C
chrisv
Remarkable. Of course, poor AMD is in one of those semi-obsolete
industries where you actually need factories to manufacture a product,
unlike M$...
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Remarkable. Of course, poor AMD is in one of those semi-obsolete
industries where you actually need factories to manufacture a product,
unlike M$...
B
Barry Watzman
I think you could argue that MS' campus in Seattle with tens of
thousands of programmers qualifies as a "software factory".
thousands of programmers qualifies as a "software factory".
B
Bernd Paysan
chrisv said:Remarkable. Of course, poor AMD is in one of those semi-obsolete
industries where you actually need factories to manufacture a product,
unlike M$...
Yes, really remarkable. The downside of not needing factories to manufacture
a product is that you can often download the competition for free.
Now, in the past I used to think MSFT is crossly overrated, because they
manage to keep the stock rising, and therefore the pension funds all put
their money into MSFT, instead of investing in something that's worth the
money, but they haven't performed well over the last 5 years (lost about
half of their market cap, approximately the same as Intel). Since Microsoft
paid employees based on their stock scam ("stock options), I supposed that
the day they don't manage to keep their stock rising further, they would
start to collapse. Now, that was approximately 5 years ago, when the .com
bubble burst, and the WTC sank into dust. Nothing happend. Do they now pay
real wages for their employees? Do they finally pay dividends to their
shareholders (yes, they actually do that, but it doesn't cover up the
losses)? Why didn't the pension funds take out their money? Because they
fear to lose the rest? They will, anyhow. Whatever you do, if you put your
money into a bubble, it is gone afterwards.
C
chrisv
Barry Watzman wrote:
(top posting corrected)
I wouldn't. I'd call it a design center. The 1's and 0's eventually
sold to consumers need not be "manufactured". (Yes, I realize that
I'm not strictly correct, because of the CD/DVD-stamping process, but
even that will go away, some day.)
(top posting corrected)
I think you could argue that MS' campus in Seattle with tens of
thousands of programmers qualifies as a "software factory".
I wouldn't. I'd call it a design center. The 1's and 0's eventually
sold to consumers need not be "manufactured". (Yes, I realize that
I'm not strictly correct, because of the CD/DVD-stamping process, but
even that will go away, some day.)
Z
Zak
Aren't cheap for whom? As of today AMD market cap stands at 9.8B - a
nice chunk of change for anyone, but, let's see...
MSFT market cap is 280B. AMD is exactly 3.5% of that. Buying it
outright will result in less of MSFT stock move than some
not-really-remarkable trading days produced. And there is no need to
buy the whole thing - about 25% would be enough to stuff AMD board
with MS people and dictate the directions. The only question: is MS
really up to making their own chips, or it's just a baseless rumor?
This would scare Intel. Who will then fully support Linux, just to
ensure their own future. Which would not be what MS wants. Thus?
Thomas
Z
Zak
chrisv said:Remarkable. Of course, poor AMD is in one of those semi-obsolete
industries where you actually need factories to manufacture a product,
unlike M$...
It may also be that a lot of MS stock is in the hands of insiders and is
not traded. This can drive up the price. If all stock would be on the
market, the price would be a lot lower.
Thomas
J
jacko
Zak said:It may also be that a lot of MS stock is in the hands of insiders and is
not traded. This can drive up the price. If all stock would be on the
market, the price would be a lot lower.
maybe they licence http:indi.microfpga.com futures ;-)
N
nobody
This would scare Intel. Who will then fully support Linux, just to
ensure their own future. Which would not be what MS wants. Thus?
Thomas
Poor linuxoids - they wouldn't touch anything MS, so there will be no
more AMD for them. Nor ATi. <grin/>
And if (in this hypothetical situation) Intel will not keep their best
effort to support Windows and to be #1 performer on Windows, guess
what? Corporations will rather switch their hardware base to
competition than switch their software platform. How much is a server
(the box itself)? A few 1000$. The apps running on it? Easily tens
of 1000$, possibly millions. Go count replacement costs.
To sum it up, if Intel (or any hardware maker, for that matter) loses
its focus on MS in favor of Linux or Mac or whatever else, they risk
to be relegated to the ranks of niche players. Even if tomorrow MS
buys AMD, and VIA, TMTA, and NVDA to round things up, Intel will still
listen to Redmond, or it soon will be no more.
NNN
D
Douglas Siebert
Intel talks a lot of BS, it's all part of trying to keep their stock
price from hitting rock bottom. 80 cores glued together, that should be
something! lol!
If you believe what Intel says they'll have in 4-5 years, you should be
about ready to buy your 10 GHz P4 for xmas!
K
Ketil Malde
Bernd Paysan said:Remarkable. [...]MSFT market cap is 280B. AMD is exactly 3.5% of that.
Yes, really remarkable. The downside of not needing factories to manufacture
a product is that you can often download the competition for free.
Not a problem, as long as enough people keep buying your product.
Why didn't the pension funds take out their money [that is invested
in MS]? Because they fear to lose the rest? They will,
anyhow. Whatever you do, if you put your money into a bubble, it
is gone afterwards.
Because MS is profitable? MS has a P/E of 23.57 and a net income of
about $12B. Compared to 2005, revenues and profits are up, and
margins are stable. Doesn't look to gloomy, IMO.
http://www.google.com/finance?q=MSFT
-k
J
jsavard
Sun actually
fits the bill in terms of cash, but anti-trust issues (namely Solaris)
may get in the way. The most logical candidate is AMD - both top
notch x86 and high end graphics in one not-so-big gulp, no software or
other strings attached.
As anti-trust laws also restrict *vertical* integration, even buying
AMD would not be possible.
I think, however, they will just design an architecture, and let Intel
or AMD or IBM or Motorola supply the chips.
John Savard
A
Alexander Terekhov
Solaris? I've heard that Solaris is nowadays Open Source (as in OSI(TM)).
And while the CDDL is not quite "strong copyleft"--The GNU President even
labels it as "GPL Incompatible"(TM)--but still ...
.... true. See below, provisions for derivative works under CDDL
and GPL are pretty much the same (regarding reciprocation and price).
To quote Judge Tinder:
http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/Wallace_v_FSF/Wallace_v_FSF-30.pdf
"In the provision relevant here, the GPL directs users to “cause
any work that [they] distribute or publish, that in whole or in
part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof,
to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under
the terms of this License.” (GPL 3.) This language indicates that
the GPL is typically entered into between licensees and licensors,
with the intent of prohibiting licensees from charging a fee for
use of certain computer software programs. This scheme, which
involves an agreement among different levels of users within the
same chain of distribution, is a vertical agreement. And as a
vertical agreement, the GPL alone cannot form the basis of a per
se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. See State Oil Co.
v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 22 (1997) (“vertical maximum price fixing,
like the majority of commercial arrangements subject to antitrust
laws, should be evaluated under the rule of reason.”). Therefore,
the court must turn to whether Mr. Wallace has adequately alleged
that the GPL violates the rule of reason."
And on that turn, the court ruled:
"To establish a Section 1 claim under the rule of reason test, a
plaintiff must prove that "(1) that the defendants contracted,
combined, or conspired among each other; (2) that the combination
or conspiracy produced adverse, anti-competitive effects within
relevant product and geographic markets; (3) that the objects of
and the conduct pursuant to that contract or conspiracy were
illegal; and (4) that the plaintiffs were injured as a proximate
result of that conspiracy." Tunis Bros. Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 952
F.2d 715, 722 (3d Cir. 1991). In this case, it appears that Mr.
Wallace has made the necessary allegations of FSF's unlawful
contract and conduct. In his Third Amended Complaint, he
specifically alleges that FSF conspired with others, including
International Business Machines Corporation, Red Hat Inc. and
Novell Inc., to control the price of available software within a
defined market through the GPL. Primarily at issue in FSF's motion
is whether Mr. Wallace has adequately alleged that the GPL had
a resulting anticompetitive effect.
[... reduction in IP output under GPL price-dumping conspiracy ...]
This may be considered anticompetitive effect, and it certainly can
be inferred from what Mr. Wallace alleges in his Third Amended
Complaint. Therefore, this court finds that the Third Amended
Complaint states a claim for violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act, under the rule of reason doctrine."
(Judge Tinder nevertheless later dismissed the case on
jurisdictional/standing ground). IBM, Red Hat, and Novell now
claim "estoppel" for Wallace failure to appeal Tinder's bogus
judgment. From Wallace's filing to the 7th Circuit (Case No. 06-2454
aka Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division Case No.
1:05-cv-00678-RLY-VSS The Honorable Judge Richard L. Young):
-------
Estoppel
Wallace requested injunctive relief under §16 of the Clayton Act for
“threatened harm” in violation of the Sherman Act §1 conspiracy statute.
In a continuing conspiracy, individual coconspirators perform
different roles based upon different acts but remain liable for acts
committed by all (Pinkerton Doctrine) and multiple causes of action may
accrue. (“In the context of a continuing conspiracy to violate the antitrust
laws, such as the conspiracy in the instant case, this has usually been
understood to mean that each time a plaintiff is injured by an act of the
defendants a cause of action accrues to him to recover the damages
caused by that act. . . “) (Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, 401
U.S. 321, 338).
The fact that a single coconspirator such as the Free Software
Foundation, Inc. was found not liable in one proceeding involving a
continuing conspiracy, where there are multiple alleged coconspirators,
does not bar the possibility that two or more remaining coconspirators
could be found liable in a separate cause of action based upon different
future acts. The Zenith holding is especially cogent in the present case in
view of the allegation of “thousands” of coconspirators.
IBM et al.’s "estoppel" argument was never made to or addressed
by the district court and, therefore, should not be made for the first time
in this Court. By raising the doctrine of estoppel for the first time on
appeal at this stage of the proceedings, Wallace was prevented from
adequately preparing the record and arguments in this appeal
The parties to this suit (Wallace v. IBM et al.) and the prior suit
(Wallace v. Free Software Foundation, Inc)., met in pre-trial conference
[Wallace v. IBM et al. Supp. App. dkt. #44] on August 18, 2005. Matters
were discussed at pre-trial conference concerning Wallace v. Free
Software Foundation, Inc. in conjunction with Wallace v. IBM et al.
concerning joinder that would have barred claims of estoppel.
ENTRY FOR AUGUST 18, 2005 MAGISTRATE JUDGE V. SUE SHIELDS
Plaintiff appears in person and defendants appear by counsel for pretrial
conference. Conference held and concluded during which the
“companion” case, Wallace v. Free Software Foundation, Inc., 1:05-cv-
618-JDT-TAB is discussed in conjunction with this case. Order to follow.
Judge Young ordered the agreements implemented on
November 28, 2005 [Wallace v. IBM et al. Supp. App. dkt. #47].
Entry Concerning Selected Matters
The court, having considered the above action and the matters which are
pending, makes the following rulings:
1. With respect to the status conference conducted on August 18, 2005,
the parties shall proceed as directed and agreed at that conference.
The agreement at that pretrial conference concerning joinder of the
defendants in the two separate cases would be fatal to the present claim
of estoppel. To allow IBM et al. to raise estoppel on appeal for the first
time in lieu of first arguing to the district court would inflict a manifest
injustice upon Wallace.
The final judgment in Wallace v. Free Software Foundation, Inc.
constitutes a void judgment under Seventh Circuit precedent. Judge
Tinder granted dismissal [Red Hat and Novell’s Supp. App. at 12]
pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted although the reason given was lack of
“antitrust injury” (lack of standing). In the Seventh Circuit, since the
decision in Frederiksen v. City of Lockport, 384 F.3d 437 at 438 (7th Cir.
2004), issues of standing are required to be dismissed pursuant to
F.R.Civ.P. Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter-jurisdiction.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons above stated, the Court should reverse the order
dismissing plaintiff Daniel Wallace’s complaint and remand for further
proceedings.
Respectfully submitted,
.....
And while the CDDL is not quite "strong copyleft"--The GNU President even
labels it as "GPL Incompatible"(TM)--but still ...
As anti-trust laws also restrict *vertical* ...
.... true. See below, provisions for derivative works under CDDL
and GPL are pretty much the same (regarding reciprocation and price).
To quote Judge Tinder:
http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/Wallace_v_FSF/Wallace_v_FSF-30.pdf
"In the provision relevant here, the GPL directs users to “cause
any work that [they] distribute or publish, that in whole or in
part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof,
to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under
the terms of this License.” (GPL 3.) This language indicates that
the GPL is typically entered into between licensees and licensors,
with the intent of prohibiting licensees from charging a fee for
use of certain computer software programs. This scheme, which
involves an agreement among different levels of users within the
same chain of distribution, is a vertical agreement. And as a
vertical agreement, the GPL alone cannot form the basis of a per
se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. See State Oil Co.
v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 22 (1997) (“vertical maximum price fixing,
like the majority of commercial arrangements subject to antitrust
laws, should be evaluated under the rule of reason.”). Therefore,
the court must turn to whether Mr. Wallace has adequately alleged
that the GPL violates the rule of reason."
And on that turn, the court ruled:
"To establish a Section 1 claim under the rule of reason test, a
plaintiff must prove that "(1) that the defendants contracted,
combined, or conspired among each other; (2) that the combination
or conspiracy produced adverse, anti-competitive effects within
relevant product and geographic markets; (3) that the objects of
and the conduct pursuant to that contract or conspiracy were
illegal; and (4) that the plaintiffs were injured as a proximate
result of that conspiracy." Tunis Bros. Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 952
F.2d 715, 722 (3d Cir. 1991). In this case, it appears that Mr.
Wallace has made the necessary allegations of FSF's unlawful
contract and conduct. In his Third Amended Complaint, he
specifically alleges that FSF conspired with others, including
International Business Machines Corporation, Red Hat Inc. and
Novell Inc., to control the price of available software within a
defined market through the GPL. Primarily at issue in FSF's motion
is whether Mr. Wallace has adequately alleged that the GPL had
a resulting anticompetitive effect.
[... reduction in IP output under GPL price-dumping conspiracy ...]
This may be considered anticompetitive effect, and it certainly can
be inferred from what Mr. Wallace alleges in his Third Amended
Complaint. Therefore, this court finds that the Third Amended
Complaint states a claim for violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act, under the rule of reason doctrine."
(Judge Tinder nevertheless later dismissed the case on
jurisdictional/standing ground). IBM, Red Hat, and Novell now
claim "estoppel" for Wallace failure to appeal Tinder's bogus
judgment. From Wallace's filing to the 7th Circuit (Case No. 06-2454
aka Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division Case No.
1:05-cv-00678-RLY-VSS The Honorable Judge Richard L. Young):
-------
Estoppel
Wallace requested injunctive relief under §16 of the Clayton Act for
“threatened harm” in violation of the Sherman Act §1 conspiracy statute.
In a continuing conspiracy, individual coconspirators perform
different roles based upon different acts but remain liable for acts
committed by all (Pinkerton Doctrine) and multiple causes of action may
accrue. (“In the context of a continuing conspiracy to violate the antitrust
laws, such as the conspiracy in the instant case, this has usually been
understood to mean that each time a plaintiff is injured by an act of the
defendants a cause of action accrues to him to recover the damages
caused by that act. . . “) (Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, 401
U.S. 321, 338).
The fact that a single coconspirator such as the Free Software
Foundation, Inc. was found not liable in one proceeding involving a
continuing conspiracy, where there are multiple alleged coconspirators,
does not bar the possibility that two or more remaining coconspirators
could be found liable in a separate cause of action based upon different
future acts. The Zenith holding is especially cogent in the present case in
view of the allegation of “thousands” of coconspirators.
IBM et al.’s "estoppel" argument was never made to or addressed
by the district court and, therefore, should not be made for the first time
in this Court. By raising the doctrine of estoppel for the first time on
appeal at this stage of the proceedings, Wallace was prevented from
adequately preparing the record and arguments in this appeal
The parties to this suit (Wallace v. IBM et al.) and the prior suit
(Wallace v. Free Software Foundation, Inc)., met in pre-trial conference
[Wallace v. IBM et al. Supp. App. dkt. #44] on August 18, 2005. Matters
were discussed at pre-trial conference concerning Wallace v. Free
Software Foundation, Inc. in conjunction with Wallace v. IBM et al.
concerning joinder that would have barred claims of estoppel.
ENTRY FOR AUGUST 18, 2005 MAGISTRATE JUDGE V. SUE SHIELDS
Plaintiff appears in person and defendants appear by counsel for pretrial
conference. Conference held and concluded during which the
“companion” case, Wallace v. Free Software Foundation, Inc., 1:05-cv-
618-JDT-TAB is discussed in conjunction with this case. Order to follow.
Judge Young ordered the agreements implemented on
November 28, 2005 [Wallace v. IBM et al. Supp. App. dkt. #47].
Entry Concerning Selected Matters
The court, having considered the above action and the matters which are
pending, makes the following rulings:
1. With respect to the status conference conducted on August 18, 2005,
the parties shall proceed as directed and agreed at that conference.
The agreement at that pretrial conference concerning joinder of the
defendants in the two separate cases would be fatal to the present claim
of estoppel. To allow IBM et al. to raise estoppel on appeal for the first
time in lieu of first arguing to the district court would inflict a manifest
injustice upon Wallace.
The final judgment in Wallace v. Free Software Foundation, Inc.
constitutes a void judgment under Seventh Circuit precedent. Judge
Tinder granted dismissal [Red Hat and Novell’s Supp. App. at 12]
pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted although the reason given was lack of
“antitrust injury” (lack of standing). In the Seventh Circuit, since the
decision in Frederiksen v. City of Lockport, 384 F.3d 437 at 438 (7th Cir.
2004), issues of standing are required to be dismissed pursuant to
F.R.Civ.P. Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter-jurisdiction.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons above stated, the Court should reverse the order
dismissing plaintiff Daniel Wallace’s complaint and remand for further
proceedings.
Respectfully submitted,
.....
C
chrisv
Poor linuxoids - they wouldn't touch anything MS, so there will be no
more AMD for them. Nor ATi. <grin/>
And if (in this hypothetical situation) Intel will not keep their best
effort to support Windows and to be #1 performer on Windows, guess
what? Corporations will rather switch their hardware base to
competition than switch their software platform. How much is a server
(the box itself)? A few 1000$. The apps running on it? Easily tens
of 1000$, possibly millions. Go count replacement costs.
To sum it up, if Intel (or any hardware maker, for that matter) loses
its focus on MS in favor of Linux or Mac or whatever else, they risk
to be relegated to the ranks of niche players. Even if tomorrow MS
buys AMD, and VIA, TMTA, and NVDA to round things up, Intel will still
listen to Redmond, or it soon will be no more.
So much idiocy in one post, I wouldn't know where to begin.
J
jack
: (e-mail address removed) wrote:
:
:: Poor linuxoids - they wouldn't touch anything MS, so there
:: will be no more AMD for them. Nor ATi. <grin/>
:: And if (in this hypothetical situation) Intel will not keep
:: their best effort to support Windows and to be #1 performer
:: on Windows, guess what? Corporations will rather switch
:: their hardware base to competition than switch their software
:: platform. How much is a server (the box itself)? A few
:: 1000$. The apps running on it? Easily tens of 1000$,
:: possibly millions. Go count replacement costs.
:: To sum it up, if Intel (or any hardware maker, for that
:: matter) loses its focus on MS in favor of Linux or Mac or
:: whatever else, they risk to be relegated to the ranks of
:: niche players. Even if tomorrow MS buys AMD, and VIA, TMTA,
:: and NVDA to round things up, Intel will still listen to
:: Redmond, or it soon will be no more.
:
: So much idiocy in one post, I wouldn't know where to begin.
Agreed. This whole thread has all the earmarks of postings made by 15-17
year olds. I can't believe the likes of krw, Dell, or even yourself have
responded to it. In fact, time to PLONK the whole thing! Later, Chris.
j.
:
:: Poor linuxoids - they wouldn't touch anything MS, so there
:: will be no more AMD for them. Nor ATi. <grin/>
:: And if (in this hypothetical situation) Intel will not keep
:: their best effort to support Windows and to be #1 performer
:: on Windows, guess what? Corporations will rather switch
:: their hardware base to competition than switch their software
:: platform. How much is a server (the box itself)? A few
:: 1000$. The apps running on it? Easily tens of 1000$,
:: possibly millions. Go count replacement costs.
:: To sum it up, if Intel (or any hardware maker, for that
:: matter) loses its focus on MS in favor of Linux or Mac or
:: whatever else, they risk to be relegated to the ranks of
:: niche players. Even if tomorrow MS buys AMD, and VIA, TMTA,
:: and NVDA to round things up, Intel will still listen to
:: Redmond, or it soon will be no more.
:
: So much idiocy in one post, I wouldn't know where to begin.
Agreed. This whole thread has all the earmarks of postings made by 15-17
year olds. I can't believe the likes of krw, Dell, or even yourself have
responded to it. In fact, time to PLONK the whole thing! Later, Chris.
j.
G
Gary
krw said:Just what "relatively small start up" has a bleeding edge CPU these
days? How many "relatively small start up" CPU companies are there
these days? Now, I could see them trying to tackle a graphics chip
(nvidia?).
"Relatively small" depends on what you're relative to.
PA is available, I think. Even if they're not bleeding edge, they're
certainly well capable to playing there. If not PA, there are other
startups. Whatever Raza is called now, or maybe those Kilocore
guys?
Me, I am guessing it will be another Talisman. Nothing to get terribly
excited over.
- Gary
S
Stephen Sprunk
AirRaid said:http://tinyurl.com/ydtq7k (nytimes.com)
http://games.kikizo.com/news/200610/063.asp
http://tinyurl.com/yadece (teamxbox.com)
http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=68767
it seems Microsoft will try to design its own multi-core CPUs.
For a less sensationalist and more believable explanation, take a look
at:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4665
S