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 (74993)	3/1/1999 4:01:00 PM
From: Lev Belov	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

I particularly like this part: 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.''

To: Paul Engel who wrote (74993)	3/1/1999 7:38:00 PM
From: t2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

I think people are going to be in for a surprise when Intel announces earnings (or preannounces better than expected results for this quarter). How could this happen? I believe Intel started their Pentium III hype after shipping a lot of the PIIs at the higher prices. The price cuts on the PIIs were just announced. It might have been the PC companies that got stuck with the higher price older chips. However, Intel probably timed it for their benefit---they must have a lot of smart finance and accounting people to figure this out. My analysis is crude but I believe there could be some protection for Intel in this demand "slowdown". I maintain that it was just caused by a slowdown due to PIII and can be corrected within a month by a surge in PIII sales. Notice that Micron mentioned the pluses for their next quarter but for Intel it might be sooner. JMHO----

To: Paul Engel who wrote (74993)	3/1/1999 7:58:00 PM
From: puborectalis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

A service of Semiconductor Business News, CMP Media Inc. Story posted 7 p.m. EST/4 p.m. PST, 3/1/99 Intel says government expert admits no evidence of wrongdoing By Jack Robertson WASHINGTON -- Intel Corp. argued in a pretrial brief released today that the government's own expert witness admitted he could find no evidence that Intel had "diminished innovation by industry" in withholding proprietary data from Digital Equipment Corp., Compaq Computers Corp., and Intergraph Corp. The brief quoted Frederic Scherer, professor of corporate management at Harvard University, in a deposition saying that he "could not find evidence" of any Intel conduct that "would adversely affect the R&D expenditure of adversely affect price competition" by any other companies in the industry. Intel reiterated its position that the firm declined to give advance sensitive proprietary details of microprocessors under development to the three companies because of patent infringement suits each had filed against Intel. Intel said it feared any advance information it gave Digital Equipment, Compaq or Intergraph could be used against it in the law suits. The brief said Intel is selective in firms that receive such early notice of next generation microprocessors. Intel said it has three different "color books" of data - yellow, orange and red in ascending order of sensitivity. Various customers get access to one or more of the books, the brief said. Intel said the firm's right to protect its intellectual property still had no adverse effect on microprocessor competition. It cited Digital Equipment's own claim to having the most advanced MPU on the market, as well as rival processors from Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Motorola, Sun, National Semiconductor and Integrated Device Technology (IDT). Ironically, Advanced Micro Devices Inc. wasn't acknowledged in the Intel brief, except for the statement, "The [government] is reduced to adopting the theory espoused by Intel competitor and frequent litigation adversary, AMD."