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: MONACO who wrote (59935)	7/13/1998 8:16:00 PM
From: Dennis	Respond to of 186894

Drew Peck, never heard of him. Maybe someone else can answer. My "professional opinion" is that tomorrow should ROCK !! IMHO, no charge. :o) p.s. read a good article by Jubak over at msft investor site on momentum investing and volume. Please read. It applies 100% to what is happening in this market, especially with csco,msft,dell, and now intc.

To: MONACO who wrote (59935)	7/13/1998 8:18:00 PM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Intel Investors - Intel Responds to the FTC charges - AGGRESSIVELY Here's one of the reports. Paul {=================================} Monday July 13 4:40 PM ET Intel answers FTC charges PC Week By Lisa DiCarlo, ZDNet Intel Corp. today formally answered the Federal Trade Commission's antitrust complaint,maintaining it did not monopolize or attempt to monopolize any market, nor did it use any unfair methods of competition. In a 12-page reply, Intel attorneys offer a point-for-point rebuttal of every charge levied against the company by the FTC in early June. The FTC has charged that Intel violated federal antitrust law by denying three customers ---Intergraph Corp., Digital Equipment Corp. and Compaq Computer Corp. --- access to technical information after the companies separately sought to enforce patents against Intel. While it admits to some actions, such as refusing to share its intellectual property and confidential information, Intel maintains the actions "did not and could not harm competition in any relevant market." The Santa Clara, Calif., company further states that "this is not an appropriate matter for action by the FTC. The allegations arise out of intellectual property disputes between Intel and three other major high-technology companies." Intel also replied to FTC statements regarding market conditions, saying "Intel denies that a new [chip] entrant would have to establish both product reputation and technical compatibility with a computer operating system and the applications software desired by a significant number of computer users...Intel denies that a new entrant must attract support from software developers." Regarding Digital's Alpha processor and competition, "Intel admits that the words 'strategic emergency' and 'miracles' appear in one slide presentation, but denies that the company declared a strategic emergency and denies that the company viewed the performance of Alpha as a 'miracle.'" The reply refers to earlier FTC statements, which alleged that certain Intel documents declared Alpha's performance a miracle and that the company mounted a strategic emergency against it. Intel admits it declined to license some intellectual property to Intergraph and requested the return of chip prototypes, but it alleges that it was within its contractual and intellectual property rights to do so and, furthermore, that those actions are protected under doctrines of the First Amendment. Finally, the microprocessor giant offers 10 "additional defenses" that attack the FTC's case. "Intel demands judgment dismissing the Complaint with prejudice and with costs and such other and further relief as is deemed just and proper,'' the company says in its reply. A hearing date for the FTC's suit against Intel has been set for Jan. 5, 1999.

To: MONACO who wrote (59935)	7/13/1998 8:21:00 PM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Monaco - Re: "this guy Drew Peck.." He's been bashing Intel for 18 months, and beating the drum for how great AMD and Cyrix/NSM are doing. Looks like he wants to change his reputation as a backer of LOSERs. Paul

To: MONACO who wrote (59935)	7/13/1998 8:32:00 PM
From: Tony Viola	Respond to of 186894

Monaco, Drew Peck turncoat is a turncoat,----------------------------------------- but in the good direction. He saw the light and came over to the Church of Intel about the time he switched companies from Prudential? to Cowen and Co. So we like him now. THIS IS WRONG. I'M CONFUSING HIM WITH MARK EDELSTONE. SORRY. Well, I posted something about Xeon and the K7 over on AMD, and am sure to get shot full of lead, so I may as well post it here. Any urgent care folks around? exchange2000.com To: Pravin Kamdar (34260 ) From: Tony Viola Monday, Jul 13 1998 8:06PM ET Reply #34387 of 34389 Pravin, >>>"The Xeon is only 5-10% faster than the PII. I'm sure the K7 will be much faster." Xeon was not designed to benchmark or compete with the PII. Rather, it's the Pentium Pro replacement, and early tests with heavy duty benchmarks like Oracle database programs, Internet web servers and OLTP (on-line transaction processing) programs have Xeon based servers at around 2X the performance of Pentium Pro based ones...at similar prices. Early indications are that they are also kicking Alpha ass re performance, and stomping all over Alpha in terms of price/performance. I expected the latter. The former is major gravy for Intel. Check out (admittedly, Intel data): intel.cz Re Xeon being only 5 - 10% faster than PII, it depends on the benchmark. There are benchmarks on which a Pentium (or a K6) is as fast as a mainframe. However, it's apples and oranges. Re K7 ever competing with Xeon, AMD has a long row to hoe, starting with yields and reliability. These were pretty sorry for the first year + on K6. The heavy duty (better known as mission critical) applications, will only be trusted to the company whose CPU chips have a known history of top yields and reliability (AKA Intel). Tony