News Intel CEO Argues for Largest Slice of $52bn US CHIPS Act Pie

[bit_user]

Why exactly are you so opposed to stock-based compensation? What does it matter if the company pays the CEO $X in cash, or $X worth of equity (or $X worth of options)? I don't think the stock/options approach is inherently more favorable to the CEO (it has benefits, but also drawbacks).

A downside of payment in stocks or stock options is that it dilutes the shares and depresses the stock price, over the long term. This is one reason companies do share buy-backs.

IMO, if compensation by stock options were done in reasonable quantities and with sufficiently long vesting periods, it'd be well worth the relatively minor dilution.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Yes, that is how employee stock options work, the employee still needs to use their own money to exercise the option if they want to actually buy the stock. Or they they could just sell the option (I assume, based on how normal stock options work, although maybe there are extra regulations for employee stock options, particularly for executives).

The normal vestiture time for a Stock Option was 1 year as a rank & file employee of MS.

That's how it was when I was part of them.

C-Suite execs should have much longer regulations for vestiture.

Why exactly are you so opposed to stock-based compensation? What does it matter if the company pays the CEO $X in cash, or $X worth of equity (or $X worth of options)? I don't think the stock/options approach is inherently more favorable to the CEO (it has benefits, but also drawbacks).

Because some CEO's will be tempted for "Short Term Gains" for Pump/Dump of their stocks to get money instead of doing what's the best decisions for the "Long Term" health of the company.

 

[rluker5]

Nothing wrong with patriotism, but everything is wrong when its blind patriotism.
Example, not only ignoring the part that I said (turning a blind eye to their iligal actions) but now attacking me directly because I dared saying so.

You ignored the part where I said I am american but I dont approve or support dirty companies.

This is exactly what I'm talking about, are you seriously saying that?

The 10 Biggest Intel Lawsuits in Company History

The Intel Corporation is a tech business that is known throughout the world. It designs computer components and manufactures and sells them along with

lawyerinc.com

Dell to Pay $100 Million Settlement (Published 2010)

The Securities and Exchange Commission accused Dell of misleading investors by using money it had received from Intel to pad its quarterly earnings statements.

www.nytimes.com

Intel stuck with $1.45 billion fine in Europe for unfair and damaging practices against AMD

Intel will be paying the full $1.44B fine it owes the EU after losing its bid to overturn the action.

www.extremetech.com

My guess is that you are deliberately ignoring the news because ...blind patriotism?

Well, since the law only applies to us the plebs, they were "punished" with slap on the wrist and many, many settlements.

Perfect example of turning a blind eye+attacking the person credibility because...blind patriotism?

In the end, the excuses presented confirm my posts.

Being pro local manufacturing is different than being a patriot.

You have yet to point out a proven crime committed by Intel.

What did Intel do to the consumer during the quad core era when they were supposedly hurting consumers?
They kept prices steady, kept improvements coming and didn't try to exploit the situation like Nvidia and AMD with their duopoly.
AMD tried to charge the same or more than Intel, claiming to have octacore chips that were in fact inferior quad core chips. They tried charging $920 for a 220w quad core 9590 while the better 4770k was selling for just over $300.

When AMD caught up with Zen 3 and 4 they largely abandoned the budget market.
They have outsourced their manufacturing and are outsourcing much of their engineering.

Yes Intel has had industry conflicts. No company is perfect, but they have been more pro consumer than their industry peers.

But concerning this article, a bill was passed to spend money promoting US chip manufacturing for the purposes of helping the US economy and for strategic supply chain interests. The money should be spent in the most effective way to do that. Giving Intel more of the money than a couple of foreign corporations opening up some shops here sounds like an easy conclusion to reach. Texas Instruments should get more than TSMC or Samsung. Not that I'm against TSMC or Samsung setting up some manufacturing in the US, they just don't benefit the local taxpayers as much with their more limited presence.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

So we both agree, competition is terrible, yet at the start you said that it's good.

We still need more competitors in every field.

The more, the better.

If a industry doesn't have at least Double-Digit Competitors for any given product / market, there is a serious risk of it collapsing into monopolies or oligopolies.

That's why if any market has "Single-Digit" number of major companies, there should be a "AUTO FREEZE" to prevent companies from buying each other out and consolidating.

Just go look at other markets that have healthy competition, and you can see real innovation.

 

[bit_user]

If a industry doesn't have at least Double-Digit Competitors for any given product / market, there is a serious risk of it collapsing into monopolies or oligopolies.

That seems rather extreme. Is this just your personal belief, or is it informed by any accomplished and respected economists?

Just go look at other markets that have healthy competition, and you can see real innovation.

Such as?

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

That seems rather extreme. Is this just your personal belief, or is it informed by any accomplished and respected economists?

Based on life experience and seeing entire industries collapse down to monopolies or oligopolies.

The Video Game Console industry used to have plenty of competition, then it slowly collapsed down to the current triopoly.

There used to be ALOT of Video Card GPU manufacturers back in the day.
Now there's 3x for desktop. (Intel Arc is still on shaky foundations).

There was once many manufacturers with the x86 license.
Now there's two.
It's so sad that nVIDIA couldn't get a x86 license for whatever reason.

At one point, there used to be ALOT of various Telecom / ISP's to choose from, then they consolidated & bought each other out.

Such as?

The Stationary Market, there are Plenty of manufacturers of Pens/Pencils around the world
Automobiles has plenty of manufacturers globally.
Headphone market
FireArms
GA (General Aviation) Aircraft
Game Controllers

Those are just some of the healthier markets where you have choice in product.

 

[NeoMorpheus]

You have to understand that the main function of a settlement is to settle a dispute and not to convict somebody, anything that gets settled is not and has never been illegal, it's only illegal if you get convicted for it.
Settlements are like some casual acquaintance telling you that you own them money, one company comes up with a reason why another company could possibly own them something and start a settlement to cash in.

https://www.amd.com/content/dam/amd/en/documents/pdfs/corporate/amd-intel-settlement-agreement-full.pdf

You know very well thats a cheap way out or as others will say “a technicality “.

We can do the words and definitions dance to infinity.

What matters is how they acted, what they got out of their actions and the consequences to the affected parties and us the consumers.

I swear, if Hittler were alive today, doing all the things that he did, there will be people making excuses to dismiss and even justify his actions.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

I swear, if Hittler were alive today, doing all the things that he did, there will be people making excuses to dismiss and even justify his actions.

There are already dispicable bastards who do that today while he's long dead.

 

[bit_user]

I swear, if ...

Uh oh. Please mind Godwin's Law (and corollaries thereof). Thanks.

 

[TerryLaze]

Based on life experience and seeing entire industries collapse down to monopolies or oligopolies.

The Video Game Console industry used to have plenty of competition, then it slowly collapsed down to the current triopoly.

There used to be ALOT of Video Card GPU manufacturers back in the day.
Now there's 3x for desktop. (Intel Arc is still on shaky foundations).

There was once many manufacturers with the x86 license.
Now there's two.
It's so sad that nVIDIA couldn't get a x86 license for whatever reason.

At one point, there used to be ALOT of various Telecom / ISP's to choose from, then they consolidated & bought each other out.


The Stationary Market, there are Plenty of manufacturers of Pens/Pencils around the world
Automobiles has plenty of manufacturers globally.
Headphone market
FireArms
GA (General Aviation) Aircraft
Game Controllers

Those are just some of the healthier markets where you have choice in product.

Yes, that's what competition is, the companies that make less money make less and less money until they can't keep going anymore, at that point it does make even less sense for a new company to try and enter that market having to compete starting from zero, at least for high-tech and other markets that need a lot of know-how or specialized equipment.

Also there is no license for x86, there are buttloads of licenses based on x86 that you would need to make a worthwhile CPU that would be able to get close to competing.
Without the cross-licensing between amd and intel both companies would have worthless products.

Just go look at other markets that have healthy competition, and you can see real innovation.

The gpu designer market is healthy but companies still drop out because it's just not worth it to compete.

EVGA Abandons the GPU Market, Reportedly Citing Conflicts With Nvidia

A huge shift in the GPU business.

www.tomshardware.com

You know very well thats a cheap way out or as others will say “a technicality “.

We can do the words and definitions dance to infinity.

What matters is how they acted, what they got out of their actions and the consequences to the affected parties and us the consumers.

I swear, if Hittler were alive today, doing all the things that he did, there will be people making excuses to dismiss and even justify his actions.

And the only way to know how they acted is to get PROOF, and they didn't get ANY proof AT ALL against intel. They only had accusations against them.
If AMD had any proof but didn't take them to actual court then that's on AMD more so than it is on intel.

I guess if hitler were alive you would be amongst the first to champion him for burning people without any proof and just based on accusations...

 

[bit_user]

The gpu designer market is healthy but companies still drop out because it's just not worth it to compete.

EVGA Abandons the GPU Market, Reportedly Citing Conflicts With Nvidia

A huge shift in the GPU business.

www.tomshardware.com

I find it amusing that the only place "competition" factored into that article was (unfair) competition with Nvidia and its Founders Edition boards. Not your run-of-the-mill competition with peers, like we're talking about.

And the only way to know how they acted is to get PROOF, and they didn't get ANY proof AT ALL against intel. They only had accusations against them.

Whatever they had was still worth $$$, or Intel wouldn't have settled. Usually, if you sue and lose, the defendant can then turn around and try to sue you for the costs of bringing a frivolous lawsuit. So, a lawsuit isn't something someone would usually bring without a pretty good case.

For their part, a defendant doesn't usually settle if they can afford to go to court and think they have a good chance of winning. So, while a settlement might not be a formal admission of guilt, for those who can afford to fight a case, it usually amounts to one.

Also, when a case goes to court, the evidence normally becomes public record. So, you sometimes see companies settle in order to avoid embarrassing facts coming to light - usually ones which could hurt their image with customers and/or provide fuel for further lawsuits.

If AMD had any proof but didn't take them to actual court then that's on AMD more so than it is on intel.

A business is just about $$$. So, if a settlement is offered that addresses the harm, then there's no point in going to court, even if the other party is guilty as sin and there's all the evidence in the world to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[TerryLaze]

I find it amusing that the only place "competition" factored into that article was (unfair) competition with Nvidia and its Founders Edition boards. Not your run-of-the-mill competition with peers, like we're talking about.

The argument was to look at a market with healthy competition and my point is that in such an market the margins are so small that even companies that seemingly do well just quit because it's not worth it to them anymore.

Also the point to take away isn't that nvidia competes with their own cards but rather this little nugget.
The board partners have to design their whole line up and produce enough of them for the launch without having any idea how much that will cost them because they don't know the price they will get the chips for and they also don't know their margins before hand because of price-ceilings.

"Both videos suggest that EVGA feels that Nvidia has stifled it, and suggest they don't find out details like MSRP, costs to buy GPU chips and more until Nvidia announces them, often publicly on stage. There is also talk of price ceilings as well as not being able to customize cards by changing the specs, like adding more memory. "

Whatever they had was still worth $$$, or Intel wouldn't have settled. Usually, if you sue and lose, the defendant can then turn around and try to sue you for the costs of bringing a frivolous lawsuit. So, a lawsuit isn't something someone would usually bring without a pretty good case.

For their part, a defendant doesn't usually settle if they can afford to go to court and think they have a good chance of winning. So, while a settlement might not be a formal admission of guilt, for those who can afford to fight a case, it usually amounts to one.

Also, when a case goes to court, the evidence normally becomes public record. So, you sometimes see companies settle in order to avoid embarrassing facts coming to light - usually ones which could hurt their image with customers and/or provide fuel for further lawsuits.

Yes, if the case went to court and intel won then AMD would have been completely bankrupt and intel would lose their cross-licensing.
And that is if the FTC wouldn't break them up at that point due to them then being a monopoly.
If intel lost then the money they would have to pay wouldn't be much different, I guess.
So there was no win-scenario for intel there in case of court.

Same goes for pretty much any settlement they agree to, if it goes to court and they lose the ability to make CPUs for the duration of the case, which could be years, or even worse they lose the IP, then they are screwed.

A business is just about $$$. So, if a settlement is offered that addresses the harm, then there's no point in going to court, even if the other party is guilty as sin and there's all the evidence in the world to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

In general maybe, for this specific case AMD could win the anti-trust part but still lose the ability to make CPUs altogether, one of the points of dispute was about if GF was legally able to use the cross-license or not.

https://www.amd.com/content/dam/amd/en/documents/pdfs/corporate/amd-intel-settlement-agreement-full.pdf

3. GF Dispute . On or about March 9, 2009, AMD closed a transaction with Advanced Technology Investment Company“ATIC” through which, among other actions, ATIC and AMD created a venture called GLOBALFOUNDRIES (“ GF ”), transferredAMD’s wafer manufacturing operations to GF, and claimed that GF was a subsidiary as defined under a January 1, 2001 Intel/AMDpatent cross-license, and as such, entitled to rights thereunder. Intel claims that various aspects of this transaction have breached theIntel/AMD patent cross-license. Intel also has advised AMD and GF that by using, manufacturing, selling, offering to sell and/orimporting products utilizing Intel’s patented inventions without a license, AMD and GF are each infringing certain of Intel’s patents. Inresponse, AMD has accused Intel of breaching that patent cross-license.

 

[NeoMorpheus]

And the only way to know how they acted is to get PROOF, and they didn't get ANY proof AT ALL against intel. They only had accusations against them.

Really?

If AMD had any proof but didn't take them to actual court then that's on AMD more so than it is on intel.

Really??
But a decent response was posted by bit_user, so no need to hammer the nail anymore.

I guess if hitler were alive you would be amongst the first to champion him for burning people without any proof and just based on accusations...

I knew that someone was going to twist the post to that. Never fails.

 

[NeoMorpheus]

Uh oh. Please mind Godwin's Law (and corollaries thereof). Thanks.

Well, that man is right and perhaps he should add that someone else (not you) will then twist it in ways to make the narrator seen as someone that approves of such actions. ;-)

 

[bit_user]

The argument was to look at a market with healthy competition and my point is that in such an market the margins are so small that even companies that seemingly do well just quit because it's not worth it to them anymore.

Because, among other reasons, the GPU market tanked and they were facing unfair competition from a supplier. Therefore, EVGA isn't a good counterexample. BTW, all of these factors were also hitting EVGA's peers, yet they were the only casualty. That suggests they were facing other issues, as well. When companies fail, it's usually not just one thing that went wrong.

But, even if they still folded without competition from Nvidia, it happens. Companies make mistakes, have bad management, or get hit with a confluence of negative events that sometimes pushes them over the edge. So, this really isn't a matter of single examples. This gets at the fundamentals of market economics and capitalism, which I think is a bit too big to take on in this thread.

I will say this: competitive markets seem to stabilize at a relatively small number of players - smaller than what @Kamen Rider Blade was proposing. So, EVGA exiting the business isn't too alarming to me. I really liked the only EVGA card I ever bought, years ago, but I can't comment on their more recent products. Anyway, that's just how it goes.

Same goes for pretty much any settlement they agree to, if it goes to court and they lose the ability to make CPUs for the duration of the case, which could be years, or even worse they lose the IP, then they are screwed.

While it's possible there could be an injunction issued blocking product sales for a flagrant violation of IP or licensing, that's exceedingly rare. It's quite likely Intel would be able to continue its operations and remediate the aggrieved party after the case is settled. It's only when there's irreparable harm being done that such an injunction could stand.

 

[TerryLaze]

I knew that someone was going to twist the post to that. Never fails.

Oh so you knew from the start that saying that proving someone's guild is a technicality would be something that people would call you out on but you still decided to say it.

Because, among other reasons, the GPU market tanked and they were facing unfair competition from a supplier. Therefore, EVGA isn't a good counterexample. BTW, all of these factors were also hitting EVGA's peers, yet they were the only casualty. That suggests they were facing other issues, as well. When companies fail, it's usually not just one thing that went wrong.

But, even if they still folded without competition from Nvidia, it happens. Companies make mistakes, have bad management, or get hit with a confluence of negative events that sometimes pushes them over the edge. So, this really isn't a matter of single examples. This gets at the fundamentals of market economics and capitalism, which I think is a bit too big to take on in this thread.

EVGA isn't a casualty and they didn't fail or fold, they were doing fine and left the market because of all of the thing they list in the article and all of these things point to margins so low that they just didn't want to deal with it anymore.

While it's possible there could be an injunction issued blocking product sales for a flagrant violation of IP or licensing, that's exceedingly rare. It's quite likely Intel would be able to continue its operations and remediate the aggrieved party after the case is settled. It's only when there's irreparable harm being done that such an injunction could stand.

So you would gamble a multi billion company on possible and exceedingly rare and quite likely? Even if you had other options?
If AMD closes down all the licenses in the cross-licensing that belong to AMD will be in a legal limbo and it's not 100% sure if intel would be able to keep using them.

 

[bit_user]

EVGA isn't a casualty and they didn't fail or fold,

Okay, they still seem to be selling power supplies. But, I heard a lot of dire news about them, not long after they announced they were getting out of the GPU business. For instance, they also seem to have withdrawn from the motherboard market.

 

[NeoMorpheus]

Oh so you knew from the start that saying that proving someone's guild is a technicality would be something that people would call you out on but you still decided to say it.

Dude, give it up. You are just trying too hard at this point and not even in the topic.

 

[TerryLaze]

Okay, they still seem to be selling power supplies. But, I heard a lot of dire news about them, not long after they announced they were getting out of the GPU business. For instance, they also seem to have withdrawn from the motherboard market.

When was the last time you DIDN'T hear dire news about anything at the first opportunity?

Dude, give it up. You are just trying too hard at this point and not even in the topic.

Oh so now you admit that you weren't even on topic?
Since I replied to you, if I'm off topic it's only because I replied to you.

 

[bit_user]

When was the last time you DIDN'T hear dire news about anything at the first opportunity?

I hear what I hear. In this case, I was reading some comments on an article about EVGA, somewhere I don't recall. Usually, my sources are better than that.

Specifically, I was reading things about the CEO stepping down, high-profile resignations, layoffs and projects being discontinued. It turns out the latter part was related to their exit from the motherboard market.

I admit it was a vague comment, but then I expected it to be taken as such. Upon seeing the news of their motherboard exit, I was able to reassemble what I recalled reading. Anyway, it sounds like the company is going through a lot, and the comments I saw suggested some of this pre-dated their exit from the GPU market.

When times get tough, it acts as a stress test that helps thin out the herd and keep it healthy. I guess EVGA was one of the less healthy players. If you had a single supplier who falls on hard times, then it's a lot more catastrophic for the industry than when there are other competitors who can step up. That's just one reason we like competition.

Oh so now you admit that you weren't even on topic?
Since I replied to you, if I'm off topic it's only because I replied to you.

You don't have to follow someone off-topic. It was a low-quality remark. You could've just let it go. You're always responsible for what you post.

 

[TerryLaze]

I hear what I hear. In this case, I was reading some comments on an article about EVGA, somewhere I don't recall. Usually, my sources are better than that.

Specifically, I was reading things about the CEO stepping down, high-profile resignations, layoffs and projects being discontinued. It turns out the latter part was related to their exit from the motherboard market.

I admit it was a vague comment, but then I expected it to be taken as such. Upon seeing the news of their motherboard exit, I was able to reassemble what I recalled reading. Anyway, it sounds like the company is going through a lot, and the comments I saw suggested some of this pre-dated their exit from the GPU market.

When times get tough, it acts as a stress test that helps thin out the herd and keep it healthy. I guess EVGA was one of the less healthy players. If you had a single supplier who falls on hard times, then it's a lot more catastrophic for the industry than when there are other competitors who can step up. That's just one reason we like competition.

Either way supports my point that competition is terrible and always causes the smaller companies to close down until only two or three are left.

You don't have to follow someone off-topic. It was a low-quality remark. You could've just let it go. You're always responsible for what you post.

Yikes! Don't even say that as a joke when somebody talks against nazis or nazi practices. You're always responsible for what you don't speak up against.

 

[bit_user]

Yikes! Don't even say that as a joke when somebody talks against nazis or nazi practices. You're always responsible for what you don't speak up against.

This was a retaliatory comment, not taking any sort of moral high-ground:

I guess if hitler were alive you would be amongst the first to champion him for burning people without any proof and just based on accusations...

He went there, but you didn't need to follow him.

Analogizing people with Hitler or Nazis is generally considered bad for trivializing what they did. It also tends to poison discussions, because it's basically the worst sort of name-calling, whereas debates should be held on merits and not personal attacks. That's why it's frowned upon.

 

[PEnns]

I just love it when trillion dollar companies ask the tax payer for billions in welfare money.

Especially when they're the market leader and earning billions in profits.....