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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elmer who wrote (70133)	2/2/2002 2:27:19 PM
From: Epinephrine	Respond to of 275872

RE:<Once Intel had multiple fabs running the need for a second source lost it's importance> Intel having multiple fabs had nothing to do with it. Second sourcing was an arbitrary mandate imposed on Intel by IBM because it was in IBM's best interests. These interests included protection from the many drawbacks of depending on a single supplier that were completely unrelated to manufacturing and were more related to pricing and competition. In short by pitting the primary supplier against the secondary supplier in the marketplace IBM would foster competition between them and thus get better deals. Not depending on a single manufacturing point of failure was part of it but certainly not all and thus it was not Intel's multiple fabs that invalidated Intel's need to second source, it was rather Intel's increasing dominance and IBM's decreasing dominance that made Intel be able to pretty much say 'screw you IBM and screw everyone else, we are strong enough to say that we aren't going to second source any more and you are no longer strong enough to do anything about it.'

To: Elmer who wrote (70133)	2/2/2002 2:53:43 PM
From: hmaly	Respond to of 275872

Elmer Re..Sure AMD was paying royalties but they didn't match the profits Intel would have made had they been selling those units themselves. <<<<<< What kind of stupid statement is that? Intel approached AMD, Intel and AMD negotiated the terms of the contract. If Intel was too stupid to negotiate a favorable contract, than that is Intel's problem. Once Intel had multiple fabs running the need for a second source lost it's importance <<<<<< Then all Intel had to do was give AMD the required 5 yr warning and terminate the contract. Instead Intel chose to deceive AMD and terminate the contract in another way; principly by rejecting the QPDM graphics chip. It is part of what you posted.One concrete example of Intel's failure to negotiate in good faith was its treatment of AMD's Quad Pixel Display Manager (QPDM), a graphics chip. Although Intel promised in 1984 to accept the QPDM from AMD provided the parties agreed on its specifications, the arbitrator found Intel made no actual attempt to negotiate the remaining differences as to specifications. Instead, partly in order to avoid having both to give AMD the 80386 and to eliminate royalties on other products, Intel summarily rejected the QPDM. In doing so, the arbitrator found, Intel breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing as well as "its implied covenant to negotiate reasonably to further the goals of the relationship between the parties ...." <<<<<<<< Don't you even believe what you yourself post. I can see why you might object to other's peoples post, but can't you even trust your own posts? and in view of the fact that AMD never provided any device that generated significant profits for Intel in return it was clear that AMD was getting a free ride at Intel's expense in lost profits. <<<<<< Then all Intel had to do was demand royalties according to the contract. Here is that pertinent part of your post. The parties entered into the contract at issue in February 1982. According to its preamble, the agreement was intended "to establish a mechanism for exchanging technical information so that each party acquires the capability to develop products suitable for sale as an alternate source for products developed by the other party." During the 10-year term of the contract (cancelable after 5 years on one year's notice by either party), either company could elect to be a second source for products offered it by the other. The nondeveloping company would receive technical information and licenses needed for it to make and sell the part. The developing company would receive a royalty. In addition, the developing company would earn the right to be a second source [*6] for products developed by the other party. The terms of exchange--the respective value of the products--were to be calculated by a specified equation from the complexity and size. Don't you once again believe your own posts. that paragraph states the general outlines of their agreement. Intel was to get royalties or products in exchange. To terminate the contract without giving a 5 yr warning wasn't one of the options. And it is clear from your post that Intel intentionally rejected the graphics chip to try and weasel out of the agreement. They made millions off Intel designs and gave nothing in return.<<<<<<<** "Nothing in return" Where on earth do you get that. AMD clearly lived up to the contract; Intel didn't: and now it is AMD's fault because Intel doesn't know how to draw up a contract. BOO HOO Cry me a river. What's the matter? Couldn't Intel afford enough lawyers back then.