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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (74986)	3/1/1999 2:59:00 PM
From: kash johal	Respond to of 186894

Tench, >Re: Well, can't argue with you there. If AMD is going to make >inroads into business, they'll have to start with the small >businesses. But who's to say that these small business aren't buying >sub-$1000 K6-2 boxes already? I am sure that they are buying sub 1000 boxes. In fact that's where majority of the 9M Celerons/Qtr are going. Certainly Not into the home market. However AMD boxes have sucked under NT. That is no longer the case with the KIII. Regards, Kash Johal.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (74986)	3/1/1999 3:46:00 PM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

Ten & Intel Investors - The FTC appears NOT TO EXPAND Intel investigation. According to this report, the FTC's case against Intel REMAINS focused on the original filing from last year - concerning Intellectual Property issues with Intergraph, Compaq and "Dec'ed". Paul {=========================} dailynews.yahoo.com Monday March 1 2:50 PM ET U.S. Outlines Antitrust Charges Against Intel By Aaron Pressman WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government Monday laid out its charges against leading computer chip maker Intel Corp. (Nasdaq:INTC - news) ahead of the start next week of the second big antitrust case against a high-tech industry leader. In a 50-page court filing, the Federal Trade Commission said Intel was still abusing its monopoly power and repeated charges that it had bullied three of its customers to maintain a stranglehold on the market. Intel is the dominant maker of microprocessors, the ''brains'' inside personal computers. It has rejected the charges, saying it does not have a monopoly and was not seeking to squash competition when disputes arose with Intergraph Corp. (Nasdaq:INGR - news), Compaq Corp., and Digital Equipment Corp., now a unit of Compaq. The government alleged that Intel forced the companies to turn over valuable technology patents that could otherwise have boosted competition in the markets for chips or related parts of personal computers. The case goes to trial before an FTC administrative law judge on March 9. The U.S. antitrust trial of Microsoft, the world's leading software maker, went into recess last week. For more than a decade, Intel has been the dominant supplier of processors for personal computers, collecting more than 80 percent of the revenues and billions in profits. But since the FTC complaint was filed last year, chip competitors Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (NYSE:AMD - news) and National Semiconductor Corp. (NYSE:NSM - news)'s Cyrix unit have made great strides in stealing business from Intel in popular low-end computers costing under $1,000. In Monday's filing, the FTC dismissed the importance of the shift at the low end. The agency said the market segment was a tiny part of the overall market and argued that AMD and Cyrix gained largely because Intel had ignored the cheaper computers. ''It is questionable whether AMD and Cyrix can maintain their recent gains,'' the FTC said. After seeing the success of other firms, ''Intel took aggressive steps to capture the new segment and is widely expected dramatically to gain share in the low-end segments.'' Much of the FTC's brief was not publicly released, including portions about the new chip start-ups, Intel's current market share and the prices it charges personal computer makers for its chips. FTC officials were not immediately available to comment, but often sensitive information obtained by regulators is not disclosed in court filings. Despite reports in recent weeks that the FTC might broaden its case to include other charges, the agency stuck to the three allegations made in its June brief.