<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_12_1448216</id>
	<title>Intel and AMD Settle Antitrust, Patent Lawsuits</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1258038240000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:moshe@ymkatz.net" rel="nofollow">Kohenkatz</a> writes <i>"Intel has <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/technology/companies/13chip.html?\_r=1&amp;hp">agreed to pay $1.25 billion to AMD</a>. In return, AMD will drop its lawsuits about patent and antitrust complaints.  The two companies released this joint statement: 'While the relationship between the two companies has been difficult in the past, this agreement ends the legal disputes and enables the companies to focus all of our efforts on product innovation and development.' The press release also says, 'Under terms of the agreement, AMD and Intel obtain patent rights from <a href="http://www.amd.com/us/press-releases/Pages/amd-press-release-2009nov12.aspx">a new 5-year cross license agreement</a>,' and that 'Intel and AMD will give up any claims of breach from the previous license agreement.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kohenkatz writes " Intel has agreed to pay $ 1.25 billion to AMD .
In return , AMD will drop its lawsuits about patent and antitrust complaints .
The two companies released this joint statement : 'While the relationship between the two companies has been difficult in the past , this agreement ends the legal disputes and enables the companies to focus all of our efforts on product innovation and development .
' The press release also says , 'Under terms of the agreement , AMD and Intel obtain patent rights from a new 5-year cross license agreement, ' and that 'Intel and AMD will give up any claims of breach from the previous license agreement .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kohenkatz writes "Intel has agreed to pay $1.25 billion to AMD.
In return, AMD will drop its lawsuits about patent and antitrust complaints.
The two companies released this joint statement: 'While the relationship between the two companies has been difficult in the past, this agreement ends the legal disputes and enables the companies to focus all of our efforts on product innovation and development.
' The press release also says, 'Under terms of the agreement, AMD and Intel obtain patent rights from a new 5-year cross license agreement,' and that 'Intel and AMD will give up any claims of breach from the previous license agreement.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30075934</id>
	<title>Re:Only $1.25 Billion?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258053120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, that's about enough to pay the lawyers at least!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , that 's about enough to pay the lawyers at least ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, that's about enough to pay the lawyers at least!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073684</id>
	<title>Re:AMD was smart to take the money \_now\_</title>
	<author>Ractive</author>
	<datestamp>1258045740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...but don't expect those to be made public.</p></div><p>...or upheld by Intel.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...but do n't expect those to be made public....or upheld by Intel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...but don't expect those to be made public....or upheld by Intel.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30075432</id>
	<title>And now a word from Sherman and Clayton</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258051500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How likely would it be that this could be considered unlawful collusion?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How likely would it be that this could be considered unlawful collusion ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How likely would it be that this could be considered unlawful collusion?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30080598</id>
	<title>Re:Now only if they would license x86 and x86-64</title>
	<author>mpfife</author>
	<datestamp>1258026240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And don't forget Transmeta!!!  With their code morphing technology - they could compete with IBM, Intel, and AMD!!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>And do n't forget Transmeta ! ! !
With their code morphing technology - they could compete with IBM , Intel , and AMD ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And don't forget Transmeta!!!
With their code morphing technology - they could compete with IBM, Intel, and AMD!!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30074346</id>
	<title>Re:What AMD needs to do - and quickly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258048380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Color me stupid, but why doesn't AMD strike a deal with IBM who does routinely manage to get their fabrication processes put together in a reasonable matter of time.</p><p>The Cell hasn't taken off like mad. IBM lost the Apple processor deal a few years back. I'm assuming IBM could ramp up and assist AMD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Color me stupid , but why does n't AMD strike a deal with IBM who does routinely manage to get their fabrication processes put together in a reasonable matter of time.The Cell has n't taken off like mad .
IBM lost the Apple processor deal a few years back .
I 'm assuming IBM could ramp up and assist AMD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Color me stupid, but why doesn't AMD strike a deal with IBM who does routinely manage to get their fabrication processes put together in a reasonable matter of time.The Cell hasn't taken off like mad.
IBM lost the Apple processor deal a few years back.
I'm assuming IBM could ramp up and assist AMD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072806</id>
	<title>good thing?</title>
	<author>ixidor</author>
	<datestamp>1258042080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>but we still have to worry about intel bullying manufacturers like dell into using intel only.
the dropping the lawsuit, 5 year no fire period is good though...</htmltext>
<tokenext>but we still have to worry about intel bullying manufacturers like dell into using intel only .
the dropping the lawsuit , 5 year no fire period is good though.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but we still have to worry about intel bullying manufacturers like dell into using intel only.
the dropping the lawsuit, 5 year no fire period is good though...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073722</id>
	<title>Re:good thing?</title>
	<author>hattig</author>
	<datestamp>1258045920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://blogs.amd.com/nigeldessau/2009/11/12/blog-77-a-time-for-peace/" title="amd.com" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.amd.com/nigeldessau/2009/11/12/blog-77-a-time-for-peace/</a> [amd.com]</p><p>No, Intel will not be doing any more OEM bullying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //blogs.amd.com/nigeldessau/2009/11/12/blog-77-a-time-for-peace/ [ amd.com ] No , Intel will not be doing any more OEM bullying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://blogs.amd.com/nigeldessau/2009/11/12/blog-77-a-time-for-peace/ [amd.com]No, Intel will not be doing any more OEM bullying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072944</id>
	<title>Re:Only $1.25 Billion?</title>
	<author>oldspewey</author>
	<datestamp>1258042620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hey, it may not seem like a lot but $1.25B means AMD can stop couchsurfing for a while and maybe score some new clothes or something.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , it may not seem like a lot but $ 1.25B means AMD can stop couchsurfing for a while and maybe score some new clothes or something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, it may not seem like a lot but $1.25B means AMD can stop couchsurfing for a while and maybe score some new clothes or something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30082282</id>
	<title>Re:What AMD needs to do - and quickly</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1258035900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This agreement allows AMD to fully spin off Global Foundries if they come up with enough outside customers. More customers is the key to being able to move forward... it's all about volume. And actually being a separate entity from AMD is critical to getting those customers... it must at least be on the horizon.</p><p>AMD may be the budget brand, but people are broke. I certainly bought my Phenom II 720 MB, CPU, RAM on that basis. I've suggested AMD-based systems to a lot of people over the years on that basis, since Hammer first dropped. I suspect I will continue to do so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This agreement allows AMD to fully spin off Global Foundries if they come up with enough outside customers .
More customers is the key to being able to move forward... it 's all about volume .
And actually being a separate entity from AMD is critical to getting those customers... it must at least be on the horizon.AMD may be the budget brand , but people are broke .
I certainly bought my Phenom II 720 MB , CPU , RAM on that basis .
I 've suggested AMD-based systems to a lot of people over the years on that basis , since Hammer first dropped .
I suspect I will continue to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This agreement allows AMD to fully spin off Global Foundries if they come up with enough outside customers.
More customers is the key to being able to move forward... it's all about volume.
And actually being a separate entity from AMD is critical to getting those customers... it must at least be on the horizon.AMD may be the budget brand, but people are broke.
I certainly bought my Phenom II 720 MB, CPU, RAM on that basis.
I've suggested AMD-based systems to a lot of people over the years on that basis, since Hammer first dropped.
I suspect I will continue to do so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073998</id>
	<title>Re:Only $1.25 Billion?</title>
	<author>MBGMorden</author>
	<datestamp>1258047240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed.  Not to mention that this is a MUCH needed injection of cash for AMD in a time when they're struggling a bit.  Not on the precipice of dieing, but they certainly could use some operating cash to help.  $1.25 billion will help there tremendously - and if Intel actually does behave (I'm skeptical, but we'll see) then they may have a chance to actually make a good go of things again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed .
Not to mention that this is a MUCH needed injection of cash for AMD in a time when they 're struggling a bit .
Not on the precipice of dieing , but they certainly could use some operating cash to help .
$ 1.25 billion will help there tremendously - and if Intel actually does behave ( I 'm skeptical , but we 'll see ) then they may have a chance to actually make a good go of things again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.
Not to mention that this is a MUCH needed injection of cash for AMD in a time when they're struggling a bit.
Not on the precipice of dieing, but they certainly could use some operating cash to help.
$1.25 billion will help there tremendously - and if Intel actually does behave (I'm skeptical, but we'll see) then they may have a chance to actually make a good go of things again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072874</id>
	<title>Re:Only $1.25 Billion?</title>
	<author>poetmatt</author>
	<datestamp>1258042380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>my thoughts exactly. I'm sure there is more to it than that from what I read of the business practice requirements.</p><p>Also, I suspect this won't stop the antitrust investigation in the US, either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>my thoughts exactly .
I 'm sure there is more to it than that from what I read of the business practice requirements.Also , I suspect this wo n't stop the antitrust investigation in the US , either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>my thoughts exactly.
I'm sure there is more to it than that from what I read of the business practice requirements.Also, I suspect this won't stop the antitrust investigation in the US, either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073280</id>
	<title>Re:Only $1.25 Billion?</title>
	<author>kestasjk</author>
	<datestamp>1258043880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The anti-trust suits against Intel were/are mostly going to go to the EU, with appeals and legal wrangling AMD probably decided 1.25bn now would be better than an optimistic 2.5bn in 8 years when they've become the new SGI.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The anti-trust suits against Intel were/are mostly going to go to the EU , with appeals and legal wrangling AMD probably decided 1.25bn now would be better than an optimistic 2.5bn in 8 years when they 've become the new SGI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The anti-trust suits against Intel were/are mostly going to go to the EU, with appeals and legal wrangling AMD probably decided 1.25bn now would be better than an optimistic 2.5bn in 8 years when they've become the new SGI.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072864</id>
	<title>Re:Only $1.25 Billion?</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1258042320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Intel poisoned nearly all of AMD's potential customers.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yeah, you can bet I bought a Core 2 Duo after what happened to my coffee when I was researching a Phenom II...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Intel poisoned nearly all of AMD 's potential customers.Yeah , you can bet I bought a Core 2 Duo after what happened to my coffee when I was researching a Phenom II.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Intel poisoned nearly all of AMD's potential customers.Yeah, you can bet I bought a Core 2 Duo after what happened to my coffee when I was researching a Phenom II...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30074018</id>
	<title>Re:Only $1.25 Billion?</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1258047360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to mention Intel has already been found guilty in other countries. I think that Intel had good reason to suspect the same might happen in the US. Intel did get off light.</p><p>I assume AMD took the deal because they have been hemmoraghing money for some time now. They needed a cash influx and couldn't afford to fight a legal battle much longer.</p><p>The sad thing here is that the end lesson is that illegal, anti-competitive practices can be quite beneficial. The US government overlooked them, even when a bevy of vendors testified on AMD's behalf, despite Intel threatening those vendors. Intel profitted not only in the immediate dollar sense, but also in gaining massive market share.</p><p>Yet the US threatened to go after Google if they had a search partnership with Yahoo. That is an evil monopoly that must be quashed (but it would be fine if Microsoft purchased Yahoo, swallowed their services, and removed choice and competition from the marketplace). None of this makes much sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention Intel has already been found guilty in other countries .
I think that Intel had good reason to suspect the same might happen in the US .
Intel did get off light.I assume AMD took the deal because they have been hemmoraghing money for some time now .
They needed a cash influx and could n't afford to fight a legal battle much longer.The sad thing here is that the end lesson is that illegal , anti-competitive practices can be quite beneficial .
The US government overlooked them , even when a bevy of vendors testified on AMD 's behalf , despite Intel threatening those vendors .
Intel profitted not only in the immediate dollar sense , but also in gaining massive market share.Yet the US threatened to go after Google if they had a search partnership with Yahoo .
That is an evil monopoly that must be quashed ( but it would be fine if Microsoft purchased Yahoo , swallowed their services , and removed choice and competition from the marketplace ) .
None of this makes much sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention Intel has already been found guilty in other countries.
I think that Intel had good reason to suspect the same might happen in the US.
Intel did get off light.I assume AMD took the deal because they have been hemmoraghing money for some time now.
They needed a cash influx and couldn't afford to fight a legal battle much longer.The sad thing here is that the end lesson is that illegal, anti-competitive practices can be quite beneficial.
The US government overlooked them, even when a bevy of vendors testified on AMD's behalf, despite Intel threatening those vendors.
Intel profitted not only in the immediate dollar sense, but also in gaining massive market share.Yet the US threatened to go after Google if they had a search partnership with Yahoo.
That is an evil monopoly that must be quashed (but it would be fine if Microsoft purchased Yahoo, swallowed their services, and removed choice and competition from the marketplace).
None of this makes much sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30077754</id>
	<title>Stock price jumped...</title>
	<author>ponos</author>
	<datestamp>1258059240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For those who bought AMD early enough, stock price jumped ~20\% today. Not bad<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>Don't forget that 1.25 billion represents a significant portion of AMD's capitalization and far surpasses the cumulated<br>earnings of the last few years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For those who bought AMD early enough , stock price jumped ~ 20 \ % today .
Not bad : - ) Do n't forget that 1.25 billion represents a significant portion of AMD 's capitalization and far surpasses the cumulatedearnings of the last few years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those who bought AMD early enough, stock price jumped ~20\% today.
Not bad :-)Don't forget that 1.25 billion represents a significant portion of AMD's capitalization and far surpasses the cumulatedearnings of the last few years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073346</id>
	<title>Totally read that as</title>
	<author>sys.stdout.write</author>
	<datestamp>1258044180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Intel patents lawsuits"</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Intel patents lawsuits "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Intel patents lawsuits"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073004</id>
	<title>Re:Only $1.25 Billion?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258042800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AMD has gained more rights however, none of that rubbish about having to use their own fabs. They can now spin off their remaining GlobalFoundries ownership if they need more cash.</p><p>Intel still has the $1.5b fee to pay in the EU.</p><p>And I think they've annoyed the US too, so that will probably be investigated and lead to a massive fine.</p><p>$1.25b for AMD, without fabs, is a lot of money. Maybe they will be able to hire more open-source driver developers...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AMD has gained more rights however , none of that rubbish about having to use their own fabs .
They can now spin off their remaining GlobalFoundries ownership if they need more cash.Intel still has the $ 1.5b fee to pay in the EU.And I think they 've annoyed the US too , so that will probably be investigated and lead to a massive fine. $ 1.25b for AMD , without fabs , is a lot of money .
Maybe they will be able to hire more open-source driver developers.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AMD has gained more rights however, none of that rubbish about having to use their own fabs.
They can now spin off their remaining GlobalFoundries ownership if they need more cash.Intel still has the $1.5b fee to pay in the EU.And I think they've annoyed the US too, so that will probably be investigated and lead to a massive fine.$1.25b for AMD, without fabs, is a lot of money.
Maybe they will be able to hire more open-source driver developers...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30076984</id>
	<title>Re:Only $1.25 Billion?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258056600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Revenue is one thing.  Profit is another. $1.25B would be the profit that AMD could have made.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Revenue is one thing .
Profit is another .
$ 1.25B would be the profit that AMD could have made .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Revenue is one thing.
Profit is another.
$1.25B would be the profit that AMD could have made.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073620</id>
	<title>Re:DOJ?</title>
	<author>Sloppy</author>
	<datestamp>1258045380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>isn't it down to the DOJ to go after them?</p></div></blockquote><p>Not if the <a href="http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/10/once-again" title="eff.org">Bush/Obama administration tells DoJ</a> [eff.org] not to.  Look at the pattern for the last 9 years and there's little reason to expect DoJ getting involved.  As far as I can tell, these days the DoJ's main purpose in computers and communication industries seems to be to fight FOIA requests, keep cases <em>out</em> of courts, etc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>is n't it down to the DOJ to go after them ? Not if the Bush/Obama administration tells DoJ [ eff.org ] not to .
Look at the pattern for the last 9 years and there 's little reason to expect DoJ getting involved .
As far as I can tell , these days the DoJ 's main purpose in computers and communication industries seems to be to fight FOIA requests , keep cases out of courts , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>isn't it down to the DOJ to go after them?Not if the Bush/Obama administration tells DoJ [eff.org] not to.
Look at the pattern for the last 9 years and there's little reason to expect DoJ getting involved.
As far as I can tell, these days the DoJ's main purpose in computers and communication industries seems to be to fight FOIA requests, keep cases out of courts, etc.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072948</id>
	<title>What AMD needs to do - and quickly</title>
	<author>haruchai</author>
	<datestamp>1258042620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is to get its shit together Fab-wise. They've been leading Intel for nearly 10 years in developing or deploying new tech and architecture<br>but Chipzilla has always been able to keep abreast because of their fabrication prowess.</p><p>Now that Intel's Nehalem architecture has all of the elements that AMD has been delivering with the Athlon and its descendants,<br>they're back to being the budget brand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is to get its shit together Fab-wise .
They 've been leading Intel for nearly 10 years in developing or deploying new tech and architecturebut Chipzilla has always been able to keep abreast because of their fabrication prowess.Now that Intel 's Nehalem architecture has all of the elements that AMD has been delivering with the Athlon and its descendants,they 're back to being the budget brand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is to get its shit together Fab-wise.
They've been leading Intel for nearly 10 years in developing or deploying new tech and architecturebut Chipzilla has always been able to keep abreast because of their fabrication prowess.Now that Intel's Nehalem architecture has all of the elements that AMD has been delivering with the Athlon and its descendants,they're back to being the budget brand.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072912</id>
	<title>Re:Laws</title>
	<author>IndustrialComplex</author>
	<datestamp>1258042560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is independant of action that the US government would take against Intel.</p><p>Similar to how OJ was found not guilty in criminal court, but did end up paying restitution in civil court.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is independant of action that the US government would take against Intel.Similar to how OJ was found not guilty in criminal court , but did end up paying restitution in civil court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is independant of action that the US government would take against Intel.Similar to how OJ was found not guilty in criminal court, but did end up paying restitution in civil court.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30076096</id>
	<title>Re:DOJ?</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1258053540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The DOJ (under any administration) is unlikely to file a criminal complaint for antitrust because the burden of proof is so high (beyond a reasonable doubt). They'd have to have really solid proof.</p><p>The burden of proof in a civil case (such as the case against Microsoft) is rather low (preponderance of evidence). So the DOJ usually goes for the low-hanging fruit.</p><p>That's why I complain when people say MS was "convicted". The DOJ didn't prove their case to that standard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The DOJ ( under any administration ) is unlikely to file a criminal complaint for antitrust because the burden of proof is so high ( beyond a reasonable doubt ) .
They 'd have to have really solid proof.The burden of proof in a civil case ( such as the case against Microsoft ) is rather low ( preponderance of evidence ) .
So the DOJ usually goes for the low-hanging fruit.That 's why I complain when people say MS was " convicted " .
The DOJ did n't prove their case to that standard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The DOJ (under any administration) is unlikely to file a criminal complaint for antitrust because the burden of proof is so high (beyond a reasonable doubt).
They'd have to have really solid proof.The burden of proof in a civil case (such as the case against Microsoft) is rather low (preponderance of evidence).
So the DOJ usually goes for the low-hanging fruit.That's why I complain when people say MS was "convicted".
The DOJ didn't prove their case to that standard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072924</id>
	<title>Re:Only $1.25 Billion?</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1258042560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Q: How did you arrive at this number</p><p>our SGNA expenses will decrease a bit on a go-forward basis</p><p>for us this has never been about money, it's about the marketplace, and there's no correlation between the settlement amount and anything... it's a negotiated number</p><p>what's important... it signals a new era, it's a pivot from war to pease, and we're trying oto redefine not only the path to a fair and fierce competitive fight in the blah blah blah tonality blah blah blah buzzword get this behind us and move forward in a very respectful way, blah blah blah</p><p>You can tell I'm listening to the webcast.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Q : How did you arrive at this numberour SGNA expenses will decrease a bit on a go-forward basisfor us this has never been about money , it 's about the marketplace , and there 's no correlation between the settlement amount and anything... it 's a negotiated numberwhat 's important... it signals a new era , it 's a pivot from war to pease , and we 're trying oto redefine not only the path to a fair and fierce competitive fight in the blah blah blah tonality blah blah blah buzzword get this behind us and move forward in a very respectful way , blah blah blahYou can tell I 'm listening to the webcast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Q: How did you arrive at this numberour SGNA expenses will decrease a bit on a go-forward basisfor us this has never been about money, it's about the marketplace, and there's no correlation between the settlement amount and anything... it's a negotiated numberwhat's important... it signals a new era, it's a pivot from war to pease, and we're trying oto redefine not only the path to a fair and fierce competitive fight in the blah blah blah tonality blah blah blah buzzword get this behind us and move forward in a very respectful way, blah blah blahYou can tell I'm listening to the webcast.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072992</id>
	<title>Re:Only $1.25 Billion?</title>
	<author>brxndxn</author>
	<datestamp>1258042740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As an AMD shareholder and an enthusiast who has followed this 'case' since 1999, I also think this settlement is low. I do not believe $1.25billion could bump AMD to a cash position of where it would have been if Intel had not competed unfairly. Yes, it is a $1.25billion injection of direct profits to AMD - but the cashflow through the company over the years from the marketplace to R and D would have put AMD in a much more competitive position.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As an AMD shareholder and an enthusiast who has followed this 'case ' since 1999 , I also think this settlement is low .
I do not believe $ 1.25billion could bump AMD to a cash position of where it would have been if Intel had not competed unfairly .
Yes , it is a $ 1.25billion injection of direct profits to AMD - but the cashflow through the company over the years from the marketplace to R and D would have put AMD in a much more competitive position .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an AMD shareholder and an enthusiast who has followed this 'case' since 1999, I also think this settlement is low.
I do not believe $1.25billion could bump AMD to a cash position of where it would have been if Intel had not competed unfairly.
Yes, it is a $1.25billion injection of direct profits to AMD - but the cashflow through the company over the years from the marketplace to R and D would have put AMD in a much more competitive position.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30085540</id>
	<title>Re:Only $1.25 Billion?</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1258119840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm reading as "AMD <i>colluded</i> with Intel for $1.25 billion."</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm reading as " AMD colluded with Intel for $ 1.25 billion .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm reading as "AMD colluded with Intel for $1.25 billion.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30074010</id>
	<title>Re:Only $1.25 Billion?</title>
	<author>Chyeld</author>
	<datestamp>1258047360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To win a lawsuit, you must be able to last to the end of the lawsuit. Winning a multi-billion dollar lawsuit helps little if you are under Chapter 7 bankrupcy.</p><p>Sometimes, as much as it sucks lemons, it's in your best interests to take the offer for pennies on the dollar rather than duke it out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To win a lawsuit , you must be able to last to the end of the lawsuit .
Winning a multi-billion dollar lawsuit helps little if you are under Chapter 7 bankrupcy.Sometimes , as much as it sucks lemons , it 's in your best interests to take the offer for pennies on the dollar rather than duke it out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To win a lawsuit, you must be able to last to the end of the lawsuit.
Winning a multi-billion dollar lawsuit helps little if you are under Chapter 7 bankrupcy.Sometimes, as much as it sucks lemons, it's in your best interests to take the offer for pennies on the dollar rather than duke it out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30077438</id>
	<title>Re:Only $1.25 Billion?</title>
	<author>HickNinja</author>
	<datestamp>1258058100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the part of the deal where AMD can go fabless and not have to manufacture x\% of their x86 processors in their own fabs is worth just as much as the cash. That lets them free themselves of Global Foundries and become an innovative product company without having to worry about the fab boat anchor. Sure, they won't be able to write their own design rules and tweak the last 5\% performance or area out of the process, but they also won't be in mortal danger when the fab isn't running at capacity. Intel can afford the fabs at this point, and AMD has restructured itself to not be able to afford them. Hopefully they can make up for it in innovation, time to market, "agility",<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the part of the deal where AMD can go fabless and not have to manufacture x \ % of their x86 processors in their own fabs is worth just as much as the cash .
That lets them free themselves of Global Foundries and become an innovative product company without having to worry about the fab boat anchor .
Sure , they wo n't be able to write their own design rules and tweak the last 5 \ % performance or area out of the process , but they also wo n't be in mortal danger when the fab is n't running at capacity .
Intel can afford the fabs at this point , and AMD has restructured itself to not be able to afford them .
Hopefully they can make up for it in innovation , time to market , " agility " , .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the part of the deal where AMD can go fabless and not have to manufacture x\% of their x86 processors in their own fabs is worth just as much as the cash.
That lets them free themselves of Global Foundries and become an innovative product company without having to worry about the fab boat anchor.
Sure, they won't be able to write their own design rules and tweak the last 5\% performance or area out of the process, but they also won't be in mortal danger when the fab isn't running at capacity.
Intel can afford the fabs at this point, and AMD has restructured itself to not be able to afford them.
Hopefully they can make up for it in innovation, time to market, "agility", ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30079112</id>
	<title>Re:Laws</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1258021140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The one who has the gold makes the rules.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...And the one who makes the rules gets the gold.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The one who has the gold makes the rules .
...And the one who makes the rules gets the gold .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The one who has the gold makes the rules.
...And the one who makes the rules gets the gold.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073142</id>
	<title>Re:What AMD needs to do - and quickly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258043340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AMD doesn't have fabs anymore... they spun that division off, remember?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AMD does n't have fabs anymore... they spun that division off , remember ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AMD doesn't have fabs anymore... they spun that division off, remember?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30087642</id>
	<title>Re:Only $1.25 Billion?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258131960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fagh! AMD WAS making money hand over fist from about 2000-6 when then we competitive with the current P-IIIs and then superior to the P-IV(and variants) in both computational power and power usage.  Now the shoe is back on the other foot...  I suspect that pricing in Europe for Intel parts won't be going down any time soon, or at least until they get that $1.25B back.</p><p>Anyways, I found this quote to be highly amusing:<br>"The regulators contend that Intel&rsquo;s tactics have not only hurt competitors, but also effectively forced customers to pay higher prices."</p><p>Intel had pretty much the same pricing scheme that they'd always had, and AMD was just about on an equal footing with that pricing (when they were competitive or had the upper hand which they squandered).</p><p>Now today, prices are much lower for the low high-end CPUs, and VERY much lower for the mid - low range CPUs.  e.g. a i7-920 (I consider low high-end) is less than $300, or about the price of the x2 4800+, 4600+, etc. that AMD was shovelling out 3y ago.  (Their unlocked x2s and FXs were in line with the higher end i7 pricing while Intel had about the same price range for their various product levels then as they do today.)</p><p>I'm missing the higher price argument here.  Looks about the same for Intel to me(then and now), and as for AMD they were perfectly willing to charge Intel equivalent prices when they could compete and now that they can't they're forced into the mid - low end and are whinging about their inability to actually compete given their base resources(i.e. architecture design capability).</p><p>As to AMD being shut out of the builder market, I just read several stories several months(1y?) ago (here IIRC or linked from here) where several system builders stated that they preferred to not build AMD systems because of their poor CPU mounting mechanism and the high likelihood that the chip would be damaged or dislodged in shipment.  I can partially agree with that as the only DOA CPUs that I received in recent years were AMD x2 retail boxed 4XXXs(better warranty for not much of a price diff between tray &amp; retail).  The boxes were in perfect shape, and presumably the CPUs were functional when shipped from wherever AMD packages the retail boxes -&gt; led me to believe that AMD chips were fragile which was further backed up by people online mentioning dropping various AMD CPUs a few mm and ending up with dead CPUs.  Of the retail box packaging then was pretty horrific as the chip was center in a plastic(thin sheet) window right up again the plastic, which seemed kind of silly as anything knocking against it with any force would likely damage the CPU. They'd've been better off to place the cpu suspended(preferably in some shock absorbant material) in the center of the box and without the window at all.  (An awful lot of packaging for a CPU and stock heatsink/fan, in which the heatsink/fan took only about 1/3 of the box volume.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fagh !
AMD WAS making money hand over fist from about 2000-6 when then we competitive with the current P-IIIs and then superior to the P-IV ( and variants ) in both computational power and power usage .
Now the shoe is back on the other foot... I suspect that pricing in Europe for Intel parts wo n't be going down any time soon , or at least until they get that $ 1.25B back.Anyways , I found this quote to be highly amusing : " The regulators contend that Intel    s tactics have not only hurt competitors , but also effectively forced customers to pay higher prices .
" Intel had pretty much the same pricing scheme that they 'd always had , and AMD was just about on an equal footing with that pricing ( when they were competitive or had the upper hand which they squandered ) .Now today , prices are much lower for the low high-end CPUs , and VERY much lower for the mid - low range CPUs .
e.g. a i7-920 ( I consider low high-end ) is less than $ 300 , or about the price of the x2 4800 + , 4600 + , etc .
that AMD was shovelling out 3y ago .
( Their unlocked x2s and FXs were in line with the higher end i7 pricing while Intel had about the same price range for their various product levels then as they do today .
) I 'm missing the higher price argument here .
Looks about the same for Intel to me ( then and now ) , and as for AMD they were perfectly willing to charge Intel equivalent prices when they could compete and now that they ca n't they 're forced into the mid - low end and are whinging about their inability to actually compete given their base resources ( i.e .
architecture design capability ) .As to AMD being shut out of the builder market , I just read several stories several months ( 1y ?
) ago ( here IIRC or linked from here ) where several system builders stated that they preferred to not build AMD systems because of their poor CPU mounting mechanism and the high likelihood that the chip would be damaged or dislodged in shipment .
I can partially agree with that as the only DOA CPUs that I received in recent years were AMD x2 retail boxed 4XXXs ( better warranty for not much of a price diff between tray &amp; retail ) .
The boxes were in perfect shape , and presumably the CPUs were functional when shipped from wherever AMD packages the retail boxes - &gt; led me to believe that AMD chips were fragile which was further backed up by people online mentioning dropping various AMD CPUs a few mm and ending up with dead CPUs .
Of the retail box packaging then was pretty horrific as the chip was center in a plastic ( thin sheet ) window right up again the plastic , which seemed kind of silly as anything knocking against it with any force would likely damage the CPU .
They 'd've been better off to place the cpu suspended ( preferably in some shock absorbant material ) in the center of the box and without the window at all .
( An awful lot of packaging for a CPU and stock heatsink/fan , in which the heatsink/fan took only about 1/3 of the box volume .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fagh!
AMD WAS making money hand over fist from about 2000-6 when then we competitive with the current P-IIIs and then superior to the P-IV(and variants) in both computational power and power usage.
Now the shoe is back on the other foot...  I suspect that pricing in Europe for Intel parts won't be going down any time soon, or at least until they get that $1.25B back.Anyways, I found this quote to be highly amusing:"The regulators contend that Intel’s tactics have not only hurt competitors, but also effectively forced customers to pay higher prices.
"Intel had pretty much the same pricing scheme that they'd always had, and AMD was just about on an equal footing with that pricing (when they were competitive or had the upper hand which they squandered).Now today, prices are much lower for the low high-end CPUs, and VERY much lower for the mid - low range CPUs.
e.g. a i7-920 (I consider low high-end) is less than $300, or about the price of the x2 4800+, 4600+, etc.
that AMD was shovelling out 3y ago.
(Their unlocked x2s and FXs were in line with the higher end i7 pricing while Intel had about the same price range for their various product levels then as they do today.
)I'm missing the higher price argument here.
Looks about the same for Intel to me(then and now), and as for AMD they were perfectly willing to charge Intel equivalent prices when they could compete and now that they can't they're forced into the mid - low end and are whinging about their inability to actually compete given their base resources(i.e.
architecture design capability).As to AMD being shut out of the builder market, I just read several stories several months(1y?
) ago (here IIRC or linked from here) where several system builders stated that they preferred to not build AMD systems because of their poor CPU mounting mechanism and the high likelihood that the chip would be damaged or dislodged in shipment.
I can partially agree with that as the only DOA CPUs that I received in recent years were AMD x2 retail boxed 4XXXs(better warranty for not much of a price diff between tray &amp; retail).
The boxes were in perfect shape, and presumably the CPUs were functional when shipped from wherever AMD packages the retail boxes -&gt; led me to believe that AMD chips were fragile which was further backed up by people online mentioning dropping various AMD CPUs a few mm and ending up with dead CPUs.
Of the retail box packaging then was pretty horrific as the chip was center in a plastic(thin sheet) window right up again the plastic, which seemed kind of silly as anything knocking against it with any force would likely damage the CPU.
They'd've been better off to place the cpu suspended(preferably in some shock absorbant material) in the center of the box and without the window at all.
(An awful lot of packaging for a CPU and stock heatsink/fan, in which the heatsink/fan took only about 1/3 of the box volume.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30076726</id>
	<title>Beh.</title>
	<author>cadeon</author>
	<datestamp>1258055640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sort of bickering makes me like ARM even more.</p><p>Write a spec, let anyone build it. Done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sort of bickering makes me like ARM even more.Write a spec , let anyone build it .
Done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sort of bickering makes me like ARM even more.Write a spec, let anyone build it.
Done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30074034</id>
	<title>HA!!</title>
	<author>1s44c</author>
	<datestamp>1258047360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That will teach Intel to try and copy Microsoft's business model.</p><p>Screw you Intel! I'm always preferred paying less and getting more and that's why I always buy AMD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That will teach Intel to try and copy Microsoft 's business model.Screw you Intel !
I 'm always preferred paying less and getting more and that 's why I always buy AMD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That will teach Intel to try and copy Microsoft's business model.Screw you Intel!
I'm always preferred paying less and getting more and that's why I always buy AMD.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30074430</id>
	<title>Seems a shame</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1258048680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Intel have abused their market position, it's a shame to see them "get away with it".  I suppose if they *hadn't* abused their market position then it would seem a shame that they didn't get their day in court.  That said, it seems pretty unlikely to me that any substantially sized company won't have been involved in dubious activity somewhere along the line, even assuming that there was no high-level directive to do this.</p><p>In the interests of honesty, I'll note that I have a few reasons for having a pro-Intel bias - but really I think that letting legitimate antitrust complaints lapse would be bad for both companies in the long run (although practical considerations may make it bad business sense for AMD to push the case).  Look what's happened to Microsoft - they achieved a monopoly and they really have gone soft and become bureaucratic.  If there's a case to answer, the regulators should press ahead, even if AMD needs to concentrate first and foremost on their operation as a business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Intel have abused their market position , it 's a shame to see them " get away with it " .
I suppose if they * had n't * abused their market position then it would seem a shame that they did n't get their day in court .
That said , it seems pretty unlikely to me that any substantially sized company wo n't have been involved in dubious activity somewhere along the line , even assuming that there was no high-level directive to do this.In the interests of honesty , I 'll note that I have a few reasons for having a pro-Intel bias - but really I think that letting legitimate antitrust complaints lapse would be bad for both companies in the long run ( although practical considerations may make it bad business sense for AMD to push the case ) .
Look what 's happened to Microsoft - they achieved a monopoly and they really have gone soft and become bureaucratic .
If there 's a case to answer , the regulators should press ahead , even if AMD needs to concentrate first and foremost on their operation as a business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Intel have abused their market position, it's a shame to see them "get away with it".
I suppose if they *hadn't* abused their market position then it would seem a shame that they didn't get their day in court.
That said, it seems pretty unlikely to me that any substantially sized company won't have been involved in dubious activity somewhere along the line, even assuming that there was no high-level directive to do this.In the interests of honesty, I'll note that I have a few reasons for having a pro-Intel bias - but really I think that letting legitimate antitrust complaints lapse would be bad for both companies in the long run (although practical considerations may make it bad business sense for AMD to push the case).
Look what's happened to Microsoft - they achieved a monopoly and they really have gone soft and become bureaucratic.
If there's a case to answer, the regulators should press ahead, even if AMD needs to concentrate first and foremost on their operation as a business.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30077770</id>
	<title>Re:Now only if they would license x86 and x86-64</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258059240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Keeping up with Intel is extremely capital-intensive. Even if they were handing out licences like candy, it's unlikely a viable competitor would appear. Even AMD can barely find sufficient capitalization.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Keeping up with Intel is extremely capital-intensive .
Even if they were handing out licences like candy , it 's unlikely a viable competitor would appear .
Even AMD can barely find sufficient capitalization .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Keeping up with Intel is extremely capital-intensive.
Even if they were handing out licences like candy, it's unlikely a viable competitor would appear.
Even AMD can barely find sufficient capitalization.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073412</id>
	<title>Re:Now only if they would license x86 and x86-64</title>
	<author>Sopor42</author>
	<datestamp>1258044420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oblig <a href="http://xkcd.com/661/" title="xkcd.com" rel="nofollow">XKCD</a> [xkcd.com] linkage</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oblig XKCD [ xkcd.com ] linkage</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oblig XKCD [xkcd.com] linkage</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30083922</id>
	<title>Nice of Intel to agree not to break laws anymore</title>
	<author>mykos</author>
	<datestamp>1258052640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's awfully nice of Intel to agree not to block them from OEM sales anymore, considering it was against the law and all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's awfully nice of Intel to agree not to block them from OEM sales anymore , considering it was against the law and all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's awfully nice of Intel to agree not to block them from OEM sales anymore, considering it was against the law and all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073198</id>
	<title>Re:Only $1.25 Billion?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258043580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>nice readeing, thanx</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>nice readeing , thanx</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nice readeing, thanx</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073352</id>
	<title>Re:Only $1.25 Billion?</title>
	<author>Bill, Shooter of Bul</author>
	<datestamp>1258044180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't pay attention to all of the legal details every time Intel and AMD fight in court, because they fight a lot. This is always what happens: a new cross licensing deal and some money exchanges hands. How much money is right? I don't think anyone knows. Less than the amount that it would take to kill either one of them, but more than enough to save face for the other.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't pay attention to all of the legal details every time Intel and AMD fight in court , because they fight a lot .
This is always what happens : a new cross licensing deal and some money exchanges hands .
How much money is right ?
I do n't think anyone knows .
Less than the amount that it would take to kill either one of them , but more than enough to save face for the other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't pay attention to all of the legal details every time Intel and AMD fight in court, because they fight a lot.
This is always what happens: a new cross licensing deal and some money exchanges hands.
How much money is right?
I don't think anyone knows.
Less than the amount that it would take to kill either one of them, but more than enough to save face for the other.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073586</id>
	<title>Re:Now only if they would license x86 and x86-64</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258045200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a third party.  VIA</p><p><a href="http://www.via.com.tw/en/products/processors/" title="via.com.tw">http://www.via.com.tw/en/products/processors/</a> [via.com.tw]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a third party .
VIAhttp : //www.via.com.tw/en/products/processors/ [ via.com.tw ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a third party.
VIAhttp://www.via.com.tw/en/products/processors/ [via.com.tw]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30074452</id>
	<title>Anyone else old enough to remember...</title>
	<author>HotNeedleOfInquiry</author>
	<datestamp>1258048800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Partnerchip?  This shit has been going on since at least the early 80's.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Partnerchip ?
This shit has been going on since at least the early 80 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Partnerchip?
This shit has been going on since at least the early 80's.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30074560</id>
	<title>Re:Now only if they would license x86 and x86-64</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258049220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are 4th, 5th, and 6th parties as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are 4th , 5th , and 6th parties as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are 4th, 5th, and 6th parties as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072976</id>
	<title>AMD was smart to take the money \_now\_</title>
	<author>Laxator2</author>
	<datestamp>1258042680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The European Commission has set an example by fining Intel 1.45B. No US court was likely to award much more than that.

AMD can make much better use of the cash now, rather than a few years down the line. And Intel can do without being continuously accused of cheating.

Rest assured that the agreement has included quite a few provisions regarding dirty play in the future, but don't expect those to be made public.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The European Commission has set an example by fining Intel 1.45B .
No US court was likely to award much more than that .
AMD can make much better use of the cash now , rather than a few years down the line .
And Intel can do without being continuously accused of cheating .
Rest assured that the agreement has included quite a few provisions regarding dirty play in the future , but do n't expect those to be made public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The European Commission has set an example by fining Intel 1.45B.
No US court was likely to award much more than that.
AMD can make much better use of the cash now, rather than a few years down the line.
And Intel can do without being continuously accused of cheating.
Rest assured that the agreement has included quite a few provisions regarding dirty play in the future, but don't expect those to be made public.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073048</id>
	<title>Re:Only $1.25 Billion?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258042980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that this is 1.25 billion dollars that AMD need make <i>no</i> sale to acquire. No materials costs, no QC costs. No manufacturing losses. Why should AMD (or anyone else) be concerned with revenues lost? They're only a way to secure profits. This is much closer to a billion dollars of profits, which is far more valuable than a billion dollars of revenue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that this is 1.25 billion dollars that AMD need make no sale to acquire .
No materials costs , no QC costs .
No manufacturing losses .
Why should AMD ( or anyone else ) be concerned with revenues lost ?
They 're only a way to secure profits .
This is much closer to a billion dollars of profits , which is far more valuable than a billion dollars of revenue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that this is 1.25 billion dollars that AMD need make no sale to acquire.
No materials costs, no QC costs.
No manufacturing losses.
Why should AMD (or anyone else) be concerned with revenues lost?
They're only a way to secure profits.
This is much closer to a billion dollars of profits, which is far more valuable than a billion dollars of revenue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072758</id>
	<title>Only $1.25 Billion?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258041900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously, this number seems low to me. The pending suits against Intel alleged that for a decade Intel conspired to freeze AMD out of the market. Intel poisoned nearly all of AMD's potential customers. Surely that cost AMD a lot more than just a billion or so dollars in lost revenue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , this number seems low to me .
The pending suits against Intel alleged that for a decade Intel conspired to freeze AMD out of the market .
Intel poisoned nearly all of AMD 's potential customers .
Surely that cost AMD a lot more than just a billion or so dollars in lost revenue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, this number seems low to me.
The pending suits against Intel alleged that for a decade Intel conspired to freeze AMD out of the market.
Intel poisoned nearly all of AMD's potential customers.
Surely that cost AMD a lot more than just a billion or so dollars in lost revenue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30078426</id>
	<title>Re:What AMD needs to do - and quickly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258018620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Globalfoundries \_is\_ part of a fab technology consortium containing IBM, among others. Being close to this resource is one of the reasons why AMD/Globalfoundries chose New York as a location for their new fab.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Globalfoundries \ _is \ _ part of a fab technology consortium containing IBM , among others .
Being close to this resource is one of the reasons why AMD/Globalfoundries chose New York as a location for their new fab .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Globalfoundries \_is\_ part of a fab technology consortium containing IBM, among others.
Being close to this resource is one of the reasons why AMD/Globalfoundries chose New York as a location for their new fab.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30074346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30078632</id>
	<title>Re:Only $1.25 Billion?</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1258019280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Survival of the fittest, where it's not against the rules to fight dirty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Survival of the fittest , where it 's not against the rules to fight dirty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Survival of the fittest, where it's not against the rules to fight dirty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30079064</id>
	<title>Re:What AMD needs to do - and quickly</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1258020960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>but Chipzilla has always been able to keep abreast because of their fabrication prowess.</p></div></blockquote><p>Not really.  Back in the P4 days, Intel was kept afloat by dumping chips on the market.  Deep pockets keep Intel around...</p><p>Today, Intel has a smaller process, but they don't have the SOI tech that AMD/IBM has for quite some time, so the fab advantage is considerably smaller than it appears.</p><p>Intel surpassed AMD in performance, not because of their fab, but because they managed to push new features, and keep redesigning their chips every week, where AMD couldn't keep up.  Intel doubled the speed of SSE on their chip, AMD kept producing more of their same until several chips down the line.</p><p>AMD wasn't exactly ahead of Intel with x86-64...  The Itanium came out long before the Opteron, Intel just chose the wrong way to go.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but Chipzilla has always been able to keep abreast because of their fabrication prowess.Not really .
Back in the P4 days , Intel was kept afloat by dumping chips on the market .
Deep pockets keep Intel around...Today , Intel has a smaller process , but they do n't have the SOI tech that AMD/IBM has for quite some time , so the fab advantage is considerably smaller than it appears.Intel surpassed AMD in performance , not because of their fab , but because they managed to push new features , and keep redesigning their chips every week , where AMD could n't keep up .
Intel doubled the speed of SSE on their chip , AMD kept producing more of their same until several chips down the line.AMD was n't exactly ahead of Intel with x86-64... The Itanium came out long before the Opteron , Intel just chose the wrong way to go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but Chipzilla has always been able to keep abreast because of their fabrication prowess.Not really.
Back in the P4 days, Intel was kept afloat by dumping chips on the market.
Deep pockets keep Intel around...Today, Intel has a smaller process, but they don't have the SOI tech that AMD/IBM has for quite some time, so the fab advantage is considerably smaller than it appears.Intel surpassed AMD in performance, not because of their fab, but because they managed to push new features, and keep redesigning their chips every week, where AMD couldn't keep up.
Intel doubled the speed of SSE on their chip, AMD kept producing more of their same until several chips down the line.AMD wasn't exactly ahead of Intel with x86-64...  The Itanium came out long before the Opteron, Intel just chose the wrong way to go.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30075586</id>
	<title>Re:Only $1.25 Billion?</title>
	<author>tx\_derf</author>
	<datestamp>1258051920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At a time when cash flow is low, being able to walk away from the immediate cost of pursuing the lawsuits really helps AMD out.  They no longer have to pay all the lawyers who were pursuing this case.  They can use the difference to shore up profits or even invest in developing new product.

I'm sure they could have gotten a lot more with a final settlement but at what cost?   Now (most) everything is settled and they can shift their focus back to trying to catch up to Intel.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At a time when cash flow is low , being able to walk away from the immediate cost of pursuing the lawsuits really helps AMD out .
They no longer have to pay all the lawyers who were pursuing this case .
They can use the difference to shore up profits or even invest in developing new product .
I 'm sure they could have gotten a lot more with a final settlement but at what cost ?
Now ( most ) everything is settled and they can shift their focus back to trying to catch up to Intel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At a time when cash flow is low, being able to walk away from the immediate cost of pursuing the lawsuits really helps AMD out.
They no longer have to pay all the lawyers who were pursuing this case.
They can use the difference to shore up profits or even invest in developing new product.
I'm sure they could have gotten a lot more with a final settlement but at what cost?
Now (most) everything is settled and they can shift their focus back to trying to catch up to Intel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073266</id>
	<title>Re:DOJ?</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1258043820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Somebody has to complain first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Somebody has to complain first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somebody has to complain first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30076158</id>
	<title>Re:What AMD needs to do - and quickly</title>
	<author>BlackSnake112</author>
	<datestamp>1258053780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let IBM make CPUs for desktops and notebooks and see how intel likes it. Maybe AMD should get IBM to make the CPUs for them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let IBM make CPUs for desktops and notebooks and see how intel likes it .
Maybe AMD should get IBM to make the CPUs for them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let IBM make CPUs for desktops and notebooks and see how intel likes it.
Maybe AMD should get IBM to make the CPUs for them?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30075992</id>
	<title>Settlement doesnt change my mine</title>
	<author>Stan92057</author>
	<datestamp>1258053300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This settlement will make me want to buy AMD products how?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This settlement will make me want to buy AMD products how ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This settlement will make me want to buy AMD products how?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073338</id>
	<title>My transcript</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1258044120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Jumped in a little late, here you go.</p><p>Q: So what does this mean<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... in terms of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... ownership</p><p>Um uh, um uh. We have a obviously very important relationship with Abu Dhabi, global foundries is part of the vision of AMD, great thing for industry and us<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... we will be implementing the agreements<br>the key thing here is that for AMD and for global foundries, this addresses anybody's concerns about robustness and entitlement<br>AMD the product company is well-poised to move ahead on its strategy in order to serve the market and be a key buzzword blah blah blah</p><p>the new patent cross-license between AMD and intel does give AMD broad rights<br>no longer requires global foundries to be structured as a subsidiary of AMD</p><p>Q: intel has agreed to provide business practice provisions</p><p>think of it in terms of marketplace and customer access<br>ability for multinational OEMs and key channel partners to have "freedom of action" and choice to differentiate offerings between AMD and  intel<br>respect to specific practices and ground rules, the agreement... totally transparent about this, the agreement will be totally public as quickly as we can achieve that<br>the key points are for us that intel will not be able to condition doing business with them on not doing business with us, that's one way I would put it. they can't use inducements in order to force exclusive dealing, delay customers from using our products, delaying companies from delaying advertising... withholding benefits from OEMs<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... in the compiler business, compilers will not unfairly/artificially impair the performance of our products, we're never looking for any help, just not unfairly... intel has an obligation not to do things simply designed to hurt us<br>blah blah lots of repetition of buzzwords like 'ecosystem' and 'productitivity gains'</p><p>Q: global foundries separation timeline</p><p>clearly gives AMD, global foundries, and atek flexibility esp. in light of acquisition of charter, and does pave the way for merger of charter and global foundries, but no announcemnet being made, no timeline</p><p>Q: ?</p><p>We are trying to reset the relationship between AMD and intel. That relationship has been intense, emotional, and at times acrimonious for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... all too many years. The one thing that I would say that is a touchstone principle<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... we are going to be fierce competitors in a free and open marketplace, we are going to be mutually respectful, we want to put this behind us... healthy, normal relationship that competitors do. you will see in the agreement fought-out procedures by which we will build relationship and trust and try to resolve our differences without spilling into the courts, into the public affairs domain. this is a start and both parties intend this agreement to be an opportunity to pivot the relationship and go forward in a very classy way.</p><p>Q: Is this only x86? No graphics etc?</p><p>I uh, um, uh, that's a complicated answer but I think the general answer to your question is yes. The suits<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... have pertained to x86 processors and platforms,</p><p>there's two parts to the agreement, one is antitrust, the other is patent cross-license, broad, covers "all productS"</p><p>let me put it this way... it is an important feature of our agreement<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... that we have resolved ALL disputes. on the IP side, amd and intel have had patent peace with each other since 1976. design freedom to innovate, great contributors to patent portfolio... we have now the flexibility with rights under IP agreement for full use of foundries.</p><p>Q: is the cash being deployed towards reducing debt</p><p>you now understand why we were not more specific in yesterday's meeting on debt restructuring</p><p>Q: What happens to the cases around the world, what is your expectation</p><p>the regulatory investigations etc are conducted by sovereign governments<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... so the regulators will do what they are</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jumped in a little late , here you go.Q : So what does this mean ... in terms of ... ownershipUm uh , um uh .
We have a obviously very important relationship with Abu Dhabi , global foundries is part of the vision of AMD , great thing for industry and us ... we will be implementing the agreementsthe key thing here is that for AMD and for global foundries , this addresses anybody 's concerns about robustness and entitlementAMD the product company is well-poised to move ahead on its strategy in order to serve the market and be a key buzzword blah blah blahthe new patent cross-license between AMD and intel does give AMD broad rightsno longer requires global foundries to be structured as a subsidiary of AMDQ : intel has agreed to provide business practice provisionsthink of it in terms of marketplace and customer accessability for multinational OEMs and key channel partners to have " freedom of action " and choice to differentiate offerings between AMD and intelrespect to specific practices and ground rules , the agreement... totally transparent about this , the agreement will be totally public as quickly as we can achieve thatthe key points are for us that intel will not be able to condition doing business with them on not doing business with us , that 's one way I would put it .
they ca n't use inducements in order to force exclusive dealing , delay customers from using our products , delaying companies from delaying advertising... withholding benefits from OEMs ... in the compiler business , compilers will not unfairly/artificially impair the performance of our products , we 're never looking for any help , just not unfairly... intel has an obligation not to do things simply designed to hurt usblah blah lots of repetition of buzzwords like 'ecosystem ' and 'productitivity gains'Q : global foundries separation timelineclearly gives AMD , global foundries , and atek flexibility esp .
in light of acquisition of charter , and does pave the way for merger of charter and global foundries , but no announcemnet being made , no timelineQ : ? We are trying to reset the relationship between AMD and intel .
That relationship has been intense , emotional , and at times acrimonious for ... all too many years .
The one thing that I would say that is a touchstone principle ... we are going to be fierce competitors in a free and open marketplace , we are going to be mutually respectful , we want to put this behind us... healthy , normal relationship that competitors do .
you will see in the agreement fought-out procedures by which we will build relationship and trust and try to resolve our differences without spilling into the courts , into the public affairs domain .
this is a start and both parties intend this agreement to be an opportunity to pivot the relationship and go forward in a very classy way.Q : Is this only x86 ?
No graphics etc ? I uh , um , uh , that 's a complicated answer but I think the general answer to your question is yes .
The suits ... have pertained to x86 processors and platforms,there 's two parts to the agreement , one is antitrust , the other is patent cross-license , broad , covers " all productS " let me put it this way... it is an important feature of our agreement ... that we have resolved ALL disputes .
on the IP side , amd and intel have had patent peace with each other since 1976. design freedom to innovate , great contributors to patent portfolio... we have now the flexibility with rights under IP agreement for full use of foundries.Q : is the cash being deployed towards reducing debtyou now understand why we were not more specific in yesterday 's meeting on debt restructuringQ : What happens to the cases around the world , what is your expectationthe regulatory investigations etc are conducted by sovereign governments ... so the regulators will do what they are</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jumped in a little late, here you go.Q: So what does this mean ... in terms of ... ownershipUm uh, um uh.
We have a obviously very important relationship with Abu Dhabi, global foundries is part of the vision of AMD, great thing for industry and us ... we will be implementing the agreementsthe key thing here is that for AMD and for global foundries, this addresses anybody's concerns about robustness and entitlementAMD the product company is well-poised to move ahead on its strategy in order to serve the market and be a key buzzword blah blah blahthe new patent cross-license between AMD and intel does give AMD broad rightsno longer requires global foundries to be structured as a subsidiary of AMDQ: intel has agreed to provide business practice provisionsthink of it in terms of marketplace and customer accessability for multinational OEMs and key channel partners to have "freedom of action" and choice to differentiate offerings between AMD and  intelrespect to specific practices and ground rules, the agreement... totally transparent about this, the agreement will be totally public as quickly as we can achieve thatthe key points are for us that intel will not be able to condition doing business with them on not doing business with us, that's one way I would put it.
they can't use inducements in order to force exclusive dealing, delay customers from using our products, delaying companies from delaying advertising... withholding benefits from OEMs ... in the compiler business, compilers will not unfairly/artificially impair the performance of our products, we're never looking for any help, just not unfairly... intel has an obligation not to do things simply designed to hurt usblah blah lots of repetition of buzzwords like 'ecosystem' and 'productitivity gains'Q: global foundries separation timelineclearly gives AMD, global foundries, and atek flexibility esp.
in light of acquisition of charter, and does pave the way for merger of charter and global foundries, but no announcemnet being made, no timelineQ: ?We are trying to reset the relationship between AMD and intel.
That relationship has been intense, emotional, and at times acrimonious for ... all too many years.
The one thing that I would say that is a touchstone principle ... we are going to be fierce competitors in a free and open marketplace, we are going to be mutually respectful, we want to put this behind us... healthy, normal relationship that competitors do.
you will see in the agreement fought-out procedures by which we will build relationship and trust and try to resolve our differences without spilling into the courts, into the public affairs domain.
this is a start and both parties intend this agreement to be an opportunity to pivot the relationship and go forward in a very classy way.Q: Is this only x86?
No graphics etc?I uh, um, uh, that's a complicated answer but I think the general answer to your question is yes.
The suits ... have pertained to x86 processors and platforms,there's two parts to the agreement, one is antitrust, the other is patent cross-license, broad, covers "all productS"let me put it this way... it is an important feature of our agreement ... that we have resolved ALL disputes.
on the IP side, amd and intel have had patent peace with each other since 1976. design freedom to innovate, great contributors to patent portfolio... we have now the flexibility with rights under IP agreement for full use of foundries.Q: is the cash being deployed towards reducing debtyou now understand why we were not more specific in yesterday's meeting on debt restructuringQ: What happens to the cases around the world, what is your expectationthe regulatory investigations etc are conducted by sovereign governments ... so the regulators will do what they are</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073210</id>
	<title>Now only if they would license x86 and x86-64</title>
	<author>Lord Byron Eee PC</author>
	<datestamp>1258043640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This still doesn't resolve a major problem in the chip industry and that is that these two companies have a duopoly on x86 and x86-64 chip designs due to patents. I'm not a patent lawyer, but I really don't see how Intel can possibly patent an instruction set (the implementation thereof, sure, but the instructions themselves?). Until these companies are forced to license to third-parties, we'll still see a real lack of competition.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This still does n't resolve a major problem in the chip industry and that is that these two companies have a duopoly on x86 and x86-64 chip designs due to patents .
I 'm not a patent lawyer , but I really do n't see how Intel can possibly patent an instruction set ( the implementation thereof , sure , but the instructions themselves ? ) .
Until these companies are forced to license to third-parties , we 'll still see a real lack of competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This still doesn't resolve a major problem in the chip industry and that is that these two companies have a duopoly on x86 and x86-64 chip designs due to patents.
I'm not a patent lawyer, but I really don't see how Intel can possibly patent an instruction set (the implementation thereof, sure, but the instructions themselves?).
Until these companies are forced to license to third-parties, we'll still see a real lack of competition.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073360</id>
	<title>Re:DOJ?</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1258044180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't understand US law but if intel have done something worthy of an antitrust suit isn't it down to the DOJ to go after them?<br>
Or was this some sort of civil antitrust suit?</p></div><p>The answers to your questions are in order: Yes and Yes. <br>
If the DOJ thinks that Intel has done something worthy of an antitrust suit they can go after them (and the DOJ has been investigating Intel, so they still may). However, a non government entity can also bring an antitrust suit (although they have to demonstrate that they are in some way directly impacted by this behavior).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand US law but if intel have done something worthy of an antitrust suit is n't it down to the DOJ to go after them ?
Or was this some sort of civil antitrust suit ? The answers to your questions are in order : Yes and Yes .
If the DOJ thinks that Intel has done something worthy of an antitrust suit they can go after them ( and the DOJ has been investigating Intel , so they still may ) .
However , a non government entity can also bring an antitrust suit ( although they have to demonstrate that they are in some way directly impacted by this behavior ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand US law but if intel have done something worthy of an antitrust suit isn't it down to the DOJ to go after them?
Or was this some sort of civil antitrust suit?The answers to your questions are in order: Yes and Yes.
If the DOJ thinks that Intel has done something worthy of an antitrust suit they can go after them (and the DOJ has been investigating Intel, so they still may).
However, a non government entity can also bring an antitrust suit (although they have to demonstrate that they are in some way directly impacted by this behavior).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072766</id>
	<title>Laws</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258041960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You don't care if you have a lot of money</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't care if you have a lot of money</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't care if you have a lot of money</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073350</id>
	<title>Re:Now only if they would license x86 and x86-64</title>
	<author>Sloppy</author>
	<datestamp>1258044180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I see it as good and bad.  The good: this might help AMD.  The bad: it helps no other manufacturers.  I would have preferred to see the absurd idea that an instruction set is patentable, get smashed.  But I suppose there's no reason for AMD to advocate that, if they can get what they want through other means, since they happen to have the advantage over Intel in this regard.</p><p>C'mon, VIA, speak up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I see it as good and bad .
The good : this might help AMD .
The bad : it helps no other manufacturers .
I would have preferred to see the absurd idea that an instruction set is patentable , get smashed .
But I suppose there 's no reason for AMD to advocate that , if they can get what they want through other means , since they happen to have the advantage over Intel in this regard.C'mon , VIA , speak up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I see it as good and bad.
The good: this might help AMD.
The bad: it helps no other manufacturers.
I would have preferred to see the absurd idea that an instruction set is patentable, get smashed.
But I suppose there's no reason for AMD to advocate that, if they can get what they want through other means, since they happen to have the advantage over Intel in this regard.C'mon, VIA, speak up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073882</id>
	<title>Re:Only $1.25 Billion?</title>
	<author>iamhassi</author>
	<datestamp>1258046700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"Seriously, this number seems low to me."</i>
<br> <br>
<a href="http://theovalich.wordpress.com/2008/10/18/amd-reports-178b-revenue-records-first-profit-in-years-non-gaap/" title="wordpress.com">Considering Q3 2008 AMD only had a profit of $80 million</a> [wordpress.com] and <a href="http://finance.econsultant.com/advanced-micro-devices-2008-revenue-profit-2009-fortune-500-rank/" title="econsultant.com">AMD lost 3 billion last year</a> [econsultant.com], I'd say they've very happy getting 1.25 billion from Intel.
<br> <br>
Also let's not forget <a href="http://finance.econsultant.com/intel-2008-revenue-profit-2009-fortune-500-rank/" title="econsultant.com">1.25 billion is 25\% of Intel's  2008 profit</a> [econsultant.com] so it's not exactly spare change.
<br> <br>
I'd imagine AMD is throwing a big party right about now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Seriously , this number seems low to me .
" Considering Q3 2008 AMD only had a profit of $ 80 million [ wordpress.com ] and AMD lost 3 billion last year [ econsultant.com ] , I 'd say they 've very happy getting 1.25 billion from Intel .
Also let 's not forget 1.25 billion is 25 \ % of Intel 's 2008 profit [ econsultant.com ] so it 's not exactly spare change .
I 'd imagine AMD is throwing a big party right about now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Seriously, this number seems low to me.
"
 
Considering Q3 2008 AMD only had a profit of $80 million [wordpress.com] and AMD lost 3 billion last year [econsultant.com], I'd say they've very happy getting 1.25 billion from Intel.
Also let's not forget 1.25 billion is 25\% of Intel's  2008 profit [econsultant.com] so it's not exactly spare change.
I'd imagine AMD is throwing a big party right about now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073504</id>
	<title>Re:Now only if they would license x86 and x86-64</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1258044780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I really don't see how Intel can possibly patent an instruction set (the implementation thereof, sure, but the instructions themselves?)</p></div></blockquote><p>Technically all the patents are on implementations, but there are <i>thousands</i> of them, mostly covering the obvious ways you would implement any of the features, or any pair of features, or any triple of features, or any pair of features in a particular process, etc., etc. The end effect is that it's basically impossible to implement x86 without stepping on some patents, probably several hundred. Of course, many of those patents may be invalid, since they're obvious to someone skilled in the art. It's quite expensive to get that shown, though, and might not work at all, because it's hard to convince a court that something seemingly really technologically advanced is actually obvious to someone skilled in chip design.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really do n't see how Intel can possibly patent an instruction set ( the implementation thereof , sure , but the instructions themselves ?
) Technically all the patents are on implementations , but there are thousands of them , mostly covering the obvious ways you would implement any of the features , or any pair of features , or any triple of features , or any pair of features in a particular process , etc. , etc .
The end effect is that it 's basically impossible to implement x86 without stepping on some patents , probably several hundred .
Of course , many of those patents may be invalid , since they 're obvious to someone skilled in the art .
It 's quite expensive to get that shown , though , and might not work at all , because it 's hard to convince a court that something seemingly really technologically advanced is actually obvious to someone skilled in chip design .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really don't see how Intel can possibly patent an instruction set (the implementation thereof, sure, but the instructions themselves?
)Technically all the patents are on implementations, but there are thousands of them, mostly covering the obvious ways you would implement any of the features, or any pair of features, or any triple of features, or any pair of features in a particular process, etc., etc.
The end effect is that it's basically impossible to implement x86 without stepping on some patents, probably several hundred.
Of course, many of those patents may be invalid, since they're obvious to someone skilled in the art.
It's quite expensive to get that shown, though, and might not work at all, because it's hard to convince a court that something seemingly really technologically advanced is actually obvious to someone skilled in chip design.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073386</id>
	<title>Almost sounds like a bribe to me</title>
	<author>Vyse of Arcadia</author>
	<datestamp>1258044360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Here! Here! It's $1.25 billion! Just keep quiet about the antitrust thing, ok?"</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Here !
Here ! It 's $ 1.25 billion !
Just keep quiet about the antitrust thing , ok ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Here!
Here! It's $1.25 billion!
Just keep quiet about the antitrust thing, ok?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30077010</id>
	<title>Re:What AMD needs to do - and quickly</title>
	<author>cheesybagel</author>
	<datestamp>1258056660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>They did. IBM and AMD <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywoixXqX4-w" title="youtube.com">shared manufacturing research</a> [youtube.com] together with Chartered, Freescale, Infineon and Samsung. AMD even considered manufacturing processors at Chartered because of this manufacturing process similarity, but in the end they couldn't get enough yield and had issues with licensing x86 from Intel. AMD probably doesn't consider manufacturing chips using IBM's similar East Fishkill factory because their production is already allocated and IBM is notoriously known as an expensive place to outsource chip production. Not exactly the thing you want when you are trying to compete with Intel's prices.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They did .
IBM and AMD shared manufacturing research [ youtube.com ] together with Chartered , Freescale , Infineon and Samsung .
AMD even considered manufacturing processors at Chartered because of this manufacturing process similarity , but in the end they could n't get enough yield and had issues with licensing x86 from Intel .
AMD probably does n't consider manufacturing chips using IBM 's similar East Fishkill factory because their production is already allocated and IBM is notoriously known as an expensive place to outsource chip production .
Not exactly the thing you want when you are trying to compete with Intel 's prices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They did.
IBM and AMD shared manufacturing research [youtube.com] together with Chartered, Freescale, Infineon and Samsung.
AMD even considered manufacturing processors at Chartered because of this manufacturing process similarity, but in the end they couldn't get enough yield and had issues with licensing x86 from Intel.
AMD probably doesn't consider manufacturing chips using IBM's similar East Fishkill factory because their production is already allocated and IBM is notoriously known as an expensive place to outsource chip production.
Not exactly the thing you want when you are trying to compete with Intel's prices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30074346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30082042</id>
	<title>Several decades...</title>
	<author>KillShill</author>
	<datestamp>1258034040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>of illegal unrepentant monopoly abuse and all they get is a slap on the wrist?</p><p>Crime truly pays and i would encourage not only corporations but individuals to practice the same.</p><p>Let's all make this a world where bribery/extortion/underhanded/anti-competitive behavior is rewarded.</p><p>Micro$oft got away virtually scott free and now Inte&pound;, flush with 10's of billions of dollars (it bribed De&pound;&pound; 6Billion just in 2000-2006) can afford to be "punished" for some loose change.</p><p>In the eyes of the public Inte&pound; is still an innovator and corporate good guy, even though they have their own "DOS aint done till Lotus won't run" compiler anti-competitive behavior (check out how many games/apps use the Inte&pound; compiler and how they "run better on Inte&pound;". All those cheap "review" sites never bother to dig in and ask why does an app/game really run better... software optimization can make any cpu look like a king or a pauper.</p><p>Same story with $vidia. They control (illegally/unethically) yet you see so many apologists and defenders. It makes me sick.</p><p>It's in all our best interests to have actual, legal and fair competition. No bribery, no shenanigans, no underhanded deals, no anti-competitive behavior. But you see very few people opt for it. They see something shiny and lose all sense of things.</p><p>Sometimes i wonder if it's really worth being good (corporate or individual) because this world absolutely rewards the evil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>of illegal unrepentant monopoly abuse and all they get is a slap on the wrist ? Crime truly pays and i would encourage not only corporations but individuals to practice the same.Let 's all make this a world where bribery/extortion/underhanded/anti-competitive behavior is rewarded.Micro $ oft got away virtually scott free and now Inte   , flush with 10 's of billions of dollars ( it bribed De     6Billion just in 2000-2006 ) can afford to be " punished " for some loose change.In the eyes of the public Inte   is still an innovator and corporate good guy , even though they have their own " DOS aint done till Lotus wo n't run " compiler anti-competitive behavior ( check out how many games/apps use the Inte   compiler and how they " run better on Inte   " .
All those cheap " review " sites never bother to dig in and ask why does an app/game really run better... software optimization can make any cpu look like a king or a pauper.Same story with $ vidia .
They control ( illegally/unethically ) yet you see so many apologists and defenders .
It makes me sick.It 's in all our best interests to have actual , legal and fair competition .
No bribery , no shenanigans , no underhanded deals , no anti-competitive behavior .
But you see very few people opt for it .
They see something shiny and lose all sense of things.Sometimes i wonder if it 's really worth being good ( corporate or individual ) because this world absolutely rewards the evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>of illegal unrepentant monopoly abuse and all they get is a slap on the wrist?Crime truly pays and i would encourage not only corporations but individuals to practice the same.Let's all make this a world where bribery/extortion/underhanded/anti-competitive behavior is rewarded.Micro$oft got away virtually scott free and now Inte£, flush with 10's of billions of dollars (it bribed De££ 6Billion just in 2000-2006) can afford to be "punished" for some loose change.In the eyes of the public Inte£ is still an innovator and corporate good guy, even though they have their own "DOS aint done till Lotus won't run" compiler anti-competitive behavior (check out how many games/apps use the Inte£ compiler and how they "run better on Inte£".
All those cheap "review" sites never bother to dig in and ask why does an app/game really run better... software optimization can make any cpu look like a king or a pauper.Same story with $vidia.
They control (illegally/unethically) yet you see so many apologists and defenders.
It makes me sick.It's in all our best interests to have actual, legal and fair competition.
No bribery, no shenanigans, no underhanded deals, no anti-competitive behavior.
But you see very few people opt for it.
They see something shiny and lose all sense of things.Sometimes i wonder if it's really worth being good (corporate or individual) because this world absolutely rewards the evil.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30122956</id>
	<title>Re:Only $1.25 Billion?</title>
	<author>bagsc</author>
	<datestamp>1258371480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Intel probably doesn't think AMD is a viable competitor anymore.  AMD's net assets, prior to this deal, were in the neighborhood of negative $1.25 billion (assuming it can't get rid of its minority interests *cough GlobalFoundries cough*, and you believe its intellectual property is only worth $168 mil).  So AMD is really getting a much better financial position from this deal, after you include the spinoff, and new technology.  Intel is getting quite a bit out of the technology sharing agreement too: namely, their technology that they have experience with will continue to dominate the market.</p><p>If AMD were to die, their team might get snatched up by a player with deeper pockets and complementary engineering team, like an IBM, and things could get ugly for Intel.  More importantly, the realpolitik at this level is important.  Regulators around the world would use it as an excuse to attack a major American company as a monopoly, in order to try to boost their national champions.  Every country wants a piece of the semiconductor industry and will use any means to get it.  It may not be a coincidence that GlobalFoundries decides to build a plant in New York, and the NY AG comes in threatening big action to force this settlement... and if Cuomo couldn't get the case to stick, Eric Holder lived from birth to JD in NY.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Intel probably does n't think AMD is a viable competitor anymore .
AMD 's net assets , prior to this deal , were in the neighborhood of negative $ 1.25 billion ( assuming it ca n't get rid of its minority interests * cough GlobalFoundries cough * , and you believe its intellectual property is only worth $ 168 mil ) .
So AMD is really getting a much better financial position from this deal , after you include the spinoff , and new technology .
Intel is getting quite a bit out of the technology sharing agreement too : namely , their technology that they have experience with will continue to dominate the market.If AMD were to die , their team might get snatched up by a player with deeper pockets and complementary engineering team , like an IBM , and things could get ugly for Intel .
More importantly , the realpolitik at this level is important .
Regulators around the world would use it as an excuse to attack a major American company as a monopoly , in order to try to boost their national champions .
Every country wants a piece of the semiconductor industry and will use any means to get it .
It may not be a coincidence that GlobalFoundries decides to build a plant in New York , and the NY AG comes in threatening big action to force this settlement... and if Cuomo could n't get the case to stick , Eric Holder lived from birth to JD in NY .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Intel probably doesn't think AMD is a viable competitor anymore.
AMD's net assets, prior to this deal, were in the neighborhood of negative $1.25 billion (assuming it can't get rid of its minority interests *cough GlobalFoundries cough*, and you believe its intellectual property is only worth $168 mil).
So AMD is really getting a much better financial position from this deal, after you include the spinoff, and new technology.
Intel is getting quite a bit out of the technology sharing agreement too: namely, their technology that they have experience with will continue to dominate the market.If AMD were to die, their team might get snatched up by a player with deeper pockets and complementary engineering team, like an IBM, and things could get ugly for Intel.
More importantly, the realpolitik at this level is important.
Regulators around the world would use it as an excuse to attack a major American company as a monopoly, in order to try to boost their national champions.
Every country wants a piece of the semiconductor industry and will use any means to get it.
It may not be a coincidence that GlobalFoundries decides to build a plant in New York, and the NY AG comes in threatening big action to force this settlement... and if Cuomo couldn't get the case to stick, Eric Holder lived from birth to JD in NY.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073288</id>
	<title>Here we go again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258043940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>\_\_\_AMD and Intel have made agreements previously, only to not be happy with the results. In particular, the first time, it looked very much as if as soon as they agreed to cross-license, AMD stopped innovating and depended upon Intel for product development. Intel felt cheated.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; AMD and Intel have also agreed to stop suing each other previously. I wonder how long it will last this time.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The good news is that for a while some lawyers won't be getting any money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>\ _ \ _ \ _AMD and Intel have made agreements previously , only to not be happy with the results .
In particular , the first time , it looked very much as if as soon as they agreed to cross-license , AMD stopped innovating and depended upon Intel for product development .
Intel felt cheated .
      AMD and Intel have also agreed to stop suing each other previously .
I wonder how long it will last this time .
      The good news is that for a while some lawyers wo n't be getting any money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>\_\_\_AMD and Intel have made agreements previously, only to not be happy with the results.
In particular, the first time, it looked very much as if as soon as they agreed to cross-license, AMD stopped innovating and depended upon Intel for product development.
Intel felt cheated.
      AMD and Intel have also agreed to stop suing each other previously.
I wonder how long it will last this time.
      The good news is that for a while some lawyers won't be getting any money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072984</id>
	<title>DOJ?</title>
	<author>RiotingPacifist</author>
	<datestamp>1258042740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't understand US law but if intel have done something worthy of an antitrust suit isn't it down to the DOJ to go after them?<br>Or was this some sort of civil antitrust suit?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand US law but if intel have done something worthy of an antitrust suit is n't it down to the DOJ to go after them ? Or was this some sort of civil antitrust suit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand US law but if intel have done something worthy of an antitrust suit isn't it down to the DOJ to go after them?Or was this some sort of civil antitrust suit?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072842</id>
	<title>Re:Only $1.25 Billion?</title>
	<author>Martin Blank</author>
	<datestamp>1258042200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course they lost more in revenue than that.  But did they lose more in profits?  Perhaps.  There's also the possibility of access to patents that they did not have before, though this seems to be a pattern wherein around the end of the cross-licensing agreements, AMD sues (or threatens to sue) Intel, leading to some media stories and eventually an agreement, from which AMD seems to get more practical use than does Intel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course they lost more in revenue than that .
But did they lose more in profits ?
Perhaps. There 's also the possibility of access to patents that they did not have before , though this seems to be a pattern wherein around the end of the cross-licensing agreements , AMD sues ( or threatens to sue ) Intel , leading to some media stories and eventually an agreement , from which AMD seems to get more practical use than does Intel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course they lost more in revenue than that.
But did they lose more in profits?
Perhaps.  There's also the possibility of access to patents that they did not have before, though this seems to be a pattern wherein around the end of the cross-licensing agreements, AMD sues (or threatens to sue) Intel, leading to some media stories and eventually an agreement, from which AMD seems to get more practical use than does Intel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30074262</id>
	<title>Re:Only $1.25 Billion?</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1258048140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it $1.25 billion of pure profit? How much has AMD spent fighting this battle to this point?</p><p>How much more would they have to spend to continue fighting the battle? I would assume the risk/reward factor would say the smart move would be to finish what they started at this point and reap a MUCH LARGER settlement for their troubles. They've no doubt lost many more billions in lost sales over the past decade plus.</p><p>Combine that with the future value of market share, and we're talking about a huge shift.</p><p>The only way it makes sense to take a small settlement now is that AMD can't afford to keep fighting, even if it is the right thing to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it $ 1.25 billion of pure profit ?
How much has AMD spent fighting this battle to this point ? How much more would they have to spend to continue fighting the battle ?
I would assume the risk/reward factor would say the smart move would be to finish what they started at this point and reap a MUCH LARGER settlement for their troubles .
They 've no doubt lost many more billions in lost sales over the past decade plus.Combine that with the future value of market share , and we 're talking about a huge shift.The only way it makes sense to take a small settlement now is that AMD ca n't afford to keep fighting , even if it is the right thing to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it $1.25 billion of pure profit?
How much has AMD spent fighting this battle to this point?How much more would they have to spend to continue fighting the battle?
I would assume the risk/reward factor would say the smart move would be to finish what they started at this point and reap a MUCH LARGER settlement for their troubles.
They've no doubt lost many more billions in lost sales over the past decade plus.Combine that with the future value of market share, and we're talking about a huge shift.The only way it makes sense to take a small settlement now is that AMD can't afford to keep fighting, even if it is the right thing to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073048</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1448216_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1448216_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30078632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1448216_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30080598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1448216_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30082282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1448216_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30075586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1448216_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1448216_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1448216_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30085540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1448216_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1448216_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30074018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1448216_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30077010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30074346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1448216_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1448216_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30079112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1448216_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30076984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1448216_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30075934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1448216_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1448216_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30074010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1448216_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30087642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1448216_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1448216_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30077770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1448216_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1448216_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1448216_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1448216_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1448216_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30079064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1448216_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1448216_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30074560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1448216_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1448216_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1448216_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1448216_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1448216_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30076158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1448216_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30122956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1448216_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30074262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1448216_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1448216_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1448216_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30077438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1448216_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1448216_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1448216_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1448216_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30078426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30074346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1448216_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30076096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1448216.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30079112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072912
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1448216.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30074430
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1448216.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30077770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073586
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30074560
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30080598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073412
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1448216.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073684
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1448216.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073288
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1448216.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073386
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1448216.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30076158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30074346
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30078426
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30077010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30079064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30082282
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1448216.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073722
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1448216.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30085540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30122956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30076984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30074018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30087642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30077438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30074010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072992
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30078632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073048
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30074262
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30075586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30075934
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1448216.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30072984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30076096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1448216.30073360
</commentlist>
</conversation>
