Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: nihil who wrote (92580)	11/16/1999 9:54:00 AM
From: Tony Viola	Respond to of 186894

Nihil, Re: "Isn't it astounding that with the right to reverse engineer PII that NSM quit the microprocessor business?" And their stock triples. I guess you could say the Wall Street has assigned the CPU chip market to Intel, with an occasional spike price allowed to AMD when they have a promising chip. That's the way it used to be with IBM and the seven dwarfs (anybody remember them?). Could Intel go the way of IBM in the 80's? Tony

To: nihil who wrote (92580)	11/16/1999 10:37:00 AM
From: Elmer	Respond to of 186894

Re: "Intel need not raise its prices to shelter competition, but it cannot cut its own prices below incremental cost in order to increase market share. In particular, it must not even talk of destroying competition. It is allowed to gain or preserve a monopoly by its own competence and efficiency. But it must be careful to let its competitors fail from their own incompetence and stupidity." Thanks. This is very different from your previous statement where you said: "To be labeled an abusive monopolist Intel does not have to run AMD out of business. It is enough that it injure competition, or that AMD be prevented from competing at a profit" Re: "Isn't it astounding that with the right to reverse engineer PII that NSM quit the microprocessor business? Isn't amazing that with this right S3 doesn't even try? Intel need not raise its prices to shelter competition" It's not amazing or astonishing at all. Both NSM and S3 feel an obligation to increase shareholder value and having the right to design and manufacture something and having the ability are 2 very different things. AMD has no such constraint regarding shareholder value. BTW, Intel did not license AMD to use P6 bus patents. EP

To: nihil who wrote (92580)	11/17/1999 7:06:00 AM
From: Amy J	Respond to of 186894

RE: "In particular, it must not even talk of destroying competition. It is allowed to gain or preserve a monopoly by its own competence and efficiency. But it must be careful to let its competitors fail from their own incompetence and stupidity." Hi Nihil, The very last paragraph of the FOF indicates innovation is restricted because investment money [e.g. VC money] does not go in the direction of companies which compete with Microsoft. That's the bottom line. And this is measurable. Just ask any VC if they will fund a deal if it could compete with Microsoft (how many new word processors and spreadsheets have you seen backed by funding lately?) Now, ask any VC if they'll fund a deal if it could compete with Cisco. Guess what you could hear? I think you most likely could get completely different responses. Why? I think it's about different acquisition strategies - one allows for an exit strategy which adequately fits the needs of the VC (Cisco's deals are known to be quite good for VCs), while the other generally doesn't fit the needs of the VC (i.e. "crush" doesn't work well for a VC.) IMHO this appears to be the bottom line to the FOFs: by creating OEM policies which reportedly inhibit new innovations and by inserting new technology into the OS without providing a venue of an exit strategy for the competing-technology's VCs, innovation is stifled because VCs tend to stop funding deals where the exit strategies aren't good. i.e. VCs are very smart people - (albeit conservative followers who "take their positions" after the lead guy* takes all the risk. *have you ever met a female VC?) By contrast, Intel (appears to) allow a competitor to dangle or it buys them out if they're successful. VCs don't like it when a company dangles, but at least the company has reached an IPO, which generally means the VC has gotten some return on their investment. If a VC is happy, innovation keeps coming. Innovation stops when VCs aren't happy. IMHO Redmond has made a lot of VCs unhappy - and this appears to have stopped innovation in many markets where they compete. IMHO that's the bottom line from the FOFs - the FOF ends with a poignant discussion on how investment money doesn't go into companies which compete with Microsoft's markets. Having said that, the world has turned on Microsoft, which now includes portals, ecommerce, service, ASPs and Internet Appliances, not only PC desktops. Even Linux [I think Cisco just bought a Linux reseller for $200M] is finding warm hearts in the VC community, which in the past, IMHO probably would not have been funded. The fact Netscape was bought by such a large amount (by AOL) and the fact Linux companies are finding investment money, implies to me the Appeals Court [which knows anti-trust Judges have to present only one-side of the story which they are advocating, I'm told] could take a different direction than the anti-trust judge because these current events go counter to the bottom line argument of the FOFs. Aside from a few fair pricing changes and pressures on exit strategies, it could be business as usual. Regards, Amy J