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: BUGGI-WO who wrote (237355)	7/27/2007 8:08:16 AM
From: TechieGuy-alt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

What should we say now. No decision was finally made, so its up to everyone, whether he thinks that Intel has to pay some- thing or not. When you ask me, Intel violated rules in the past, but changed these, after AMD went very aggressive here. I think most reasonable observers of this market would agree that INTC really had kept an unfair share of their market dominance (and associated profits) through "monopolistic type" behavior. I also agree with you that a lot of that was in the past (as evidenced by recent AMD share gains with all the top 10 OEM's). BUT, the most important thing that could come out of this is two fold: 1. Permanently put in place "behavior modification" practices that prevent INTC from reverting to this behavior again in the future (regardless against AMD or a future competitor). I for one do not rule out INTC reverting back to their monopoly ways once they have the decisive upper hand again. 2. Send a strong message (and put in place procedures to prevent) to the top VP's at the top OEM's that their addiction to the INTC "heroin" payments are really illegal. Too many people will be surprised at how many VP's in these top companies will take a INTC "marketing assist" payment from INTC 1 or 2 weeks before a AMD product launch to cancel the AMD product- just so that they can show a decent OP in their quarter and make their quarterly bonus checks. The fact that AMD made so much progress in penetrating the top OEM's was nothing to do with INTC's changing its colors. It had everything to do with the fact that INTC's products really were SO MUCH LESS competitive than AMD's. That is not a reasonable thing to expect any more (that AMD will have 2 generations of products that are 30-50% better than INTC's in multiple performance aspects- IPC, perf/watt, SPEC INT/FP etc.). No, the normal thing to expect would be at best a real horse race- neck and neck or one taking the lead depeding on which company is on a "tick" and which is on their "tock" (as wbmw put it recently). The real situation now is AMD worse off than INTC. This is the time they are most vernerable. If they go away because of their competitive situation- that is fine- capatalism at work. If they go away because INTC "assists" in mercy killing AMD- that is illegal. That' all. TG

To: BUGGI-WO who wrote (237355)	7/27/2007 8:35:10 AM
From: Dan3	Respond to of 275872

Re: I don't want to speculate, whether a "against Intel" ruling would/could help AMD here (US) too. About the only thing that could explain recent market action is if a number of funds are convinced that a settlement of more than $1.5 Billion is imminent. That would cover the operating shortfall for the next 3-4 quarters till 45nm is close. If the expected settlement were higher than $2.5 billion, I think the stock would be higher.

To: BUGGI-WO who wrote (237355)	7/27/2007 10:28:16 AM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 275872

Dear Buggi: I think your worst case isn't even close to what the EU will do. There are a number of factors making this a bigger deal than you see. 1) Intel has no fabs in the EU. The one in Ireland isn't part of the EU. 2) AMD has fabs in a big founder of the EU, Germany. 3) The many past contracts requiring Intel as the source of the CPUs. 4) That in spite of this, AMD was gaining share. The amount AMD could have gained is much higher and thus the injury is greater. It look s like the institutions think that a 1-2.5 billion fine is in the bag with AMD getting half that in a civil damages suit to follow. The bigger blow likely is the 180 degree turn in government and related contracts, like Airbus, which would likely snowball into the private sector. That would lead to 5-10% more unit and revenue market share for AMD. That puts AMD very near their 35% share target. The likelyhood of that happening just shot up. Pete

To: BUGGI-WO who wrote (237355)	7/27/2007 4:14:07 PM
From: Petz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

You're looking through blue-tinted glasses. Of course the Intel violations are "just in the past." AMD's lawsuit does not allege anything about current conduct. Not sure about the EU suit. Why do you think Intel stopped the DELL rebates?! DOH, because DELL bought from AMD? My answer is SO WHAT. Any reasonable award would wipe out AMD's debt overnight. ATI for free. If Intel loses Europe, they lose the world. Over a five year period, it would be obvious that AMD should have gained 10 points of market share. At $25B a year, that's $12.5B of revenue, >6B of lost profit. petz