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: graphicsguru who wrote (237742)	7/30/2007 10:04:34 PM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Graphisguru: Damages can be awarded dozens of years after the fact. Necessary given our slow legal system. Plus it doesn't matter where the CPUs are made, just where they were sold. Plenty of that here in the US. Just try that argument that persons born in Russia can kill persoons born in China on US soil and they wouldn't be put into a US prison. Besides, EU end customers were harmed by not having competition to drive down the costs and up the performance. Having to use hot slow P4s instead of cool fast K7s and K8s is a harm no matter where they were made. Further, a single act later can make the entire period possible for damages. From a decision about a bid rigging case from 1977 to 1988 started in 1993, For statute of limitations purposes, a bid-rigging conspiracy continues "until either the final payments are received under the illegal contract or the final distribution of illicit profits among the co-conspirators occurs. So if Intel injured AMD by paying out any cash after 2001, AMD can recover for the entire period of this ongoing antitrust suit. Plainly Intel was paying "marketing funds" much later than 2001. Pete

To: graphicsguru who wrote (237742)	7/30/2007 10:21:38 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

"They already got a change in behavior. " Yes. Now they have to ensure that it is permanent and Intel doesn't revert when the spotlight is off. "The problem for AMD is that the change in Intel's behavior was shortly followed by Core 2 Duo." Yep. And if Intel hadn't been doing that before, AMD would be in better shape to weather this storm.

To: graphicsguru who wrote (237742)	7/30/2007 10:29:53 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: The U.S. civil suit is complicated by the statute of limitations being... That clock stopped ticking in June of 2005, when AMD filed their case. Intel can delay this thing for years without the statute of limitations causing any problems for AMD. Interest will continue to compound on actual damages. Those indictments in the EU and the details that will come out of them are pretty compelling. In a U.S. civil case the standard is a lot lower - simple weight of evidence. If it looks slightly more likely than not (51% to 49%) that Intel acted to pressure 3rd parties (and they were blatant) then a civil-action-weight-of-evidence trial has the verdict go against Intel. The interesting thing is that it makes AMD a buyout target even for a company that has no license to produce X86 CPUs. Another thing that could come out of a judgement would be a permanent, fully transferable X86 license. AMD could sell the X86 license and FAB tech to Samsung or Flextronics for $10 Billion and then focus on the graphics card and set top box businesses. Either on of those would be interesting. Or a judgement could be made that Intel has lost any rights it had to the extensions beyond the original 17 years on the x86 patents and derivative patents. Intel would have to try to negotiate a license to produce AMD64 compatible parts - and AMD might not sell them one. I guess Intel could still sell chips for network cards - what else could they do? Their chipsets only work with Intel chips and those wouldn't be saleable for any of the chips that support AMD64. All of Intel's AMD clones would be gone - Core, Core2, Centrino, Xeon. The have a couple of older celerons that aren't based AMD64, and Itanium. They have a cross licenese for AMD64, with the key patents making it a "cross" being quite old. If they're found to have abused those patents and the extensions are revoked, it would lead to some very exciting times in the industry, and in the courtroom.