responded by withholding HP’s fourth quarter rebate check and refusing to waive HP’s failure to achieve its targeted rebate goal.
1) "Intel responded". This is AMD trying to tie the events of this sentence to it's previous sentence of "AMD success" and "AMD capture of 60%". There is no evidence in this claim that there is a connection between AMD and the HP-Intel contracts. Just conjecture, by AMD. You droids may think there is a connection. There is'nt.
2) "by withholding HP's fourth quarter rebate check and refusing to waive HP's failure to achieve its targeted rebate goal". Yeah, so what? If that is what HP-Intel agreed to. If AMD is not mentioned directly in the agreement, AMD will find it hard to prove a link to itself. This claim does not say AMD is mentioned directly. Nowhere in this claim is there evidence that Intel forced HP to sign this type of agreement. HP could have opted not to sign and pinned their hopes on AMD to get them to their internal sales goals. They probably did not feel that selling AMD could help them in their internal sales goals. Now, perhaps they were wrong. But it does not matter. It was HP's decision to accept more rebate money, for the more they sell. Nothing wrong with this type of agreement as long as AMD is not directly excluded. Satisfy the agreement and get paid. If Intel did not live up to its side of the bargain, then HP should have taken them to court. It did not, because Intel did nothing wrong. Again there is no AMD connection shown. You droids think otherwise. You are wrong.
3) "refusing to waive", this is Intel's prerogative if it is what both parties agreed to.
Instead, Intel “allowed” HP to make up the shortfall in succeeding quarters when HP promised Intel at least 90% of HP’s mainstream retail business.
1) "Instead," this is AMD trying to tie the events to it's previous sentence of "AMD success" and "AMD capture of 60%", again. There is no evidence in this claim that there is a connection between AMD and the HP-Intel contracts. Just conjecture, by AMD.
2) "allowed" is AMD's wordsmithing. Note the quotes. AMD wants to get across that HP is controlled by Intel. Nice try.
3) "when HP promised Intel at least 90% of HP’s mainstream retail business." The word "promised" is again wordsmithing. Companies do not promise each other. They agree to contracts which are thoroughly examined by lawyers on both sides. If HP does not gain anything from an agreement with Intel, it refuses to sign, unless they have a "gun to their head". I am talking literally. If HP can achieve its sales and profit goals by giving more business to AMD, they should take it in a heartbeat, as it is their duty. Otherwise, though it may "pain" them to do so, they simply have to "bite the bullet" and buy from Intel. Note that when talking about business, terms like "gun" and "bullet" are not meant literally. I say this because I know, some droids actually think that Michael Capellas, literally had a gun to his head. We shall see. Until then, "droids" that think this need not reply to my messages and waste my time.
Conclusion: This entire claim is trying to show that AMD is directly tied to these HP-Intel agreements and Intel forced these agreements on HP. Almost everything in this claim is conjecture, clever wording, and AMD's opinion. Nothing is proven. It is just as likely that any one of the scenarios I have brought up can explain away what really happened, as AMD's allegations. Anyone of the above points, if considered by a judge or jury, can sway them to Intel's side.
AMD's case looks weak. AMD is going the way of DEC. In 3-5 years they will no longer exist as a company. AMD investor's have everything riding on this, Intel does not. If the flash thing has taught AMD anything it should have been that a fraction of an expense to Intel is 10X expensive to AMD. I am talking attorneys fee$. Only an act of desperation would cause AMD to risk so much on this.
IMHO
