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: Paul Engel who wrote (74531)	2/26/1999 12:10:00 AM
From: Bill Jackson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Paul, you are the fraud, spinning crap to keep your stocks from cratering. FTC=step 1, DOJ prosecution level=step 2 Posted 22/02/99 10:19am by Mike Magee The law suits initiated by the US Federal Trade Commission will delay all Intel developments when the case starts. If it ever does. Intel will suspend its roadmap, deliver its deliverables to the US Star Chamber, the Federal Trade Commission, bow its head and say: "You know best." -- according to our information, which is normally reliable. Intel has seen its software twin Microsoft being dragged through the courts and it don't want to endure it itself. Such a result would humiliate all concerned and software and chip companies have differing agenda. ®

To: Paul Engel who wrote (74531)	2/26/1999 12:45:00 AM
From: John O'Neill	Respond to of 186894

Paul, I'm winning the 2 week bet of ADIC vs INTC....ADIC up 33.64% up 4 1/2 pts to 17 7/8) today 17 times normal volume (1.1mil vol on 7.9 mil float) INTC was at $130 at bet on Monday & ADIC was 13 7/8's ..so Im beating ya now..6 more trading days today... you were ahead first 2 days when ADIC went from 13 7/8's to 13 3/8 but now I got ya...

To: Paul Engel who wrote (74531)	2/26/1999 1:16:00 AM
From: puborectalis	Respond to of 186894

Intel, STMicroelectronics end legal feud By Stephen Shankland Staff Writer, CNET NEWS.COM February 25, 1999, 8:00 p.m. PT Intel and STMicroelectronics called an end to the years-old legal battle between the two chip manufacturers. The two companies announced a broad, five-year patent cross-licensing deal today, meaning that each company doesn't have to worry about the possibility of infringing on the other company's patents. The lawsuits between the two companies will be dismissed, the companies said. The agreement opens the way for STMicroelectronics to build products for smaller or start-up companies working on Intel-compatible chips, according to Dean McCarron, an analyst with Mercury Research, who noted that STMicroelectronics may have a tie-in with Transmeta, a Silicon Valley company with patents for a chip-software system that could emulate processors made by Intel as well as other companies. "It just made a lot more sense between the companies to get these things settled and move on," McCarron said. Do you want to know more? View story in The Big Picture Go to Message Boards Search News.com The legal wrangling originated with STMicroelectronics' fabrication of Cyrix chips, which used to be a more serious competitive threat to Intel's product line, McCarron said. However, STMicroelectronics no longer manufactures the Cyrix chips; IBM took over that work, so STMicroelectronics "no longer was enabling substantial competition to Intel," he said. "Intel was not thrilled about the competition" from Cyrix chips, McCarron observed. "Ultimately, the market situation has changed, and it's made a lot of these issues between Intel and STMicroelectronics largely a moot point." STMicroelectronics "still participates in the processor market, but it's doing so more on the basis of embedded microprocessors and the lower-end, sub-$1,000 market. They're not competing head-to-head with Intel they way they were in the early days of Cyrix," McCarron said. The legal maneuvering between Intel and STMicroelectronics is characteristic of the intellectual property minefield that microchip companies must navigate. It's essentially impossible to build a complex microchip without running into other company's patents--especially IBM, which holds the patent for the computer, and Texas Instruments, which holds the patent on the chip. "These big companies often do [patent*#93; cross-licensing. Ultimately it's in the best interests to play along with each other rather than be having these lawsuits," he said. STMicroelectronics and Intel apparently agree. "I am pleased that it ends years of costly litigation and provides the opportunity for our respective companies to work more closely together in the future in many areas of joint interest," said STMicroelectronics chief executive Pasquale Pistorio in a statement. Intel chief executive Craig Barrett noted that the agreement "gives engineers from both Intel and ST design freedom." When STMicroelectronics (then called SGS Microelectronics) made Cyrix chips, Intel sued Cyrix, arguing that Cyrix, which designed the chips, wasn't protected because STMicroelectronics, which actually made the chips, had patent cross-licensing agreements. But the legal upshot of that lawsuit was that Cyrix was in fact protected by manufacturing chips at a "protected fab." When National Semiconductor took over Cyrix and shifted production to an IBM foundry, Intel didn't make a fuss, McCarron said. Intel--which has cross-license agreements with IBM--didn't want to tangle with IBM. In terms of patents, Intel and IBM are both armed with the intellectual property equivalent of nuclear weapons. "They're superpowers, and they have nuclear weapons, but IBM has a lot more of them," McCarron said. Until last year, STMicroelectronics, based in Europe, was known as SGS-Thomson

To: Paul Engel who wrote (74531)	2/26/1999 1:33:00 AM
From: puborectalis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Posted at 10:19 p.m. PST Thursday, February 25, 1999 Intel, FTC outline strategies BY TOM QUINLAN Mercury News Staff Writer With the filing of a new round of documents, it is now much clearer what evidence will be part of the upcoming Intel Corp. antitrust hearing -- and what will be left for a broader ongoing probe. Intel and the Federal Trade Commission filed legal papers Thursday outlining their planned strategies. Those filings remain under seal, but interviews and supporting documents indicate that the FTC will seek to introduce evidence of alleged anticompetitive behavior inside and outside the microprocessor market to bolster its case. However, under an agreement the FTC and Intel reached last year, the hearing that begins March 9 must remain focused on the relatively narrow issues cited in the government's June complaint: that Intel leveraged its microprocessor monopoly to force Compaq Computer Corp. and Digital Equipment Corp. to surrender their intellectual property rights; and attempted to do the same to Intergraph Computer Corp. That means it will likely lack both the drama and the import of the ongoing Microsoft antitrust trial. Nevertheless, the FTC is proceeding with its wider investigation, which prompted the agency to serve Intel with a second subpoena and civil investigative demand on October 26 of last year. That action, like the agreement limiting the scope of the upcoming hearing, is only now coming to light. Sources say -- and legal documents indicate -- that the ongoing investigation is focusing on a range of Intel's activities, including its move into markets for computer components such as chip sets and graphics chips, its control of a wide array of PC technical standards, and its use of marketing programs such as the Intel Inside campaign. Administrative Law Judge James Timony has ruled that the FTC can seek to introduce additional actions by Intel in attempt to demonstrate a pattern of behavior. But he has also made it clear that the case will largely concern some technical fine points of antitrust law as it relates to the high tech industry. ''Fundamentally, this case will come down to the intersection of intellectual property rights and antitrust law,'' noted Peter Detkin, Intel's assistant general counsel and the lawyer who will spearhead the company's defense. ''At a high level, there isn't a dispute about the facts in the case. The FTC will say we withheld our intellectual property in these specific cases, and we did. Our argument is that we had a right too.'' The government is seeking a remedy that is similarly narrow: It wants to limit Intel's ability to withhold or withdraw technical information or products from companies in the event of a legal dispute. Intel engaged in such disputes with Intergraph, Digital and Compaq. ''In that respect its a pretty narrow case that won't have that much impact,'' noted one industry source. ''(Intel) won't have to change how it designs or markets its products.'' Intel retains the right to object to testimony that goes beyond that narrow issue. The FTC said last week it may call executives at Advanced Micro Devices Inc., Micron Technology Inc. and Data General Corp., who would likely testify that Intel also used its intellectual property to limit the ability of other companies to innovate and compete. Legal papers surrounding the case offer some details of that subject matter. They indicate that Harvard professor Frederic Scherer, a potential expert witness for the FTC, has prepared testimony regarding the relationship between microprocessors and other PC components such as chip sets, graphics chips and bus specifications, all of which Intel has dominated or has sought to influence. Sources say the FTC may also introduce evidence regarding Intel's relationship with direct competitors, chiefly AMD. The FTC's final witness list includes three executives who competed head-to-head with Intel at Sunnvale-based AMD -- vice president and co-chief marketing executive Robert Herb, executive vice president and CTO Atiq Raza, and former executive vice president Vinod Dham. According to sources familiar with the case, those three executives could be called on to testify on how Intel controlled access to its technology-- particularly its advanced products such as the Pentium Pro or the Pentium II Xeon processor -- through strict non-disclosure agreements with manufacturers of components such as chip sets and memory. With limited access to these technological standards, AMD could testify that its ability to compete was hampered. Such evidence could blunt two of Intel's most persuasive arguments against the initial complaint: That antitrust law was never intended to regulate the relationship between a company and its customers and that Intel was only responding to companies that had sued it or were threatening to sue it. Other potential FTC witnesses who could provide testimony about broader competitive issues include ex-Intel executive Gordon Campbell, who left Intel to co-found specialty memory manufacturer Seeq Technology and later Chips and Technologies -- a chip set pioneer that later switched to graphics chips -- before becoming CEO of microprocessor start-up Exponential Intel is expected to fight back with witnesses and evidence that competition in the microprocessor market is in fact increasing -- as new chip companies like Rise Technologies and Integrated Device Technologies join enter the market and established companies like AMD gain greater market share. It will also argue that it followed the letter of existing antitrust law when it responded to lawsuits from customers. ''They're trying to change the law on us,'' Detkin said. ''This has the potential to effect how the entire industry has to deal with intellectual property issues.''