Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Buying AMD stock

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 6, 2005 2:31:45 PM

Ello

As you all know, AMD is finally suing Intel, and yes they are gooing to win this case, afterall, they win in japan, and they are no idiots, they do this together with IBM, im sure.
My question is, will it be smart to buy AMD stocks now ? i think it is, but the case can take 18 months, in the meantime the quote can go down (intel tells lies and all that).

In the long time, AMD and Intel will have a marketshare of 50/50, so buying stock`s is always a good thing, but maybe we can step in lower ?

What do you guys investors think about the share AMD ?
Buying putts from intel is not such a good ide i think, intel is to big, if they got beaten by AMD(not by cpu, this is already happening, i mean from the court) it will almost not harm them.

Looks like intel spent more on bribing reviewers to cover up it aint that great than they did in R&D.
Tom also has money from intel.

More about : buying amd stock

July 6, 2005 3:26:18 PM

You are overestimating the power of this lawsuit. Don't invest on the basis of the outcome of this lawsuit. Intel will not be forced to give up market share, it will most likely settle, or if found guilty, will be required to ammend some of there business practices a little to allow Dell the OPTION of going with AMD. But that doesn't necessarily mean that they WILL go with AMD.
July 6, 2005 3:42:44 PM

Not gooing AMD will make you lose customers, because AMD has the better CPU.
This case makes AMD known to the common man, hey did AMD not kicked intels butt in court ? yes they did, and is it true they are better for common use ? well lets try them.
All that intel inside and intel jingle will not do much of it.


Looks like intel spent more on bribing reviewers to cover up it aint that great than they did in R&D.
Tom also has money from intel.
Related resources
July 6, 2005 4:00:44 PM

My 2 cents: I think this case is do or die for AMD. If they win, at the very least they will get much better prospects of gaining marketshare and winning OEM deals, even though this will likely happen in a period where Intel could have some very competitive parts again (conroe/meron). AMD *could* also be awarded some healthy compensations, which wouldn't hurt its stock price I guess.. but there is a catch; if AMD looses, the future looks exceptionally poor for them. Expect Intel to turn on the thumbscrews until it bleeds, counter sew them, and push them out almost all markets save perhaps the DIY market and white box vendors.

Personally, I might to take a gamble on it though. from what I read, it seems it will be exceptionally hard for Intel to win this one. This quote if from aces where I asked about this trial:
Quote:

Here is the burden of proof that Business Week thinks AMD should provide:

1) That Intel dominates the market, with a 60% or higher share
2) That the exclusive dealing prevented AMD from entering markets
3) That there is no valid business justification for Intel's conduct, such as lowering prices for consumers


1&2 seem overly obvious, the first one being a simple fact, the second one proven by the Japanese investigation if nothing else. The third one... not sure how to interprete it, but if I apply common sense rather than reading it literally, I'd say shouldn't be too hard to prove that either.

In short: I expect AMD to win (75/25 odds), and to gain substantially from it. But I do see a possibility of AMD losing BIG time, so its still a gamble. Don't bet your house on it, but if you have some money you don't need in the next year or two, why not give it a try ?

BTW, also note the EU is investigating intels conduct, and if i'm not mistaken will finish its investigations long before the US trial will take place. If the EU determines intel abused its position, expect that to have a double effect of:
-possibly increasing AMD stock instantly
-providing evidence AMD can use in the US lawsuit.

just my semi random thoughts, I will not accept liability if you loose your entire fortune on AMD stocks :D 

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
July 6, 2005 4:01:10 PM

I don't think it's very risky because AMD has little to lose and a lot to win.
If AMD doesn't win I don't think that would make him lose market share, so in the end at least you could sell for around the same price you bought.

<font color=red>It's impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious<font color=red>
July 6, 2005 4:06:13 PM

Thats not what I was talking about. I was placing emphasis on calls and puts being a risky investment. That has nothing to do with AMD or INTEL. Its simply the risk level of this type of investment.

ASUS P5WD2 Premium
Intel 3.73 EE @ 5.6Ghz
XMS2 DDR2 @ 1180Mhz

<A HREF="http://valid.x86-secret.com/records.php?PHPSESSID=792e8..." target="_new">#2 CPUZ</A>
SuperPI 25secs
July 6, 2005 4:11:58 PM

You are underestimating the power of this lawsuit IMHO. Did you read the PDF containing AMDs allegations ? Assuming most of what is in there is actually true (even if not nearly all of it will be proven in court), I think it makes it very clear just how much AMD's marketshare is currently being capped by Intel's behaviour. In fact, its almost a miracle how they manage to get >15% regardless of technical merrit or price competitivity.

If you put on your rose (green ? :)  sunglasses, and fast forward 18 months from here, with AMD capacity >3x what it is today, with a victory in court resulting in the end of unfair practices by intel, and assuming AMD still having a technological lead or at least parity with Intel, I don't see why they could not grow to 2-3x their current marketshare. Fast forward another 18 months, and they just might become the market leader. Stranger things have happened in the industry, and just to put things in perspective; in markets where Intel's rebates don't fully work like the DIY market, AMD currently *is* marketleader.


But without this lawsuit, if indeed Intel behaves like AMD claims it does, I don't see them going *anywhere*, unless perhaps a small miracle happens like some major OEM (Lenovo ?) going AMD-only or at least mostly, giving intel and its marketing dollars/rebates the middle finger in an attempt to out-dell dell. Its not impossible, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Nah, no way you can underestimate the importance of this lawsuit..its do or die for AMD.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
July 6, 2005 4:33:18 PM

In 18 months AMD might no longer be the market leader without a budget Dual core system.
July 6, 2005 4:36:26 PM

In 18 months AMD might no longer be the market leader without a budget Dual core system. I see what you mean though, but I would be fairly surprised to see this end "in court" as I think it would be wise for Intel to take a loss and settle. But even if they can win, and do win that still means that they have to offer Dell a better deal. And the fact is that the majority of uneducated consumers want to buy Intel products from Dell. This might change over time, but it won't likely change just because they win this lawsuit.
July 6, 2005 4:50:56 PM

No offense to anyone, but neither winning nor losing this lawsuit will hardly change anything. Even if AMD flat out wins (which is highly unlikely as what they have is just circumstantial evidence of business practices that may not even constitute anything illegal) it won't change much. AMD would just be awarded some chump change and Intel would be told to behave better. Whoop-de-doo. The award certainly won't turn around anything at AMD (their own increase in production will do way more than that money would) and even if Intel is court-ordered to change their business practices, just how much exactly do you think they'll actually change? Only the minimum necessary by law, if that.

If AMD wins, yes, their stock price will jump up a little at first. And then it'll trickle right back down to normalcy because the business itself won't be in any way changed. If you invest based on that you may make a few bucks, but only if you prey on the hype and are smart enough to get out before the bubble pops.

If you're going to invest in stocks you're better off looking at the cycles that a company's stock price goes through, what drives the cycles, and making plans to buy at low points in that cycle and sell high. (Which is all pretty obvious stuff.) It's a long game to play that takes patience, and even then, it's still all a gamble.

:eek:  <font color=green>یί∫υєг ρђœŋίχ</font color=green> :eek: 
@ 192K -> 200,000 miles or bust!
July 6, 2005 5:28:58 PM

>In 18 months AMD might no longer be the market leader without
> a budget Dual core system.

pff, AMD doesn't offer one because it doesn't have to, and doesn't want to (ASPs versus margins). An A64 is about the same size as a P4, so there is no technical reason AMD wouldn't/couldn't, especially once they move to 65nm which won't take 18 months.

>I see what you mean though, but I would be fairly surprised
> to see this end "in court" as I think it would be wise for
> Intel to take a loss and settle.

AMD would be unwise to settle. Why would they ? They'd get some instant cash perhaps, and a few worthless promises, and 6 months laters, everything is back to where it was. no, AMD needs to get Intel convicted as a monopoly abusing its market power. Anything less just isn't helpfull to AMD.

>But even if they can win, and do win that still means that
>they have to offer Dell a better deal

There is quite a bit more to this than just Dell. Read the PDF, and reconsider. Lots of major OEMs where willing to offer AMD based systems (or did, but canceled them later), but backed down because of Intels threats/rebates. read the story about HP even not using *FREE* A64's because of intels policy. They where offered one million cpu's totally free of charge by AMD, and they still had to decline and stopped production after 160k units.

>This might change over time, but it won't likely change
>just because they win this lawsuit.

read the PDF, it really is an eye opener. Yes, winning that lawsuit (and assuming an appropriate ruling) has the potential to change things dramatically for AMD. As it is, intel simply defines AMDs market share by saying to its OEMs they have a rebate target of X million units, where X is the oems marketshare minus Y, what they allow AMD to sell. AMDs market share simply is Y, and its defined by intel, purely and simply. Read the Sony story..

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
July 6, 2005 5:40:05 PM

I disagree 200%. First let me ask: did you read the PDF ? If not, read it first.

>No offense to anyone, but neither winning nor losing this
>lawsuit will hardly change anything. Even if AMD flat out
>wins (which is highly unlikely as what they have is just >circumstantial evidence of business practices that may not
>even constitute anything illegal)

See my post above. 2 of the 3 required proofs are already there. The third one seems pretty obvious to me, but will require some substantial testimonies or other proof. I doubt AMD would even consider a trial if they didn't have this.

>AMD would just be awarded some chump change and Intel would
>be told to behave better. Whoop-de-doo

No, not just whoop-de-doo. If AMD wins, Intel will either face risk of being broken up, or *will* change its business practices. Read the PDF, see how many additional design wins AMD could have gathered if it wheren't for Intels rebate policy.

>The award certainly won't turn around anything at AMD
>(their own increase in production will do way more than
>that money would)

Their increased capacity will do *squat* if Intel is allowed to continue its current practices.

>and even if Intel is court-ordered to change their business
>practices, just how much exactly do you think they'll
>actually change?

They don't need to change much at all:
1) exclusivity deals should be forbidden
2) they should be ordered to apply volume discounts, and not only on the total ammount reaching a certain arbitrary volume (which today is like 90+% of the oems total potential) which the oem either hits (full rebate on all products) or doesn't (zero rebate, negative quarter for sure). AFAIK, this practice is illegal for a monopoly (>60% of the market).

Two simple rules that will change everything for AMD.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
July 6, 2005 5:44:45 PM

Quote:
read the PDF, it really is an eye opener.

Meh. The only way I'd count that as an eye opener was if you were asleep in the first place. Intel has always had strong marketing and sales tactics.

The real questions are: Have any of these tactics actually been illegal? And if so, can they actually be proven?

Quote:
AMD would be unwise to settle. Why would they ? They'd get some instant cash perhaps, and a few worthless promises, and 6 months laters, everything is back to where it was.

How would this be any different if they win? There are certain business practices that are still legal, no matter how unfair they may seem, that won't change. The market won't suddenly become equal ground for all overnight even if AMD wins.

<font color=red> :evil:  یί∫υєг ρђœŋίχ :evil: 
<i>The devil is in the details.</i></font color=red>
@ 192K -> 200,000 miles or bust!
July 6, 2005 6:06:09 PM

>Meh. The only way I'd count that as an eye opener was if you
>were asleep in the first place.

Pff.. so typical.. of course <b>you</b> knew. Obviously you also knew intel used illegal tactics too. And you understood how it all worked. Well I didn't, but now I do.

>Intel has always had strong
>marketing and sales tactics.

ROFL, as if "strong" is the word here. No, *illegal*.

>The real questions are: Have any of these tactics actually
>been illegal? And if so, can they actually be proven?

Im no lawyer, and not too intimate with US regulations, but from what I read on the topic: yes it clearly IS illegal. It certainly was so in Japan. As for being proven.. again, cf Japanese FTC, but even that aside, it shouldn't be excessively hard for AMD to find at least *some* people willing to testify. that is, if emails/written accounts would't do the job.

>How would this be any different if they win?

I think it would be change a tiny little bit at intel if they are being officially declared a monopoly, and if they are convicted for abusing its market power. Most companies don't like being broken apart and prefer to comply with the FTC. Don't make the mistake of comparing this with the MS lawsuit, MS is a monopoly and will at times be ordered to change its doings, but there is no credible competitor, so there is not much any rulings will change.

>There are certain business practices that are still legal,
>no matter how unfair they may seem, that won't change.

Such as ?


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
July 6, 2005 6:22:28 PM

Quote:
I disagree 200%.

And I disagree with you 400%. What's your point?

Quote:
First let me ask: did you read the PDF ? If not, read it first.

Yes I've read it. It makes for a good zealot inspiration handbook, but does nothing for proving illegal business practices. If AMD is going to win this in court they're going to need a hell of a lot better evidence than evil Intel bedtime stories.

I especially loved the part about Intel's compiler. **ROFL** I mean not only is it <i>Intel's</i> compliler, so it'd be expected that it compiled better for Intel procs than AMD procs, but the actual truth is that for <i>years</i> it's been doing <i>more</i> for AMD's procs than <i>agnostic</i> compilers like gcc out there.

Again, AMD's law suit is mostly gibberish. The <i>real</i> question will be can the needle of any actual illegal business practices be found in that huge zealot-inspiring haystack?

Quote:
See my post above. 2 of the 3 required proofs are already there.

Sorry, but it'll take a hell of a lot more than those three proofs to actually win anything in their case. All that those three will give AMD is a sorry-arsed chance of winning the sympathy vote, which is still a long shot to getting anything real out of it at best.

It's not just about proving that Intel has been strongly competetive. No one argues that. It's not even about proving that Intel has been anti-competetive. It's about proving that Intel has been <i>illegally</i> anti-competetive. For that AMD needs actual documented proof. Hearsay and sympathy are only a step away from useless.

Quote:
I doubt AMD would even consider a trial if they didn't have this.

Are you kidding. For the first time in forever AMD is doing well enough to waste money on this kind of stuff. For a relatively low legal cost they can try to grab some very low hanging fruit and get a ton of publicity out of it. Even if they fail in court it's still been cost-effective advertising.

Quote:
If AMD wins, Intel will either face risk of being broken up

<font color=red><b>**ROFL**</b>

**still rolling**

**still laughing**

**still on the floor**</font color=red>

You don't honestly believe that'll ever happen, do you? They courts couldn't even do that to Microsoft, and there was never an easier target!

<b><font color=red>**ROFL**</font color=red></b>

Quote:
or *will* change its business practices.

Yeah, if AMD is lucky, Intel will be forced to change their business practices <i>slightly</i> to toe the legal line. This itself may open up a whole 0.5% more market share and make Intel invest an extra 2% on legal fees to ensure that they're safe. Ooh.

Quote:
Read the PDF, see how many additional design wins AMD could have gathered if it wheren't for Intels rebate policy.

Bah. Conjecture at its best. Even <i>if</i> AMD had won those, how much more would it have sold? We can only guess, and there are way too many 'ifs' in that line of reasoning to ever be reasonable about it.

<font color=red> :evil:  یί∫υєг ρђœŋίχ :evil: 
<i>The devil is in the details.</i></font color=red>
@ 192K -> 200,000 miles or bust!
July 6, 2005 6:39:08 PM

Quote:
Pff.. so typical.. of course you knew.

Well duh. Are you honestly telling me that you didn't know that Intel was agressive? That they pushed themselves right up to the line of legal business practices? What company out to make money doesn't? Hell, what company doesn't even do something illegal at one point or another? It's not <i>if</i> they did something illegal, but <i>if</i> they got <i>caught</i>.

Quote:
And you understood how it all worked.

Hey, I never claimed that.

Quote:
ROFL, as if "strong" is the word here. No, *illegal*.

No, "strong" is the word. The <i>question</i> is "illegal".

Quote:
Im no lawyer, and not too intimate with US regulations

Then stop talking about what you don't know.

Quote:
It certainly was so in Japan.

1) You can't be found guilty for the same thing twice.
2) Japan has stricter anti-competetive laws than the US. What Intel did there is legal by US standards.

Quote:
it shouldn't be excessively hard for AMD to find at least *some* people willing to testify. that is, if emails/written accounts would't do the job.

We will see. I personally think that it'll be a <i>lot</i> harder for AMD than you think. And even <i>if</i> they come up with actual evidence, it still has to prove something <i>illegal</i> for it to matter, and <i>that</i> is AMD's greatest hurdle.

Quote:
Such as ?

Such as making unique deals with each individual customer. Such as per-quantity pricing. Such as marketing incentives. Such as customer rebates. Nothing that courts can do will prevent Intel from doing everything they can legally.

Sorry, but Intel knows <i>exactly</i> where the line between legal and illegal is, and they'll be <i>right</i> on the edge of it so long as it makes them more money. They'll probably even be willing to cross that line every so often so long as the occasional court costs when they're brought to task are less than the profits made from doing it every so often. So unless AMD has a lot more money for legal fees to bring Intel to court often, they're not going to actually change anything.

And on top of that, the process will take years, especially with appeals should AMD actually ever win anything. So it'll still always make Intel more money to be agressive and fight the occasional court battle.

<font color=red> :evil:  یί∫υєг ρђœŋίχ :evil: 
<i>The devil is in the details.</i></font color=red>
@ 192K -> 200,000 miles or bust!
July 6, 2005 7:24:40 PM

You know what I think would be a good sanity check? If the courts try to find out if AMD could have even supported the "stolen marketshare". Intel seems to be barely able to keep up with their demand right now and if you look at production capacity vs demand in light of the marketshare split, AMD wouldn't be able to supply the extra demand from the big companies that supposidly couldn't do business with AMD, because Intel's a big meany.

The timing of AMD's new production capacity and this lawsuit are pretty close to be coincidental. I hope this is just a slightly paranoid thought and has no truth, but who knows.

In terms of the future, could AMD support 50% of the market even with their new facility? Doubtful. And I don't think anyone out there has been dissatisfied with Intel reliability (reliability being what typically sells more products when prices are similar). If AMD and Intel look about the same and you've had many fine products from Intel, why change? Because you feel bad for an underdog company? I don't think so.

Intel being broken up is pretty funny. How would you even divide the company? There's no logical way except by perhaps product grouping - but AMD doesn't compete in areas besides CPUs (they don't do flash anymore, remember :) ) so it kind of defeats the purpose of the split. You'd still have the CPU based firm have all the contracts and the 5th most valuable brand in the world (Coke, Microsoft, IBM, GE, Intel) vs AMD (not even an honorable mention for brand awareness).

I'll bet that AMD would have stood a much better chance in a couple years with this lawsuit (bigger capacity, Intel's holistic package marketing scheme). I still question whether or not Intel has done anything illegal (aggressive sure, but outside the law? Doubtful). Intel is a company that has been recognized as being a great community enriching company that follows both US and foreign laws (whichever are stricter) - just look at their dealings in China.

I'm just your average habitual smiler =D
July 6, 2005 7:27:32 PM

I am happy to see that you and P4man are at it again... we took a long break for a while, but its good to see that you guys have jumped back in the ring.
July 6, 2005 7:36:27 PM

Let's get ready to RUMBLEEEEEEEE!

<font color=red>It's impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious<font color=red>
July 6, 2005 7:38:00 PM

I think they get mad at me when I pit them against eachother.
a b à CPUs
July 6, 2005 7:43:32 PM

[/stretches out on recliner][/pops a can of pringles]
This is great! I leavee for a month and get back just in time for the action!

__________________________________________________
<font color=red>You're a boil on the arse of progress - don't make me squeeze you!</font color=red>
July 6, 2005 7:50:02 PM

Not as great as it may seem. If you would have been here all this time you probably wouldnt feel the same. Just browse around and then let me know what you think.

How was South America?

ASUS P5WD2 Premium
Intel 3.73 EE @ 5.6Ghz
XMS2 DDR2 @ 1180Mhz

<A HREF="http://valid.x86-secret.com/records.php?PHPSESSID=792e8..." target="_new">#2 CPUZ</A>
SuperPI 25secs
July 6, 2005 7:52:09 PM

Quote:
I think they get mad at me when I pit them against eachother.

**ROFL** Not me. I laugh. It's funny how often it happens.

But depending on how much is going on at the time, I may not be inclined to keep up the fight when I have better things to do.

Plus there's always that agree to disagree thing. :o 

And failing that, there's a slightly modified addage: <i>Who is the greater fool: the fool, or the fool who keeps arguing with him?</i> ;) 

So I tend not to fight for overly long periods of time anymore. (Not unless I'm <i>really</i> bored and/or frustrated with my software.)

<font color=red>I'm that balance between rage and zen that your sefu/sensei always warned you about.</font color=red> :evil: 

<font color=red> :evil:  یί∫υєг ρђœŋίχ :evil: 
<i>The devil is in the details.</i></font color=red>
@ 192K -> 200,000 miles or bust!
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 6, 2005 7:52:31 PM

/Me setups the pool filled with K-Y

Asus P4P800DX, P4C 2.6ghz@3.25ghz, 2X512 OCZ PC4000 3-4-4-8, MSI 6800Ultra stock, 2X30gig Raid0
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 6, 2005 7:54:44 PM

And get the crack pipe from mozz

Asus P4P800DX, P4C 2.6ghz@3.25ghz, 2X512 OCZ PC4000 3-4-4-8, MSI 6800Ultra stock, 2X30gig Raid0
July 6, 2005 7:57:14 PM

Rugger... Mozz is upset about all of us suggesting AMD all the time. We are seeming a little too fanboyish for him. He might have a valid point... but I still feel that our opinions are somewhat justified.
July 6, 2005 8:16:44 PM

Oh... what are you upset about?
a b à CPUs
July 6, 2005 8:49:39 PM

After reading the brutally long and contentious 840EE thread I have a feeling I know what you're talking about. It seems that there is a lot of pent up frustration, ragin hormones or lack of ability to detach. A lot of people seem to be taking the posts here very personal, instead of really reading them and trying to <b>learn</b>. If not learn, then at least calmly discuss the pros/cons and then do some research.

I don't know maybe it was just that thread...

__________________________________________________
<font color=red>You're a boil on the arse of progress - don't make me squeeze you!</font color=red>
July 6, 2005 9:32:08 PM

>Yes I've read it. It makes for a good zealot inspiration
>handbook, but does nothing for proving illegal business
>practices

There is no proof ? Oh my, Im shocked..! Short AMD, the case is doomed ! .. oh wait, maybe its because its only the complaint ?

>If AMD is going to win this in court they're going to need
>a hell of a lot better evidence than evil Intel bedtime
>stories.

Quite a bit of those complaints have already been considered proven by the japanese FTC (and are under investigation by the EU) and that was without AMD even doing a damn thing, or providing half a shred of evidence themselves !

>Again, AMD's law suit is mostly gibberish. The real
>question will be can the needle of any actual illegal
>business practices be found in that huge zealot-inspiring
>haystack?

either you didn't read it, or you didn't get it: the complaints are trivially simple and chrystal clear. But since you seem to consider yourself so erudite in this matter, I am quite curious just how you expect intel to counter these allegations ? Do you think:
1) it will claim it has <60% of the market, so it does't have monopoly market power ?
2) it did not offer exclusivity deals nor grant rebates based upon exclusivity (even though the Japanese have found proof to the contrary) ?
3) it did so, but only to protect customer interests, not its own ?

really, I'm curious, since you seem to think AMD barely has a case at all.

>You don't honestly believe that'll ever happen, do you?

Indeed i doubt Intel would be so stupid to let it come to that.

>They courts couldn't even do that to Microsoft, and there >was never an easier target!

Breaking up a company is only one of many possible remedies to counter illegal abuse of monopoly power. Unlike Intel so far, AFAIK MS was found to have a monopoly in the OS market, and as a consequence has been imposed several restrictions and measures.. and has the FTC and EU commission breathing down its neck all the time, but again unlike Intel, there is no one to benefit from this, since no other OS can be used to replace Windows without being hugely disruptive. This is totally incomparable to the Intel/AMD situation; If AMD can achieve from intel what has been achieved from MS (like their cunny scheme with Windows OS licence costs applying to all pc's, even if they didn't ship with an OS at all), its all they need to be able to compete.

>Bah. Conjecture at its best. Even if AMD had won those, how
>much more would it have sold?

Significantly. How much exactly is impossible to tell, and not to the point though.

>We can only guess, and there are way too many 'ifs' in that
>line of reasoning to ever be reasonable about it.

No, not "ifs", but "how many's". Looking at the DIY market where rebates don't apply (*), should give you a clue just how significant it could be. Look at what happened with NEC consumer business in Japan, where AMD went from a 80% marketshare to ZERO overnight because of Intels strongarming. I assume it doesn't require your "higher level math" to estimate what could happen if Intel where forced to stop the strongarming.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
a b à CPUs
July 6, 2005 9:36:39 PM

Chile was awesome! I was at sea most of the time, but the people were great and the time I had in ports (Vina Del Mar, Iquique, Anofagasta and La Serena) were awesome! Vina was the nicest city that I had a chance to visit - it's a summer resort city for Chile. Fortunately, I had the chance to stay in Vina for four days in a great hotel right over the ocean!

How are your OC exploits going? I heard mention of you doing some insane OCs or something! Give up the goods and tell me what's been happening in Mozz World!

__________________________________________________
<font color=red>You're a boil on the arse of progress - don't make me squeeze you!</font color=red>
July 7, 2005 5:07:15 AM

You say it P4man.
slvr_phoenix got owned by someone hoes native language is not englich :o ) Dont bother replying, P4man said it all ! and you got Owned !
LOL, peace to all...


Looks like intel spent more on bribing reviewers to cover up it aint that great than they did in R&D.
Tom also has money from intel.
July 7, 2005 7:13:37 AM

I agree, it will be really tough to prove intel's behaviour is illegal. After all, I'm sure AMDs legal team will never dig up this:

<b>¡ì 3 Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. ¡ì 14

Sale, etc., on agreement not to use goods of competitor

<font color=red> It shall be unlawful </font color=red> for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, <font color=red> to lease or make a sale or contract for sale of goods </font color=red> , wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities, whether patented or unpatented, for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, <font color=red> or fix a price charged therefor, or discount from, or rebate upon, such price, on the condition, agreement, or understanding that the lessee or purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the goods </font color=red> , wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities <font color=red> of a competitor </font color=red> or competitors of the lessor or seller, where the effect of such lease, sale, or contract for sale or such condition, agreement, or understanding may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce.</b>

AMDs complaint contains over 20 (quick count, stopped at #40) statements that is exactly what intel did. Yes, its still unproven, but if it did happen (does anyone seriously doubt that ??), it should be easy to prove. Again, the Japanese FTC proved exactly that (Sony/Nec exclusivity rebates) with just some searches.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
July 7, 2005 7:35:52 AM

> If the courts try to find out if AMD could have even
>supported the "stolen marketshare"

Hu ? You think its possible AMDs allegations could be correct, but this behaviour wouldn't have hurt them ? Seriously ? Reality check: why would intel grant billions of $ of rebates to its oems if they would get the deals anyhow ? Further more, even IF AMD where selling everysingle chip they could produce, running at maximum capacity, if nothing else the effect of intels behaviour would have been dramatically reduced ASPs for AMD.

>In terms of the future, could AMD support 50% of the market
> even with their new facility?

With FAB30 and 36, yes I think they will be able to do just that, of course it depends upon the product mix (dual core opterons are quiet a bit bigger than semprons, 90/65nm, etc..) as well as other factors (the total market size isn't just a fixed number either, it depends upon pricing/capacity just as well). AMD is currently at ~15% or so, and AFAIK, not capacity constrained; FAB30 will triple its capacity, and then you'll have the Chartered deal on top of that.

>And I don't think anyone out there has been dissatisfied
>with Intel reliability (reliability being what typically
>sells more products when prices are similar)

Rubbish. This "reliability" issue is only an issue among underinformed 14 year old enthousiasts that don't know any better. Now if you had said something about supplychain issues, at least you might have had half a credible argumenent, but one that really can't explain more than 1 of the 87 points of AMDs complaint.

>Intel being broken up is pretty funny. How would you even
>divide the company?

Not saying this is likely what will happen, but it would be easy; seperate them by product families (cpus:D esktop, notebook, server, RISC, embedded, chipsets & other business).

>I still question whether or not Intel has done anything
>illegal (aggressive sure, but outside the law? Doubtful).

See a few posts above. Clearly, they broken that (same) law in Japan, I don't see why anyone should be surprised they did the same in the US.

>Intel is a company that has been recognized as being a
>great community enriching company that follows both US and
>foreign laws (whichever are stricter) - just look at their
>dealings in China.

Pff.. yeah, and they have this handbook for ethical business practices, surely therefore it is innocent ? I mean, who would believe Micheal Jackson would be guilty when he spends fortunes on making kids happy ? ;) 

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
July 7, 2005 2:08:38 PM

Quote:
who would believe Micheal Jackson would be guilty when he spends fortunes on making kids happy ? ;) 

It's funny that the clearest bell toll comes from a post with someone else.

Obviously our opinions on this are never going to match. I'm not stating in any way that Intel is innocent. I'm saying that AMD is going to have one hell of a time actually <i>proving beyond a reasonable doubt</i> Intel's guilt.

Same with Jacko. I don't think there's a person who wouldn't <i>believe</i> him guilty. It's <i>proving</i> that's the hard part.

But again, that's my opinion. Clearly you believe differently. Only time will tell who is right and who is wrong. But since there are no facts to make this anything less than conjecture right now, and since we've both made our opinions quite clear, there's really nothing left to debate at this point.

<font color=red> :evil:  یί∫υєг ρђœŋίχ :evil: 
<i>The devil is in the details.</i></font color=red>
@ 192K -> 200,000 miles or bust!
July 7, 2005 2:12:10 PM

coop, out of curiosity, do you even <i>have</i> a mind of your own? I mean I may be right, or I may be wrong, but either way at least I can think for myself. Can you say the same? I mean I can at least respect P4Man, because right or wrong, at least he uses that squishy thing between his ears. You on the other hand remind me more of a toady, a lap dog, a yes man. I can't say that I've seen an original thought expressed from you yet.

<font color=red> :evil:  یί∫υєг ρђœŋίχ :evil: 
<i>The devil is in the details.</i></font color=red>
@ 192K -> 200,000 miles or bust!
July 7, 2005 2:22:00 PM

Yeah... I'm gonna have to back slvr on this one... shut up coop it aint your fight.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 7, 2005 3:17:58 PM

Yeah even tough you started the thread it not your fight go play in my KY pool!

Asus P4P800DX, P4C 2.6ghz@3.25ghz, 2X512 OCZ PC4000 3-4-4-8, MSI 6800Ultra stock, 2X30gig Raid0
July 7, 2005 3:35:39 PM

Coop is a lot like Fugger... with the differences being he's on the AMD side and his English skills are like juin's at times.

A zealot is a zealot... I don't care what side they're on... they're equally stupid.

<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
July 7, 2005 3:44:48 PM

>I'm not stating in any way that Intel is innocent. I'm saying
>that AMD is going to have one hell of a time actually proving
>beyond a reasonable doubt Intel's guilt.

The original question was wether or not what intel is being accused of is illegal in the first place. Im just pointing out that it clearly is. And in my mind, there is little doubt intel is indeed guilty.

Wether or not AMD will be able to prove that is another matter, and I am willing to take somewhat more caution there, but like I said earlier, I give them a 75% chance at least. I doubt Intel would behave considerably different in Japan as in the US (especially since the same people appear to be involved), and in Japan it apparently was proven easily just by the FTC. I can't see how intel will shake this one in the US, but to agree at leat on something: time will tell.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
July 7, 2005 3:46:53 PM

oh, and btw, I for one was not completely convinced Jacko was guilty. OJ on the other hand....

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
July 7, 2005 3:52:39 PM

Japan's market is a lot tighter and has many more restrictions than the US market. What may be illegal in Japan is not necessarily illegal in the US... but I'm sure you are well aware that laws differ from country to country...

<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
July 7, 2005 3:55:13 PM

>You on the other hand remind me more of a toady, a lap dog, a
>yes man. I can't say that I've seen an original thought >expressed from you yet.

Doh.. attacking my one-man fanclub are you ?

Sadly however, you are totally right, and I feel exactly the same way about it. Well, to give him some credit, at least his brainless cheerleading is for the right team. Probably more luck than anything else though :p 


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
July 7, 2005 4:02:45 PM

>Japan's market is a lot tighter and has many more
>restrictions than the US market. What may be illegal in Japan
> is not necessarily illegal in the US....

Maybe so, but IIRC in Japan Intel was convicted because made its rebates dependant upon exclusitivity:

Quote:
"In this case, a company with a dominant market position squeezed out rivals by doing business with the five major PC makers on condition of not using competitors' chips," an FTC official told reporters.


which is just as illegal in the US, cf my quote above.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
July 7, 2005 4:10:48 PM

Sorry i hurt you`r feelings :o ) now dont start crying please...
I do have a own opinion, i stated that i was sure AMD would win the case in the openingpost.
In the past i also stated that AMD was a better buy then a P4 in gaming ! i always had an own opinion, and i was always right !
And sorry for my bad englich, its not my native language, dutch and france i speak perfect, haw about you smart boy ?


Looks like intel spent more on bribing reviewers to cover up it aint that great than they did in R&D.
Tom also has money from intel.
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by coop on 07/07/05 12:25 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
July 7, 2005 4:29:56 PM

You never hurt anyone's 'feelings', Coop... because no one has any 'feelings' where processors are concerned... merely opinion. Sad thing is... you don't even see that you're as bad as the Intel fanbois you hate so much... just on the opposite side of the fence. In case you hadn't noticed... that doesn't make you any better...

<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 7, 2005 6:55:11 PM

Moi aussi je parle la france

Lol

Asus P4P800DX, P4C 2.6ghz@3.25ghz, 2X512 OCZ PC4000 3-4-4-8, MSI 6800Ultra stock, 2X30gig Raid0
!