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: AK2004 who wrote (136175)	5/28/2001 11:28:00 PM
From: tcmay	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Albert wrote: "Tim <edited> sorry if I addressed to you personally something that meant for intelabees in general. I can not recall you personally complaining about that issue." Thank you for acknowledging this. I have no problem with your complaints about "Intellabees," being that it's a free country and all, but we all need to be careful about ever confusing the general with the specific. "<edited> your main point was that amd's success was due to intel "gene pool" :-)). Judging from the last two years Intel might need infusion of some "amd genes" :-))" I don't believe that this was my "main point." I threw it as something which AMD employees have acknowledged was important. Specifically, I heard about one employee who said that there had been problems in AMD meetings with people "buying into" decisions made, i.e., people would leave meetings where decisions had ostensibly been reached and then go their merry ways. This witness said that several of the Intel transplants were successful in getting AMD to adopt more of the Intel way of doing things: argue like hell before and during a meeting, but once a decision is reached, support that decision. When I was at Intel I was fond of joking about bizarre Intelisms like "buy into," "my plate is full," 'work the issues," and so on. But there is a lot of pragmatic value to doing some of these things. Other companies use similar jargon and "management theories," no doubt, but the AMD witness seemed to think the infusion of the "buy in" and also the "copy exactly" methods were useful in taming the chaos he saw at AMD. "ps you have to recall all that licensing complaints on intel and amd threads (not by you). " Yes, of course I know about this issue. But my problem with your original post is that you ascribed these comments to _me_. This is what I care about, setting records straight. And for the record, I think it obvious that no company should ever be compelled to license any of its technologies or secrets. That Intel did had to do with trying to ensure the success of the x86. Part of the dispute with AMD had to do with Intel believing AMD failed to hold up its end of the bargain: the crummy graphics chip it submitted as part of its "transistor count quota." I fault Intel for agreeing to a contract which gave AMD design help with their x86 and with a license in exchange for a poorly-worded list of items they had to complete. This was the crux of the litigation. In general, no company is EVER required to license technology or secrets to other companies. Sometimes the Democrats and other Commies will try to force such disclosures. But there is no basis in the Constitution for such actions. --Tim May