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: Francis Chow who wrote (57873)	6/12/1998 10:31:00 PM
From: Francis Chow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Review of 3D-Now!: 207.240.177.145 Expensive PC's face challenge: 207.240.177.145 4GB memory chips: 207.240.177.145

To: Francis Chow who wrote (57873)	6/12/1998 10:36:00 PM
From: Ferick	Respond to of 186894

Now, that is one public hearing I would like to attend.

To: Francis Chow who wrote (57873)	6/13/1998 12:33:00 AM
From: Dale J.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

re: <<FTC could broaden Intel case. The agency is far from finished with its investigation and is conducting an even broader investigation--Unlike previous chip generations, Intel (INTC) has not licensed its P6 bus to third parties."Alternatives aren't possible if you don't have access to the bus">> Oh really. What a bunch a whining. I counted at least five instances where companies claimed rights to the bus. 1. Chuck Mulloy, an Intel spokesman, confirmed that IBM's cross-licensing agreement with Intel is broad, covering much of the intellectual property that underlay the Pentium II and P6 bus. It could even be possible for IBM to enter into the Intel-compatible chip market with its own unique design, Belgard speculated. . 2. AMD, denied that the company will adopt a form of the P6 bus for its K6 or upcoming K7 chip. "It's possible, but forget about the legalities--we are not going to do it." . 3. Other companies that have equally broad licenses with Intel are National Semiconductor and SGS Thomson. National has the ability to make a P6 bus, said Steve Tobak, National's vice president of corporate marketing. At the March WinHEC Conference in Orlando, Florida, he noted that it would be "theoretically possible" for National to make Pentium II-style chips with the P6 bus for itself or third parties. . 4. Toshiba may also be another. Ultimately, several chipmakers are expected to license the technology. Analysts and sources close to Via Technologies and Acer Laboratories say that both companies may also begin to manufacture and sell Pentium II chipsets. . 5. Any of these may in the future license the P6 bus technology from Intel. Moreover, even if these companies do not get direct licenses from Intel, some are expected to try to bring P6 chipsets to market by partnering with IBM, which will insulate them from legal liability, sources said. re: <<While an out-of-court settlement is possible, it's not likely, given that Intel sees its intellectual property as the heart of its business. >> Oh really. Shocking! re: <<"Most people in the trenches of IS are not concerned with equalized opportunity," said Cliff Layton, director of online services at Rogers State College, in Claremore, Okla. "But IT executives are concerned because less competition means less bang for the buck." >> Oh really. Not enough bang for the buck? Well memory is selling for the price of a potato chip. The Disk Drive makers are losing money with each disk drive they ship. AMD/NSM are swimming in red ink, and CPQ the largest PC maker broke even last Qtr, broke even this Qtr and hinted don't expect anything in the next Qtr. I guess that is the FTC's idea of a successful business. These guys should pack up their things and go home. Dale

To: Francis Chow who wrote (57873)	6/13/1998 3:41:00 AM
From: Logos	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 186894

Thanks for the post. Interesting how Intel is using a very different, low-key, strategy to defend itself, compared to the screams of bloody murder coming out of Microsoft. I think Intel's approach is much more professional, classy, and more likely to work. Logos

To: Francis Chow who wrote (57873)	6/13/1998 9:47:00 AM
From: Jules B. Garfunkel	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Francis, Paul and All, ..................... INTC @ 68 1/2 From the referenced article, zdnet.com "But that's not all. According to sources familiar with the case, the agency is conducting an even broader investigation looking into possible anti-competitive practices in the company's Intel Inside marketing campaign, the company's integration of peripheral functions into chip sets and the degree of control competitors claim Intel has over the motherboard." Who are these sources familiar with the case and the FTC agency that keep on "leaking" this information to the press. I can think of many companies and individuals that would like to slow down Intel's inovative progress by using the FTC, i.e. IBM, AMD, CPQ, NSM, Intergraph, Fuchi and almost all of the contributors to the NSM and AMD, SI threads. But who really is reporting this to the press? If the press really wanted to do their job with good investigative reporting, they should examine who? and for what reason? the news media is getting all these news leaks out of the FTC. Certainly, the media must know that Intel is at a severe handicap, and is unable to defend themselves until specific charges are filed. It also seems, from reading your referenced article, that the FTC assumes that whatever Intel innovates to maintain a competitive edge, belongs to the "World". Does the FTC really have the view that any Intel innovation is an abuse of monopolistic powers? After all, Socket 7 was the incumbent. All Intel is doing is coming out with a better bus which also makes it more difficult for "clone parasites" to continue to "steal" Intel's intellectual property. (see my post # 0 on the INTC thread. Subject 13758 Regards Jules