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: Jim McMannis who wrote (136800)	6/6/2001 4:25:16 PM
From: tcmay	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

AMD as a parasite "Message #136800 from Jim McMannis at Jun 6, 2001 3:57 PM TC, RE:"A company like AMD, which currently exists as a parasite on Intel (and I mean no disrespect by that term...it just describes the biological relationship correctly), is always sensitive to being affected by how fast the big fish swims. "Hey, you're swimming too fast! How do you expect me to hang on?" "Just what is the biological definition of a parasite?" Use the Web, Luke! Yes, I think AMD in its current form fits the definition of a parasite: parasite " • an animal or plant living in or on an organism of another species (its host), obtaining from it part or all of its organic nutriment, and commonly exhibiting some degree of adaptive structural modification. The host is typically, but not always, harmed by the presence of the parasite; it never benefits from this presence. " (There are obviously many things to say about what parasites are, how they live, etc. Fleas are parasites, worms are parasites, etc. I won't play "dictionary quibbling," though.) "I don't think AMD fits that profile unless you consider Intel owns the entire CPU market by birthright." Ownership of a market is not an important issue. What defines the parasitical relationship is that AMD "rides on the coattails" of Intel, by choice. (We discussed the reasons for this a few weeks ago, pace the 29K discussion.) AMD is like a parasite fish living on the crumbs the bigger fish doesn't eat. No doubt AMD would rather the tables be turned (perhaps little parasite fish would also like to be the Big Fish, too), but they are currently content to ride Intel's coattails. "I haven't seen AMD complaining to the DOJ that Intel is swimming too fast, unlike the likes of AOL or Netscape vs Microsoft. It appears that Intel is still in scramble mode although not nearly as much as they were one year ago or before they regained the MHz lead with the P4." Well, rumor has it--reported here and elsewhere--that AMD is one of the prime movers behind the European action. (Before anyone comes up with a non sequitor like "But AMD isn't _European_!," look to their European operations, look to their cat's paws in Europe.) "A better example of a parasite would be Rambus. Or just Lawyers in general. OTOH, Intel invited them to attach. For greed and domination purposes no doubt. Rambus has a lot of Lawyering experience, I expect them to continue to bring Intel to it's knees as long as possible." Fine, you think lawyers are a _better_ example. I'll agree with you. Doesn't change my point, though, just because lawyers are a _better_ example. The taxonomy of parasites has many placeholders. "Do you honestly think Intel Execs sit around worrying that the DOJ is going to sue them? Maybe..." I didn't use words like "sit around worrying." I said "Amongst other." And in fact we _do_ know that Intel is worried enough about future cases, and heading them off, that they have training programs in how to avoid some such issues. This came up here just several days ago. How can this even be debatable? --Tim May

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (136800)	6/6/2001 4:29:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Jim, <I haven't seen AMD complaining to the DOJ that Intel is swimming too fast> That would be like complaining to David Stern that Shaq and Kobe are too good. Or complaining to the PGA that the game of golf needs to be Tiger-proofed. No crybaby would ever acknowledge that the opposition is just too good. They would instead complain that the opposition is bending or breaking the rules. The Portland Trailblazers complained way too much about the NBA refs letting Shaq get away with murder. That of course took the focus away from their own failing game, which they never improved going into the postseason. It seems like a well-executing AMD would have no reason to pull off similar crybaby tactics, but the EU probe that they instigated suggests otherwise. Tenchusatsu

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (136800)	6/6/2001 6:29:21 PM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: "I haven't seen AMD complaining to the DOJ that Intel is swimming too fast" Well, AMD publicly admitted that they launched a complaint with the EU. AMD and Via complaints helped spark EU probe of Intel By Bruce Gain, EBN Apr 13, 2001 (2:11 PM) URL: ebnews.com The eight-month-old European Commission investigation into Intel Corp.'s alleged antitrust violations in Europe was triggered in part by complaints from Intel's chief microprocessor rival and by a 1997 U.S. Federal Trade Commission inquiry into Intel's business practices, sources close to the investigation said. Advanced Micro Devices Inc., Sunnyvale, Calif., together with Taiwan-based Via Technologies Inc., filed a complaint last September with the European Commission that prompted the official EC investigation. If the EC determines that Intel engaged in illegal licensing and business practices that include its famous “Intel Inside” PC vendor rebate program, the company would face fines of up to 10% of its worldwide revenue in order to continue doing business in Europe, according to industry sources. AMD has a history of loudly denouncing what it calls illegal marketing practices and unfair licensing tactics by Santa Clara, Calif.-based Intel. Indeed, AMD chief executive W.J. Sanders himself has often declared publicly that Intel has engaged in unfair practices, a company spokesman said. “We want some authority to say to [Intel] that they have to play by the rules,” the AMD spokesman said. AMD's senior executives, including Sanders, were attending an off-site meeting and were unavailable for comment. The EC had begun probing into Intel's marketing practices long before AMD and Via filed their complaint, according to David Vance Lucas, vice president and general counsel of Intergraph Corp. in Huntsville, Ala., which won the latest round in its three-pronged lawsuit against Intel. Intergraph, as well as other Intel customers, was approached by the EC in 1998, Lucas said. “The European Union was already looking at [Intel] when we had discussions with EC enforcement officers in 1998,” Lucas said. He added that the EC had contacted the FTC before approaching Intergraph. The EC's antitrust rules are similar to the FTC's Sherman Act, and therefore the outcome could mirror the results of the FTC's investigation, industry sources said. After several years of pursuing the case, the FTC reached a settlement with Intel that ended in September, which is when the EC began its investigation. Under the terms of the FTC decree, Intel cannot withhold information about its business practices if sued by another company on the condition that the suing company agrees not to issue an injunction against Intel, according to an Intel spokesman. As with the FTC investigation, observers said it will likely be several years before the EC issues either a fine or consent decree, if any action is taken at all. “Intel knows what is legally acceptable and what is not,” said Ashok Kumar, an analyst at U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray Inc., San Francisco, which has no underwriting relationship with either AMD or Intel. “The fact that the FTC did not come up with anything meaningful against Intel makes it highly doubtful that the EC will come up with anything at all.” The Intel spokesman would not provide details about the investigation, but said Intel “would cooperate fully with the EC investigation.”