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: Bill Jackson who wrote (159293)	2/19/2002 4:57:27 PM
From: fingolfen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Paul, They could have made 10 billion without AMD stealing their food. Now why did they licence those patents to AMD? greedy. nope, dumb nope. Someone had them by the balls and their hearts and minds came around to licencing to AMD. Which patents are you talking about in particular? AMD first received an x86 cross license with the IBM PC was released because IBM wanted a guaranteed supply of microprocessors and they wanted multiple sources (several other firms also received cross licenses as well). Intel simply proved they could do it better in the long run as they weren't a monopoly of any sort then...

To: Bill Jackson who wrote (159293)	2/19/2002 4:57:33 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Bill, Re: "They could have made 10 billion without AMD stealing their food." How do you figure? If Intel took 100% of AMD's market share, it would have meant 7.8M more processors last quarter. Sold at an ASP of $150, this would have earned Intel another $1.17 billion, or 16% over their current posted revenue. If Intel were even able to manufacture another 7.8M units, it might have made a difference for them, but then what would the FTC say if Intel took 100% of AMD's market share? Or, if you want to put it another way, consider the ~4% in market share that AMD gained since a year ago, and the number of processors that meant for them. Out of roughly a 140M CPU market in 2001, 4% would be approximately 5.6M units. Given that Intel's revenue for last year was $26.54 billion, the extra processors would have contributed about $840 million, or about 3% to Intel's total revenue. AMD isn't exactly eating Intel's lunch with just 3%, but it is interesting that all those extra units couldn't help them from posting a loss. wbmw

To: Bill Jackson who wrote (159293)	2/19/2002 5:06:22 PM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

JackSH!t - Re: "They could have made 10 billion without AMD stealing their food. " Back in the bottle, Komrade?