If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
news: Intel to pay AMD $1.25 billion, settle disputes
Intel pays AMD $1.25 billion, renews their cross-license agreement for
another 5 years, and drops any breach-of-contract lawsuits against AMD (for spinning off its manufacturing arm into Global Foundaries). AMD is now free to become completely fab-less. Some sort of private dispute arbitrating mechanism has been setup between Intel and AMD. However, government regulators might still go after Intel with their own anti-trust cases. Yousuf Khan Intel to pay AMD $1.25 billion, settle disputes - washingtonpost.com "SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Intel Corp will pay rival chipmaker Advanced Micro Devices Inc $1.25 billion to settle all outstanding legal disputes, in a move that can hasten the resolution of Intel's antitrust troubles." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...111207822.html |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
news: Intel to pay AMD $1.25 billion, settle disputes
On Nov 12, 6:42*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Intel pays AMD $1.25 billion, renews their cross-license agreement for another 5 years, and drops any breach-of-contract lawsuits against AMD (for spinning off its manufacturing arm into Global Foundaries). AMD is now free to become completely fab-less. Some sort of private dispute arbitrating mechanism has been setup between Intel and AMD. However, government regulators might still go after Intel with their own anti-trust cases. * * * * Yousuf Khan Intel to pay AMD $1.25 billion, settle disputes - washingtonpost.com "SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Intel Corp will pay rival chipmaker Advanced Micro Devices Inc $1.25 billion to settle all outstanding legal disputes, in a move that can hasten the resolution of Intel's antitrust troubles."http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/12/AR200... Or http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-...12-711668.html It's subscription-only, but I'm sure that everyone here has a subscription. Same news, really, but from a source unlikely to be sympathetic to anti-trust regulation. Intel just bought off AMD. Without AMD's cooperation, government regulators will have a much harder times making their cases. Good deal for both companies. Lots of insider trading on this one, I'm sure. I'm relieved, Yousuf, I wondered how long you'd be able to contain yourself. Dell no longer offers really good deals on really good Intel processors. You have to wade through crap, only to find out you can get the good stuff at a lower price elsewhere. Maybe AMD can now make something real out of the ATI connection. That's the really bad news for Intel. Robert. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
news: Intel to pay AMD $1.25 billion, settle disputes
Robert Myers wrote:
Same news, really, but from a source unlikely to be sympathetic to anti-trust regulation. Intel just bought off AMD. Without AMD's cooperation, government regulators will have a much harder times making their cases. Good deal for both companies. Lots of insider trading on this one, I'm sure. Where do you get the idea that AMD won't cooperate anymore? Just because they got some pocket change, they're going to be sympathetic to Intel now? The Wall Street Journal would have to be pretty delusioned if they think this is the end for Intel. They already have guilty convictions in Japan, Korea and the EU that will never go away. Yousuf Khan |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
news: Intel to pay AMD $1.25 billion, settle disputes
On Nov 12, 10:18*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Robert Myers wrote: Same news, really, but from a source unlikely to be sympathetic to anti-trust regulation. Intel just bought off AMD. *Without AMD's cooperation, government regulators will have a much harder times making their cases. *Good deal for both companies. *Lots of insider trading on this one, I'm sure. Where do you get the idea that AMD won't cooperate anymore? Just because they got some pocket change, they're going to be sympathetic to Intel now? The Wall Street Journal would have to be pretty delusioned if they think this is the end for Intel. They already have guilty convictions in Japan, Korea and the EU that will never go away. That's part of the payoff deal, Yousuf. It settles "outstanding complaints," which would include Japan, Korea, and the EU. US anti- trust regulators will continue to pursue Intel, because they aren't part of the "outstanding complaints." Just how much enthusiasm the US will have for such an enterprise is another matter. No one lost most of their 401(k) because of Intel, and the US has lots more important regulatory issues on the stove. The snarky comment about subscriptions to the wsj was about arguing about business issues with people who don't read the financial press. Robert. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
news: Intel to pay AMD $1.25 billion, settle disputes
"Robert Myers" wrote in message ... On Nov 12, 10:18 pm, Yousuf Khan wrote: Robert Myers wrote: Same news, really, but from a source unlikely to be sympathetic to anti-trust regulation. Intel just bought off AMD. Without AMD's cooperation, government regulators will have a much harder times making their cases. Good deal for both companies. Lots of insider trading on this one, I'm sure. Where do you get the idea that AMD won't cooperate anymore? Just because they got some pocket change, they're going to be sympathetic to Intel now? The Wall Street Journal would have to be pretty delusioned if they think this is the end for Intel. They already have guilty convictions in Japan, Korea and the EU that will never go away. That's part of the payoff deal, Yousuf. It settles "outstanding complaints," which would include Japan, Korea, and the EU. US anti- trust regulators will continue to pursue Intel, because they aren't part of the "outstanding complaints." Just how much enthusiasm the US will have for such an enterprise is another matter. No one lost most of their 401(k) because of Intel, and the US has lots more important regulatory issues on the stove. The snarky comment about subscriptions to the wsj was about arguing about business issues with people who don't read the financial press. Robert. ----------------- Me, I read it for the political commentary and coverage. The text of the press release about the settlement should be widely available. The club Intel had to force a settlement was the dispute as to whether the cross licensing agreement AMD and Intel had could be used by third parties like the spun off fab. All it would take is a little luck in choice of judge and Intel gets an injunction prohibiting Global Foundaries from making x86 chips using Intel patents until the case is resolved. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
news: Intel to pay AMD $1.25 billion, settle disputes
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:17:25 -0600, "Del Cecchi"
wrote: "Robert Myers" wrote in message ... On Nov 12, 10:18 pm, Yousuf Khan wrote: Robert Myers wrote: Same news, really, but from a source unlikely to be sympathetic to anti-trust regulation. Intel just bought off AMD. Without AMD's cooperation, government regulators will have a much harder times making their cases. Good deal for both companies. Lots of insider trading on this one, I'm sure. Where do you get the idea that AMD won't cooperate anymore? Just because they got some pocket change, they're going to be sympathetic to Intel now? The Wall Street Journal would have to be pretty delusioned if they think this is the end for Intel. They already have guilty convictions in Japan, Korea and the EU that will never go away. That's part of the payoff deal, Yousuf. It settles "outstanding complaints," which would include Japan, Korea, and the EU. US anti- trust regulators will continue to pursue Intel, because they aren't part of the "outstanding complaints." Just how much enthusiasm the US will have for such an enterprise is another matter. No one lost most of their 401(k) because of Intel, and the US has lots more important regulatory issues on the stove. The snarky comment about subscriptions to the wsj was about arguing about business issues with people who don't read the financial press. Robert. ----------------- Me, I read it for the political commentary and coverage. The text of the press release about the settlement should be widely available. The club Intel had to force a settlement was the dispute as to whether the cross licensing agreement AMD and Intel had could be used by third parties like the spun off fab. All it would take is a little luck in choice of judge and Intel gets an injunction prohibiting Global Foundaries from making x86 chips using Intel patents until the case is resolved. So IBM buys GF and makes a pile more money. ;-) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
news: Intel to pay AMD $1.25 billion, settle disputes
On Nov 16, 8:54*pm, krw wrote:
So IBM buys GF and makes a pile more money. *;-) Leaving aside the pile of money that IBM doesn't have that it would take to do that, it's hard for me to understand why or how IBM would suddenly become competent (and profitable) as a manufacturer of mass market chips. No matter how incompetent (stubborn, hidebound, bumbling, whatever) Intel may have been on the computer architecture/electrical engineering front, it knows how to make lots of cutting edge chips at a decent gross margin. That's apparently what's important to the company, and that, aside from marketing, is what they apparently do well. Their success at keeping that gross margin up is also what Wall Street watches closely. It isn't obvious to me what there is in any of these financial shell games that will change any of that fundamental reality. If Global Foundries can make high end chips with the same gross margins at Intel, that will be the real development. There's a reason why IBM is reduced to the role of R&D lab/technical adviser rather than manufacturer. Robert. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
news: Intel to pay AMD $1.25 billion, settle disputes
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:33:45 -0800 (PST), Robert Myers
wrote: On Nov 16, 8:54*pm, krw wrote: So IBM buys GF and makes a pile more money. *;-) Leaving aside the pile of money that IBM doesn't have that it would take to do that, it's hard for me to understand why or how IBM would suddenly become competent (and profitable) as a manufacturer of mass market chips. I see you're still as dumb as ever, Robert. snip more bull**** |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
news: Intel to pay AMD $1.25 billion, settle disputes
On Nov 16, 11:09*pm, krw wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:33:45 -0800 (PST), Robert Myers wrote: On Nov 16, 8:54*pm, krw wrote: So IBM buys GF and makes a pile more money. *;-) Leaving aside the pile of money that IBM doesn't have that it would take to do that, it's hard for me to understand why or how IBM would suddenly become competent (and profitable) as a manufacturer of mass market chips. I see you're still as dumb as ever, Robert. If there is some chapter in the history of IBM successes I have failed to notice, please let us know. They were very profitable as a manufacturer of punch cards between the two world wars, but they sold even those at an obscene markup before it became illegal as trading with the enemy. Robert. Robert. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
news: Intel to pay AMD $1.25 billion, settle disputes
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert Myers wrote in part:
No matter how incompetent (stubborn, hidebound, bumbling, whatever) Intel may have been on the computer architecture/electrical engineering front, it knows how to make lots of cutting edge chips at a decent gross margin. That's apparently what's important to the company, and that, aside from marketing, is what they apparently do well. Their success at keeping that gross margin up is also what Wall Street watches closely. Your creative misinterpretation never ceases to amaze! AFAICS (I'm not inside Intel, nor are you), their main disasters (iAPX432, i860/960, IA-64, P4) have been marketing driven ("gee, we see a market for these"), not from engineering ("how could we ever do that, why would we bother?") Intels architecture, EE and process have been nothing less than consistantly (30+ years) outstanding, rising to even the most lunatic challenges from marketing, endorsed by management. Which pulled them through their disasters. It is marketing who has been as you describe "incompetent, stubborn, hidebound, bumbling" and I would add illegal. It isn't obvious to me what there is in any of these financial shell games that will change any of that fundamental reality. If Global Foundries can make high end chips with the same gross margins at Intel, that will be the real development. There's a reason why IBM is reduced to the role of R&D lab/technical adviser rather than manufacturer. Chip margins are composed of two separate things -- manufacturing efficiency and product market dynamics. You can be as good as you like, but if you're not printing the right masks, you'll wind up like DRAM or flash. Intel has both. -- Robert R |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Intel fined $1.5 billion by EU competition authority | Yousuf Khan | General | 19 | June 9th 10 01:33 AM |
Intel makes arguing and getting into disputes easier | Yousuf Khan | General | 10 | June 23rd 09 12:17 AM |
Intel makes arguing and getting into disputes easier | Yousuf Khan | Intel | 9 | June 23rd 09 12:17 AM |
Intel fined $1.5 billion by EU competition authority | Robert Myers | Intel | 0 | May 20th 09 01:07 PM |
Intel in the News | GRAVE ROBBER Computer Repair | Intel | 0 | June 18th 06 07:23 PM |