Intel found to be abusing market power in Japan

[Yousuf Khan]

But the challenges there are mind-bending.

A lot of the brain-power has already been exported out to the US and
other countries. They can just as easily re-import them, with some
incentives. For example, Stephen Chen who was Seymour Cray's protege and
then eventually his rival, is now back in China working on supercomputer
designs for them.

There is no free market in aerospace. The Europeans claim that the US
susidizes its aerospace industry with military procurement (true) and
the US aerospace industry claims that Airbus Industrie is subsidized
in ways that are not available to, say, Boeing (also true). On top of
that, there is a documented history of industrial spying, bribes, and
influence peddling that make the alleged Intel pecadilloes seem
insignificant by comparison. And the US government picks winners and
losers. The semiconductor business is remarkable for having been
_relatively_ free of all that nonsense, certainly as compared to
aerospace.

Yes, so far, the US government hasn't overtly preferential in the CPU
business, it tries from time to time to give contracts to AMD-based
hardware too (e.g. supercomputing). But of course the US gov is in the
same boat as every other business that needs to buy PCs, in that it's
dependent on purchasing whatever models of computers that manufacturers
offer, which is usually only Intel-based.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Robert Myers]

Robert Myers wrote:

A lot of the brain-power has already been exported out to the US and
other countries. They can just as easily re-import them, with some
incentives. For example, Stephen Chen who was Seymour Cray's protege and
then eventually his rival, is now back in China working on supercomputer
designs for them.

The problems are much more basic: lack of road and rail transport,
lack of reliable electricity, illiteracy, corruption, crime, poverty,
overpopulation,...

There was a guy on "Car Talk" over the weekend who is in the software
business in Brazil. There are some really sharp people in Brazil, but
this guy talked about the fact that the government doesn't really have
control of large parts of Rio de Janeiro. He wanted advice on getting
his car bulletproofed.

I know, the government doesn't really control parts of New York and
Los Angeles, either, but it's a different level of problem.

China, Brazil, India, wherever,...they have all the brainpower they
could ever need. MIT will happily educate their sons and daughters,
if necessary, and it increasingly isn't necessary. Much of that
talent will be wasted, though, because the resources aren't available
to exploit it.

Yes, so far, the US government hasn't overtly preferential in the CPU
business, it tries from time to time to give contracts to AMD-based
hardware too (e.g. supercomputing). But of course the US gov is in the
same boat as every other business that needs to buy PCs, in that it's
dependent on purchasing whatever models of computers that manufacturers
offer, which is usually only Intel-based.

Actually, Yousuf, we may be onto the real reason I admire Intel: they
don't have to suck up to the morons at <agency deleted> and <agency
deleted>, and they really don't whether <bureaucrat deleted> is
impressed with their processors or not. That's why I can't get
excited about Intel's relatively modest forays into market
manipulation. I've known businesses that are essentially 100% market
manipulation.

The world has been hurt by Intel's swaggering capacity to thumb its
nose at whoever it wants to? Would you like to buy a space shuttle?

RM

 

[chrisv]

There are some really sharp people in Brazil, but
this guy talked about the fact that the government doesn't really have
control of large parts of Rio de Janeiro. He wanted advice on getting
his car bulletproofed.

Check out the movie "City of God" sometime.

 

[YKhan]

Whatever the contract says, I'd be bug-eyed to see AMD go after Intel
in court. It would make as much sense as a New York or Chicago
gangland turf war. Why would anybody want to mess with a good deal,
especially now that AMD looks much less insecure than it once did?
AMD may not really want to mess with Dell, either, since I suspect
that the concessions that Intel offers there make it a pretty
unattractive customer.

I'm not sure why you think AMD is now in a comfortable position
vis-a-vis Intel. Intel certainly isn't conceding any marketshare to
AMD, it's always trying to grab as much of it as possible. I absolutely
expect AMD to sue Intel after this, and I would be bug-eyed to find out
that they aren't going to sue them. We haven't seen a good Intel-AMD
lawsuit in a number of years, mainly because they called a ceasefire --
not peace.

Intel Caught With Its Chips Down
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=11&section=0&article=60455&d=15&m=3&y=2005

This interview makes it clear that AMD isn't ruling out a lawsuit
against Intel.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Robert Myers]

I'm not sure why you think AMD is now in a comfortable position
vis-a-vis Intel. Intel certainly isn't conceding any marketshare to
AMD, it's always trying to grab as much of it as possible. I absolutely
expect AMD to sue Intel after this, and I would be bug-eyed to find out
that they aren't going to sue them. We haven't seen a good Intel-AMD
lawsuit in a number of years, mainly because they called a ceasefire --
not peace.

Intel Caught With Its Chips Down
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=11&section=0&article=60455&d=15&m=3&y=2005

This interview makes it clear that AMD isn't ruling out a lawsuit
against Intel.

The rhetoric is certainly bellicose. I'm not a lawyer. If I ever
wanted to be a lawyer, it certainly was not to be involved in messes
like this one...

There are no spoils of war to divide up. Opteron didn't open up any
new vistas. The business is in a period of decline and consolidation.

Were I AMD, I would use this situation to reposition myself vis-a-vis
Intel by way of some agreements cut on the sly in some out-of-the-way
place, not by going to court. That's what I would do. What AMD does,
of course, is completely independet of my guess as to what they should
do.

RM

 

[Yousuf Khan]

The rhetoric is certainly bellicose. I'm not a lawyer. If I ever
wanted to be a lawyer, it certainly was not to be involved in messes
like this one...

There are no spoils of war to divide up. Opteron didn't open up any
new vistas. The business is in a period of decline and consolidation.

Huh? Since when? This is the biggest and most profitable end of the
semiconductor industry, of course there's spoils of war to divide up
here -- lots of it. Of course, it's all AMD's to gain and all Intel's to
lose.

Besides, the dividing of the spoils of war analogy also doesn't work
here. Dividing spoils of war involves two or more allies defeating an
enemy and dividing the enemy's territory amongst themselves. AMD and
Intel aren't an allied force going up against a common enemy; they are
each other's enemy, and in this case the territory all belongs to Intel
and it is defending itself against an invading AMD.

Were I AMD, I would use this situation to reposition myself vis-a-vis
Intel by way of some agreements cut on the sly in some out-of-the-way
place, not by going to court. That's what I would do. What AMD does,
of course, is completely independet of my guess as to what they should
do.

That's also illegal. It also falls into the same anti-trust laws, it's
collusion. It's no different than if AMD and Intel decided to one day
start pricing their processors exactly the same as each other at exactly
the same time -- this would be price-fixing. The other thing would be
marketshare-fixing.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Robert Myers]

Huh? Since when? This is the biggest and most profitable end of the
semiconductor industry, of course there's spoils of war to divide up
here -- lots of it. Of course, it's all AMD's to gain and all Intel's to
lose.

Tell that to Wall Street. Don't waste your time with me.

The high tech sector may take decades to get back to where it was
pre-bust. These are _not_ good times.

There's this thing called efficient market theory. You think you got
the landscape scoped better than the market, go make yourself rich.

Besides, the dividing of the spoils of war analogy also doesn't work
here. Dividing spoils of war involves two or more allies defeating an
enemy and dividing the enemy's territory amongst themselves. AMD and
Intel aren't an allied force going up against a common enemy; they are
each other's enemy, and in this case the territory all belongs to Intel
and it is defending itself against an invading AMD.


That's also illegal. It also falls into the same anti-trust laws, it's
collusion. It's no different than if AMD and Intel decided to one day
start pricing their processors exactly the same as each other at exactly
the same time -- this would be price-fixing. The other thing would be
marketshare-fixing.

That's how your mind works, apparently. AMD can sue Intel (not smart,
in my opinion), or it can come to some kind of agreement about the
rules of engagement. Such a thing could be a consent decree
supervised by a judge. It doesn't have to be public and it doesn't
have to be illegal. AMD and Intel would be colluding to keep, say,
Via out? I'd hope they wouldn't be so stupid.

RM

 

[George Macdonald]

Well, I don't know about how adolescent of a society they are. They've
shown themselves to be quite mature at growing their economy with adept
management, while their fellow Communist state, the Russians, have known
nothing but bad management until now.

Adept? AFAICT it's been spoon-fed to them every granule and molecule of
the way. A few favored "sons" were allowed to intern in the U.S. and have
been allowed the privilege of an "enterprise" operation... as long as they
toe the line. As your average city dweller hacks away at a lump of coal in
the street, to keep him warm overnight, one *does* wonder what goes through
his mind as he watches the meritocrats sweep past in their M-Bs, BMWs,
Lexus on their way to their luxu-condo in the purpose built
Western-emulation of the suburbs?? Talk about little red books and their
genesis!

As for the Russians, and their Eastern bloc "allies", their problem is the
rampant corruption which went from seedling under Communism to the sole
economic driving force under their present "system". Err, criminals tend
to not report their umm, incomes.

Oh don't you worry, we up here in Canuckistan have as much oil locked up
in our little tar sands as the entire global reserve (or something like
that). Once the price of oil gets to a certain level (fast approaching
now), we'll actually be able to extract it economically for you guys.

Trouble is its return on energy-in is kinda low - not much above 1.0 as I
hear it... and the way things are moving the Greens are going to stick
their noses in there - tailor-made for them.

So you're expecting an out of court settlement between the two? I can't
see AMD even having the option of keeping this out of the civil system,
once the indictment is upheld. AMD has been telling governments around
the world how much Intel is keeping it out of the markets. Here once a
government finally agrees, it's just going to shut up about it?

I don't know how it'd sit as far as fiscal responsibility with shareholders
in general goes but a court action has a stink all of its own... success
often goes to the moral loser, if not a trial, at appeal... C.F. RMBS. Out
of court settlement seems like the only way. I certainly don't see the
U.S. govt. clobbering Intel with an anti-trust suit.

 

[George Macdonald]

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:02:19 -0500, George Macdonald


That sounds right. American society was adolescent, too, when it grew
and innovated its way into being an industrial and technological
giant. Didn't have the huge population and poverty of China, though.

No comparison - the ingrained socio-political system is at opposite poles.

It is really hard to imagine how China manages to maintain stability,
but I wouldn't rule out nationalism and militarism as forces that
could drive a successful technology push.

We've already seen how that works... time and time again. Hell those
systems have a hard time getting the supply of basics [food, clothing &
shelter] working.

Another thing the energy modelers left off in the early going: the
cost of capital to exploit resources that are available. ;-)

What?... no pork barrel in China? Hard to believe! No, this is an oil
banking scheme IMO - IOW live off the Western-style established
infrastructure until the strain is palpable.

Taiwan and Japan seem to cope somehow. Back to the cost of capital
issue, building a microprocessor industry doesn't seem like a wise
investment for China, except to satisfy their miliary ambitions, which
they do have.

I was talking about the relative power of current VIA CPUs and their
ability to handle the job... which drags an Athlon XP 2500+ down pretty
badly. IOW I don't see how VIA satisfies the reqts for even the basics of
word processing, browsing etc. in Chinese chgaracters.

 

[George Macdonald]

I'd sure like to know what the royalty levels are that AMD
is paying Intel though.

Who says the money is flowing in that direction?

AMD is probably paying Intel royalties on the EV [Alpha] bus.
AFAIK, full-design royalties run 4% of sales, partial usage
much less. I'd expect AMD to be paying 1% or less.

It's in the agreement - see the URL I gave. AMD pays Intel a royalty per
CPU, on a sliding scale, for access to Intel's x86 technology's patent
portfolio.

Well so far Dell is not suffering... are the others so incompetent?

Dell hasn't suffered so far because Intel has been nice to them.

The new AMD notebook chips could be the key... if they're any
good. I am absolutely convinced that Intel's enthusiasm for
"platformization" based on the "Centrino success" is a total
misread. People don't buy notebooks because of Centrino.

Well, Centrino probably has been a marketing success. Is your
corp-speak to English translator broken? "Centrino success"
means "mobile Pentium4 cratered". And the PentiumM CPU of
Centrino is a P6, much closer to an Athlon than a Pentium4.
I suspect that AMD has a few tricks [patents] Intel wants.

The way I read it, Intel's marketroids are convinced their Centrino moniker
was a stroke of genius, which made *all* the difference in the Pentium-M
success... to the extent that "Desktrino" (apparently the internal name) is
in the works. My translator is not broken but I disagree strongly...
Intel's corporate culture is certainly broken though but we'll see.

 

[George Macdonald]

Yeah, the second-source model is a relic of ancient times, when silicon
output was a relative trickle compared to now. The mass production era
of IC production was barely underway when IBM decided that Intel needed
an AMD second source. Dell is operating from an era when IC's were
already commodity and their manufacturing process had become fairly well
understood.

I thought it was the U.S. military that insisted on the 2nd source for
x86s?

Intel is enthusiastic about the platform because it gets to bundle sales
of chipsets with processors together.

Intel has always been the principal suppiler of chipsets into the notebook
market almost without exception. How many non-Intel chipsets are in
notebooks with an Intel CPU? The NIC is pennies-worth to them. Note that
they resisted the hubris of including Extreme Graphics as part of the deal.
Everything I read indicates that Intel's marketroids see it as a grand
marketing coup of brand/name recognition... nothing of the sort IMO.

Personally I've bought 5 Centrino notebooks and Centrino had nothing to do
with the purchasing decision; in fact if a similar system had had a Cisco
NIC it would have been neither here nor there to me. If there had been a
notebook with similar *features* in a well designed case with an AMD CPU
I'd have bought that. Specifically, AMD just didn't have the battery life
or come in a quality case and with the vendor cachet for overall design or
support.

If I lived in Europe I'd have taken a serious look at the Fujitsu-Siemens
AMD systems but they are not an option in the U.S.... possibly because of
the Intel rules/incentives (choose one)?? Things *are* changing though:
until recently, it was difficult to get a WinXP Pro system with an AMD
notebook.

 

[George Macdonald]

Why does Intel absolutely need the cross-licensing agreement? The only
thing I can think of is that they'll need it for the access to the
x86-64, but what else?

Isn't that enough? I didn't think you'd be the one to need convincing
about x86-64 as a necessary component of future PCs. Beyond that I'm not
sure but I'm pretty sure that AMD has some other patents which might be of
interest, e.g. large L1 cache efficiency.

 

[The little lost angel]

absolutely convinced that Intel's enthusiasm for "platformization" based on
the "Centrino success" is a total misread. People don't buy notebooks
because of Centrino.

Do you mean people buying notebooks in general or people specifically
buying Centrino when they buy a notebook?

--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code

 

[George Macdonald]

Do you mean people buying notebooks in general or people specifically
buying Centrino when they buy a notebook?

I mean the supposed "success" of Centrino as a marketing exercise. IMO
people, and I'm including myself here of course, don't go out to buy and
say: "I gotta have one of them Centrino jobs"... unless maybe they're too
stupid to own a computer in the first place. Features are what sell a
system; in the case of Centrino, one of the most important features, given
that its performance is satisfactory, is the power management & battery
life which is mainly down to the Pentium M and its chipset; the NIC is a
throwaway which doesn't matter. In fact given the choice I'd avoid an
Intel-based NIC for just about any alternative.

 

[YKhan]

Tell that to Wall Street. Don't waste your time with me.

Don't worry, Wall Street knows it too. You're the only one that isn't
aware of it.

The high tech sector may take decades to get back to where it was
pre-bust. These are _not_ good times.

Even in a downturn, we're talking about tens to hundreds of billions of
dollars in sales here. Most of it currently going to Intel, obviously.
Is it a wonder why so many startup companies always try to get into the
x86 market, despite having to compete with Intel? Some firms (eg. VIA)
make steady income in this market with less than a 1% marketshare in
it. It's related markets, like chipsets and peripherals are also huge
money makers for companies.

There's this thing called efficient market theory. You think you got
the landscape scoped better than the market, go make yourself rich.

Please do explain this "efficient market theory" of which you speak. I
guess one of its theorems is "The x86 market is efficient only if Intel
makes the majority of x86 processors"?

That's how your mind works, apparently. AMD can sue Intel (not smart,
in my opinion), or it can come to some kind of agreement about the
rules of engagement. Such a thing could be a consent decree
supervised by a judge. It doesn't have to be public and it doesn't
have to be illegal. AMD and Intel would be colluding to keep, say,
Via out? I'd hope they wouldn't be so stupid.

There is something seriously wrong with your grasp on reality -- that's
how my mind works? Seriously, Robert that's how everybody's mind works.
There is not a single person who wouldn't describe what you were
suggesting as anything other than collusion. There is no such thing as
coming to an agreement about rules of engagement between two companies
-- those rules already exist, they are called the competition laws.
You're supposed to compete with your competitors, freely, fairly, and
to your fullest extent possible.

Yousuf Khan

 

[YKhan]

I thought it was the U.S. military that insisted on the 2nd source for
x86s?

No, I've always heard it was IBM that insisted on it. When IBM was
first making the PC, there really wasn't much of a market for PC's in
the military. The military would've been on mostly mainframes and
terminals at the time. Though there were other personal computers at
the time, they were mostly hobbyist or gaming machines (e.g. Commodore
64).

Intel has always been the principal suppiler of chipsets into the notebook
market almost without exception. How many non-Intel chipsets are in
notebooks with an Intel CPU?

Well, that's mainly because Intel has been driving most chipset
manufacturers out of its market in general, not just in notebooks.
There used to be a time prior to this when you'd see just as many
variations in notebook chipsets as you see in the desktop market, even
on Intel processors.

Everything I read indicates that Intel's marketroids see it as a grand
marketing coup of brand/name recognition... nothing of the sort IMO.

Yeah, there was a study done by AMD to find out if it should also adopt
platformization too. They found that most people really couldn't care
less if the machine was Centrino or not, all they cared about was the
laptop's own brandname. The only subsets that did care about Centrino
were techies, and secondly airport travellers who are bombarded with
Centrino ads in airports.

Speaking of airports, I took my laptop to the airport once, and I
couldn't find any access points most of the time.

If I lived in Europe I'd have taken a serious look at the Fujitsu-Siemens
AMD systems but they are not an option in the U.S.... possibly because of
the Intel rules/incentives (choose one)?? Things *are* changing though:
until recently, it was difficult to get a WinXP Pro system with an AMD
notebook.

Actually, as the Japanese authorities said, one Japanese company was
forced to limit marketshare of non-Intel processors to these levels:
90% Intel in Japan, 70% Intel in Europe, and 80% in the rest of the
world. So assuming similar agreements with other Japanese makers and
given that Europe had the lowest marketshare requirements, it must have
been much easier to find AMD notebooks over there.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Robert Myers]

up

Don't worry, Wall Street knows it too. You're the only one that isn't
aware of it.

For the past year, INTC has tracked the sector, down about 10% over the
past year. AMD has outperformed the sector, up about 10% over the past
year. If there is reaction to recent news from Japan, I don't see it
in the chart. AMD had quite a nice gain from September to December of
last year, but most of that gain is gone. AMD _is_ selling at about
twice the P/E of INTC, which means there's considerable optimism built
into the current price. Whatever explains that price, I doubt it is
the prospect of AMD suing Intel.

I'm not much of a chart reader, but if it's obvious to Wall Street, it
should be obvious in the chart. Build your own at www.bloomberg.com.

Even in a downturn, we're talking about tens to hundreds of billions of
dollars in sales here. Most of it currently going to Intel, obviously.
Is it a wonder why so many startup companies always try to get into the
x86 market, despite having to compete with Intel? Some firms (eg. VIA)
make steady income in this market with less than a 1% marketshare in
it. It's related markets, like chipsets and peripherals are also huge
money makers for companies.

google "etrade AND broker" and go crazy.

Please do explain this "efficient market theory" of which you speak. I
guess one of its theorems is "The x86 market is efficient only if Intel
makes the majority of x86 processors"?

google "efficient market theory" (exact phrase). The first hit gives a
concise and accurate explanation.

There is something seriously wrong with your grasp on reality -- that's
how my mind works? Seriously, Robert that's how everybody's mind works.
There is not a single person who wouldn't describe what you were
suggesting as anything other than collusion. There is no such thing as
coming to an agreement about rules of engagement between two companies
-- those rules already exist, they are called the competition laws.
You're supposed to compete with your competitors, freely, fairly, and
to your fullest extent possible.

I have been very slow to learn some things about life. One thing I
have learned is not to challenge how others perceive reality. Another
thing I have learned is that there is no such thing as how "everybody"
thinks.

When you say "there is not a single person..." you are either unaware
of how unlikely it is that such a statement would ever be true or you
are unaware of how unpersuasive bluster is in argumentation.

The circumstances are this: Intel believes its business practices are
legal. AMD believes otherwise. Both are presumably reading the same
law. That means there is a difference in interpretation of the law.
The two companies could agree as to specific interpretation of the law
with respect to specific business practices. _Then_ if Intel continued
with practices it has agreed are illegal, a lawsuit for AMD would be a
cake walk.

Why not just sue Intel now? No guarantee that AMD will prevail, even
with a judgment from Japan. Relief, if any, would be far into the
future. A carefully-drafted agreement, which need not be illegal,
could give AMD the level playing it wants sooner rather than later.

RM

 

[Robert Myers]

I was talking about the relative power of current VIA CPUs and their
ability to handle the job... which drags an Athlon XP 2500+ down pretty
badly. IOW I don't see how VIA satisfies the reqts for even the basics of
word processing, browsing etc. in Chinese chgaracters.

You know how I hate to be tedious, but the going word is that (say) an
800Mhz P3 is all anybody would ever need. I suspect that VIA will come
up to that standard soon. Are you saying China never will (without
seizing Taiwan, of course) or that an 800Mhz P3 is inadequate to do
Chinese text?

If the latter...I have a hard time imagining how that could be so. I
suspect poor programming, but I wouldn't mind being educated. I mean
*are* there tasks (other than computer games and bad programming) that
an 800 MHz PIII can't currently handle, and is this a real example?

One possible answer is that even Via wouldn't get there without IBM's
help, but I'm not sure I believe that.

RM

 

[George Macdonald]

No, I've always heard it was IBM that insisted on it. When IBM was
first making the PC, there really wasn't much of a market for PC's in
the military. The military would've been on mostly mainframes and
terminals at the time. Though there were other personal computers at
the time, they were mostly hobbyist or gaming machines (e.g. Commodore
64).

It's my understanding that the military was *very* interested in using 808x
CPUs, to the extent that some of the licensees, possibly Harris IIRC, also
specialized in making "hardened" versions.

Well, that's mainly because Intel has been driving most chipset
manufacturers out of its market in general, not just in notebooks.
There used to be a time prior to this when you'd see just as many
variations in notebook chipsets as you see in the desktop market, even
on Intel processors.

You'd have to go a long ways back to find any substantial volumes of
notebooks with non-Intel chipsets though... my point being that right now,
Centrino is not making sales of chipsets that would not otherwise be made.

Yeah, there was a study done by AMD to find out if it should also adopt
platformization too. They found that most people really couldn't care
less if the machine was Centrino or not, all they cared about was the
laptop's own brandname. The only subsets that did care about Centrino
were techies, and secondly airport travellers who are bombarded with
Centrino ads in airports.

AMD's "results" don't make sense to me: it's the techies who know that
Centrino doesn't mean anything... maybe self-proclaimed wannabe techies
don't know?

Speaking of airports, I took my laptop to the airport once, and I
couldn't find any access points most of the time.

I haven't tried it so can't say what the situation is... though I hear that
many Euro airports introduced Wi-Fi as a "freeby"... until it caught on.
There are also places where corrective action is/was needed to eliminate
previously non-intrusive, and therefore undetected, abuse of the ISM band.
Apparently if you live near a hospital, fahgeddabatit for Wi-Fi - they fill
up the entire band for a distance up to about 2 city blocks... which
violates the rules but their needs are err, "important".

Actually, as the Japanese authorities said, one Japanese company was
forced to limit marketshare of non-Intel processors to these levels:
90% Intel in Japan, 70% Intel in Europe, and 80% in the rest of the
world. So assuming similar agreements with other Japanese makers and
given that Europe had the lowest marketshare requirements, it must have
been much easier to find AMD notebooks over there.

I wouldn't call it *much* easier in Europe - one extra supplier in
Fujitsu-Siemens and even there they were playing the system down as a
"home" job.

 

[YKhan]

For the past year, INTC has tracked the sector, down about 10% over the
past year. AMD has outperformed the sector, up about 10% over the past
year. If there is reaction to recent news from Japan, I don't see it
in the chart. AMD had quite a nice gain from September to December of
last year, but most of that gain is gone. AMD _is_ selling at about
twice the P/E of INTC, which means there's considerable optimism built
into the current price. Whatever explains that price, I doubt it is
the prospect of AMD suing Intel.

Well, a large portion of AMD's stock market run up was probably due to
Intel's poor execution all of last year. And then there was a rumour
(started by Dell's management) that Dell might start using AMD. And
later there was the announcement (also by Dell's management) that Dell
wasn't going to use AMD afterall. But really, the stock market has
little to do with the business of any company: the stock market
operates more on human psychology than economics.

I'm not much of a chart reader, but if it's obvious to Wall Street, it
should be obvious in the chart. Build your own at www.bloomberg.com.

google "etrade AND broker" and go crazy.

google "efficient market theory" (exact phrase). The first hit gives a
concise and accurate explanation.

I'm starting to see a distinct stock market-centric view in your posts
now. While I'm talking about the actual business of these companies.
Probably explains our inability to figure each other out. As I said as
far as I'm concerned, the stock market isn't any indicator of economics
or business.

BTW, that definition of Efficient Market Theory is down below. It
sounds like a theory in the truest sense of the word, an academic
construct. It's an idealization that stock markets exactly reflect
economics, and economics are reflected in stock markets. Nothing can be
further from the truth here. Stock markets are subject to manipulation
by very rich players who are not interested in transmitting information
efficiently.

Definition: The Efficient Market Theory regards markets as
perfect. Efficient market theory implies that markets are efficient
transmitters of information that affects price. Efficient market theory
would indicate that the stock price reflects all available knowledge.
If the efficient market theory is true, then all kinds of stock
research is futile as the stock price fully "discounts" any information
or conclusion that can be drawn. The efficient market theory could be
extended to decipher the extent of "efficiency" of a market.

The circumstances are this: Intel believes its business practices are
legal. AMD believes otherwise. Both are presumably reading the same
law. That means there is a difference in interpretation of the law.
The two companies could agree as to specific interpretation of the law
with respect to specific business practices. _Then_ if Intel continued
with practices it has agreed are illegal, a lawsuit for AMD would be a
cake walk.

Well of course there's a difference in interpretation of the law. How
often does an accused criminal ever admit that they are guilty? There's
never any end of excuses.

And equally, the accuser strongly believes that they are in the right.
That's why the legal system has judges to sort these interpretations
out.

Why not just sue Intel now? No guarantee that AMD will prevail, even
with a judgment from Japan. Relief, if any, would be far into the
future. A carefully-drafted agreement, which need not be illegal,
could give AMD the level playing it wants sooner rather than later.

Why is there no guarantee that AMD will prevail after a judgement from
Japan? A guilty finding in a criminal case can be used in a civil case
as irrefutable evidence.

In the meantime, Intel cannot make any further contracts within that
jurisdiction that restrict AMD from doing business.

Yousuf Khan