Santa Clara, California,
Intel Corporation
Chandler, Arizona
Intel Corporation
Ireland Intel Corporation
Hillsboro, Oregon,
Intel Corporation
Intel Corporation
Portland Oregon
ALL Very Interest this month .. more so then usual on my Posts on the Iviewit Stolen Patent Case... Why? Is CEO Paul Otellini ready to come clean to Intel Corp. Shareholders on the Massive Shareholder Fraud that Intel Corp. and Paul Otellini have known about for quite some time?
And the Link Below REALLY lit up Intel Corp.
http://www.ethicscomplaint.com/2010/06/intel-corp-ceo-paul-otellini-conspiring.html
Showing posts with label CEO Paul Otellini. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CEO Paul Otellini. Show all posts
Friday, June 25, 2010
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Intel Executives Make Decisions that Shareholders Take the Hit On? Looks like a RICO Pattern and History to ME. Massive Shareholder Liability Alert.
Funny Intel Shareholders don't even Know what CEO Paul Otellini is hiding from them and has been for many - MANY years on the Biggest Liability that Intel Corp. has ever seen.
Way before the Legal Issues with Advanced Micro Devices, and Billions in Fines .. there was and Still is the Trillion Dollar Liability of the Iviewit Technologies Company and the Stolen Technology that has made Billions on top of Billions and still is for Intel Corp. and many others involved in this High Finance Liability that shareholders will one day soon be FORCED to looked at AND that will be a Very Jagged Pill to Swallow.
November 2009 Article - Charles A. Gilman Got Moxy and Charles Gilman is VERY right in this request, Intel Executives are not Playing fair and NOT disclosing KNOWN Liabilities to this Day.
It is NOT the Intel Shareholder's Fault, they were no part of the Decisions and SHOULD not take the Financial Hit for It.
"" Intel shareholder wants execs to pay $2.7B in fines
He doesn't want the company on the hook for antitrust fines, settlement
By Sharon Gaudin.
Computerworld -
An Intel Corp. investor, frustrated that the chip maker has been hit with $2.7 billion in fines and settlement payments, has filed suit in U.S. District Court in Delaware against the company and its top executives.
Charles A. Gilman wants the court to force company executives, including Intel President and CEO Paul Otellini, to fork over money for the fines and payments so shareholders don't take a financial hit.
The lawsuit was filed the same week Intel reached a settlement with Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (AMD) to end all antitrust litigation between the two companies. As part of the deal, Intel agreed to pay rival AMD $1.25 billion.
That followed a ruling in May by the European Commission in which Intel was found guilty of antitrust violations in the market for PC microprocessors and fined it $1.44 billion.
Gilman, who refers to himself in court documents as a "long-time shareholder," doesn't think the company and its shareholders should suffer for Intel's actions.
In a document filed in court, Gilman's attorneys contend that shareholder attempts to influence Intel's board of directors have "proved fruitless. ...Indeed, shareholder demands have been met with outright hostility, which can only bespeak bad faith."
The document also contends that Intel's board refused to investigate the antitrust charges against the company or to appoint an independent committee to review the charges and take remedial action, if needed.
" The antagonism of Intel's Board of Directors to the shareholders' demand is readily explained by growing evidence that the antitrust scheme, which spanned three continents, and which has so far led to over $1 billion in fines, was personally directed by CEO Otellini and by Intel's former board chairman, Craig R. Barrett," the document alleges.
Ezra Gottheil, an analyst with Technology Business Research, Inc., said he's not surprised by the suit. "Someone always sues," he said, adding that he's never heard of company executives being forced to pay for any fines or settlements.
One of Gilman's attorneys, Roy Jacobs, of the firm Law Offices of Roy Jacobs in Manhattan, declined to comment on the suit. So did another Gilman attorney, Robert Goldberg, who is with Biggs and Battaglia, a Delaware law firm.
For its part, Intel promised to fight the suit. "We disagree with the plaintiff in the matter and we are planning a vigorous defense," said Chuck Mulloy, an Intel spokesman
In addition to Otellini, those named in the suit include: former CEO and ex-Chairman of the Board Barrett; directors James Plummer and Susan Decker; and former directors Carol Bartz, D. James Guzy Sr., David Pottruck, Jane Shaw, David Yoffie, Charlene Barshefsky, John Donahoe and Frank Yeary. ""
Source of Post and Article Link
http://www.computerworld.com/
s/article/9141168/Intel_shareholder_wants_execs_to_pay_2.7B_in_fines
Posted here by
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
More on the Intel Liability with the Iviewit Technologies
Stolen Patent at www.DeniedPatent.com and www.Iviewit.TV
Also Check out www.CEOPaulOtellini.com and www.BruceSewell.com
for Intel Corp's Role in this Massive Shareholder Fraud.
Intel CEO Paul Otellini
Durward Bruce Sewell
Shareholder Activism, Advocate - Shareholder watch
Way before the Legal Issues with Advanced Micro Devices, and Billions in Fines .. there was and Still is the Trillion Dollar Liability of the Iviewit Technologies Company and the Stolen Technology that has made Billions on top of Billions and still is for Intel Corp. and many others involved in this High Finance Liability that shareholders will one day soon be FORCED to looked at AND that will be a Very Jagged Pill to Swallow.
November 2009 Article - Charles A. Gilman Got Moxy and Charles Gilman is VERY right in this request, Intel Executives are not Playing fair and NOT disclosing KNOWN Liabilities to this Day.
It is NOT the Intel Shareholder's Fault, they were no part of the Decisions and SHOULD not take the Financial Hit for It.
"" Intel shareholder wants execs to pay $2.7B in fines
He doesn't want the company on the hook for antitrust fines, settlement
By Sharon Gaudin.
Computerworld -
An Intel Corp. investor, frustrated that the chip maker has been hit with $2.7 billion in fines and settlement payments, has filed suit in U.S. District Court in Delaware against the company and its top executives.
Charles A. Gilman wants the court to force company executives, including Intel President and CEO Paul Otellini, to fork over money for the fines and payments so shareholders don't take a financial hit.
The lawsuit was filed the same week Intel reached a settlement with Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (AMD) to end all antitrust litigation between the two companies. As part of the deal, Intel agreed to pay rival AMD $1.25 billion.
That followed a ruling in May by the European Commission in which Intel was found guilty of antitrust violations in the market for PC microprocessors and fined it $1.44 billion.
Gilman, who refers to himself in court documents as a "long-time shareholder," doesn't think the company and its shareholders should suffer for Intel's actions.
In a document filed in court, Gilman's attorneys contend that shareholder attempts to influence Intel's board of directors have "proved fruitless. ...Indeed, shareholder demands have been met with outright hostility, which can only bespeak bad faith."
The document also contends that Intel's board refused to investigate the antitrust charges against the company or to appoint an independent committee to review the charges and take remedial action, if needed.
" The antagonism of Intel's Board of Directors to the shareholders' demand is readily explained by growing evidence that the antitrust scheme, which spanned three continents, and which has so far led to over $1 billion in fines, was personally directed by CEO Otellini and by Intel's former board chairman, Craig R. Barrett," the document alleges.
Ezra Gottheil, an analyst with Technology Business Research, Inc., said he's not surprised by the suit. "Someone always sues," he said, adding that he's never heard of company executives being forced to pay for any fines or settlements.
One of Gilman's attorneys, Roy Jacobs, of the firm Law Offices of Roy Jacobs in Manhattan, declined to comment on the suit. So did another Gilman attorney, Robert Goldberg, who is with Biggs and Battaglia, a Delaware law firm.
For its part, Intel promised to fight the suit. "We disagree with the plaintiff in the matter and we are planning a vigorous defense," said Chuck Mulloy, an Intel spokesman
In addition to Otellini, those named in the suit include: former CEO and ex-Chairman of the Board Barrett; directors James Plummer and Susan Decker; and former directors Carol Bartz, D. James Guzy Sr., David Pottruck, Jane Shaw, David Yoffie, Charlene Barshefsky, John Donahoe and Frank Yeary. ""
Source of Post and Article Link
http://www.computerworld.com/
s/article/9141168/Intel_shareholder_wants_execs_to_pay_2.7B_in_fines
Posted here by
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
More on the Intel Liability with the Iviewit Technologies
Stolen Patent at www.DeniedPatent.com and www.Iviewit.TV
Also Check out www.CEOPaulOtellini.com and www.BruceSewell.com
for Intel Corp's Role in this Massive Shareholder Fraud.
Intel CEO Paul Otellini
Durward Bruce Sewell
Shareholder Activism, Advocate - Shareholder watch
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Intel Pays Dell Not To Launch AMD-Based Servers - Intel Corp. Is the King of Anti-Trust Violators, in My Opinion
"" 85. A 2003 internal Dell document explains the program rationale, funding methodology, and negotiated documentation, including the following highlights:
“The intent of the MCP program is to provide funding to Dell to combat the AMD threat in the marketplace since Dell is an Intel-only OEM for CPU’s”
“The MCP is negotiated on a quarterly basis.”
“There is not a formal ‘contract’ per se that documents all the terms and conditions of the MCP program for a quarter. Rather, the MCP terms and conditions are agreed upon via email and telephone communications, which are finalized in a spreadsheet that is agreed to by Dell and Intel for a particular quarter.” (Emphasis added).
86. As mentioned in the memo, throughout this period, top executives at both companies took care that the dealings between them were kept secret. Although billions of dollars in rebate payments flowed from Intel to Dell during the period 2002-2006, there was no formal documentation of the secret agreements which led to them.
3. Intel Conveyed Threats To Dell
87. Intel repeatedly made it clear to Dell that, if Dell wanted Intel’s support, Dell would have to direct its efforts against AMD. For example, in preparation for upcoming funding negotiations with Intel in 2002, a Dell executive, who regularly acted as an informal liaison between Dell and Intel, explained that Intel would not tolerate a Dell shift to AMD CPUs.
Specifically, this Dell executive wrote to Michael Dell and others: “If [Dell starts to use] AMD [CPUs], [Intel] would just give a [competitor] MOAP type dollars to match whatever we’re getting – they won’t sit around and let us transfer share to AMD…”
88. In emails and in testimony, the same Dell executive referred to this scenario – in which Intel cuts off some or all funding to Dell and shifts it to a Dell competitor – as a “double whammy.” In one instance, this executive wrote that Intel intended to use an upcoming Dell- Intel meeting to force Dell to discuss how Dell “plan[s] to drive” total market shift to Intel from AMD, and had a “perception that we’re [competing] against competitors seeking Intel CPUs, instead of marketing against AMD.”
Intel Repeatedly Renegotiates Its Payments
To Dell To Ensure “Monogamy”
89. Over the coming years, Intel and Dell fell into a pattern of negotiating the amount of Intel’s subsidies to Dell on a nearly continuous basis. These negotiations were tied to Intel’s aggressive efforts to prevent AMD from getting a toe-hold at Dell.
In each successive round of negotiations, the groundwork was usually laid by mid-level executives at both companies tasked with conveying messages and “positioning” to and from the other so that top executives at both firms would know what to expect when they met.
90. In advance of such a meeting, on June 24, 2002, Dell’s informal liaison reported back from conversations with Intel’s lead negotiator on what Dell’s then-COO Kevin Rollins, who was scheduled to meet with a top Intel executive, should expect at the meeting. Rollins was told by his subordinate that, “[w]ithout being blatant, [the Intel representative] will make it clear that Dell won’t get more MOAP if we do AMD. We’ll get less, and someone else will get ours.”
91. After the meeting, on July 9, 2002, Kevin Rollins reported to Michael Dell that the result of the meeting was that Intel was willing to increase payments to Dell and seemed
willing to do “whatever it takes” to keep Dell from purchasing from AMD.” Rollins wrote: “They got the message that we were very serious this time with our AMD assessment, and seem to want to do whatever it takes to persuade us not to go with [an AMD CPU] …. Initial word is that our MOAP should increase from the $70M this qtr to $100mm.”
. The “Boomerang” Episode
92. Dell periodically considered launching AMD-based products, notwithstanding
Intel’s fierce opposition. But its fear of Intel’s reaction, based on Intel’s explicit and implicit
threats, counseled strongly against any action. For example, in 2002, a Dell team explored a
potential switch to AMD for some of Dell’s CPU needs, in a project code-named “Boomerang”.
The study concluded, first, that “AMD offers a significant margin opportunity for [Dell’s]
Dimension and Inspiron” platforms, on account of price, cost and customer demand factors.
93. But the Boomerang study also identified Intel’s reaction as a “key question” in
the analysis and discussed the potential “opportunity cost” given Dell’s “[e]xclusive relationship
with Intel.” The study asked whether “MOAP [payments to Dell would] increase or decrease?
And over what time period – short term vs. long term?”
The Boomerang study attempted to quantify the projected margin benefit from adopting AMD, concluding that “[up] to 32% of MOAP program could be risked” before Intel’s retaliation, in the form of reduced MOAP, would outweigh the benefits of switching certain platforms to AMD CPUs.
94. The key Dell executive acting as informal liaison between the two companies
commented on the results of the “Boomerang” study.
He warned that the “worst-case downside” scenario is that Intel would “eliminate ~$250M of Dell meet-comp MOAP for some period,” and moreover, that “Intel [would] give this MOAP to competitors to ensure that Intel does not lose [market share] to a Dell AMD [system].”
The “net effect” would be that Dell would “not only lose ~$250 [million], we probably have to do incremental [discounting] on our Intel platforms against competitors who [would] now [be] subsidized with an extra $250M from Intel.”
95. A confirming contemporaneous internal Intel email from Intel’s Dell account representative to top Intel executives states that Dell must be made to understand two things: First, that Intel’s payments to Dell would decrease “if they have AMD in their arsenal.” Second, that Dell should be warned of the “possibility that [MCP] dollars that we’re (sic) applied to DELL could go somewhere else” if Dell starts to offer AMD-based products.
96. The message was apparently conveyed in fact. A Dell executive testified that, at the time of the Boomerang analysis, Intel had conveyed “the concept of their statement back that … as long as [Dell is] Intel only, our discount structure is what it is.” He added that he understood from Intel that, “[i]f there was a change in our Intel only [status], then our discount program would have to be revisited.”
97. Under these circumstances, Dell decided not to launch AMD-based products at
that time. A Dell executive who was responsible for the “analytics” and “cost assumptions” of
the Boomerang study testified to the Attorney General that concern about Intel’s reaction was a substantial part of that decision. ""
Starting on Page 33 of Source Below
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/media_center/2009/
nov/NYAG_v_Intel_COMPLAINT_FINAL.pdf
CEO Paul Otellini
More at www.DeniedPatent.com and www.Iviewit.TV on the Evils of Intel...
www.CEOPaulOtellini.com
Intel Pays Dell, AMD, Anti-Trust Violations,
CEO Paul Otellini, Kevin Rollins, Michael Dell
“The intent of the MCP program is to provide funding to Dell to combat the AMD threat in the marketplace since Dell is an Intel-only OEM for CPU’s”
“The MCP is negotiated on a quarterly basis.”
“There is not a formal ‘contract’ per se that documents all the terms and conditions of the MCP program for a quarter. Rather, the MCP terms and conditions are agreed upon via email and telephone communications, which are finalized in a spreadsheet that is agreed to by Dell and Intel for a particular quarter.” (Emphasis added).
86. As mentioned in the memo, throughout this period, top executives at both companies took care that the dealings between them were kept secret. Although billions of dollars in rebate payments flowed from Intel to Dell during the period 2002-2006, there was no formal documentation of the secret agreements which led to them.
3. Intel Conveyed Threats To Dell
87. Intel repeatedly made it clear to Dell that, if Dell wanted Intel’s support, Dell would have to direct its efforts against AMD. For example, in preparation for upcoming funding negotiations with Intel in 2002, a Dell executive, who regularly acted as an informal liaison between Dell and Intel, explained that Intel would not tolerate a Dell shift to AMD CPUs.
Specifically, this Dell executive wrote to Michael Dell and others: “If [Dell starts to use] AMD [CPUs], [Intel] would just give a [competitor] MOAP type dollars to match whatever we’re getting – they won’t sit around and let us transfer share to AMD…”
88. In emails and in testimony, the same Dell executive referred to this scenario – in which Intel cuts off some or all funding to Dell and shifts it to a Dell competitor – as a “double whammy.” In one instance, this executive wrote that Intel intended to use an upcoming Dell- Intel meeting to force Dell to discuss how Dell “plan[s] to drive” total market shift to Intel from AMD, and had a “perception that we’re [competing] against competitors seeking Intel CPUs, instead of marketing against AMD.”
Intel Repeatedly Renegotiates Its Payments
To Dell To Ensure “Monogamy”
89. Over the coming years, Intel and Dell fell into a pattern of negotiating the amount of Intel’s subsidies to Dell on a nearly continuous basis. These negotiations were tied to Intel’s aggressive efforts to prevent AMD from getting a toe-hold at Dell.
In each successive round of negotiations, the groundwork was usually laid by mid-level executives at both companies tasked with conveying messages and “positioning” to and from the other so that top executives at both firms would know what to expect when they met.
90. In advance of such a meeting, on June 24, 2002, Dell’s informal liaison reported back from conversations with Intel’s lead negotiator on what Dell’s then-COO Kevin Rollins, who was scheduled to meet with a top Intel executive, should expect at the meeting. Rollins was told by his subordinate that, “[w]ithout being blatant, [the Intel representative] will make it clear that Dell won’t get more MOAP if we do AMD. We’ll get less, and someone else will get ours.”
91. After the meeting, on July 9, 2002, Kevin Rollins reported to Michael Dell that the result of the meeting was that Intel was willing to increase payments to Dell and seemed
willing to do “whatever it takes” to keep Dell from purchasing from AMD.” Rollins wrote: “They got the message that we were very serious this time with our AMD assessment, and seem to want to do whatever it takes to persuade us not to go with [an AMD CPU] …. Initial word is that our MOAP should increase from the $70M this qtr to $100mm.”
. The “Boomerang” Episode
92. Dell periodically considered launching AMD-based products, notwithstanding
Intel’s fierce opposition. But its fear of Intel’s reaction, based on Intel’s explicit and implicit
threats, counseled strongly against any action. For example, in 2002, a Dell team explored a
potential switch to AMD for some of Dell’s CPU needs, in a project code-named “Boomerang”.
The study concluded, first, that “AMD offers a significant margin opportunity for [Dell’s]
Dimension and Inspiron” platforms, on account of price, cost and customer demand factors.
93. But the Boomerang study also identified Intel’s reaction as a “key question” in
the analysis and discussed the potential “opportunity cost” given Dell’s “[e]xclusive relationship
with Intel.” The study asked whether “MOAP [payments to Dell would] increase or decrease?
And over what time period – short term vs. long term?”
The Boomerang study attempted to quantify the projected margin benefit from adopting AMD, concluding that “[up] to 32% of MOAP program could be risked” before Intel’s retaliation, in the form of reduced MOAP, would outweigh the benefits of switching certain platforms to AMD CPUs.
94. The key Dell executive acting as informal liaison between the two companies
commented on the results of the “Boomerang” study.
He warned that the “worst-case downside” scenario is that Intel would “eliminate ~$250M of Dell meet-comp MOAP for some period,” and moreover, that “Intel [would] give this MOAP to competitors to ensure that Intel does not lose [market share] to a Dell AMD [system].”
The “net effect” would be that Dell would “not only lose ~$250 [million], we probably have to do incremental [discounting] on our Intel platforms against competitors who [would] now [be] subsidized with an extra $250M from Intel.”
95. A confirming contemporaneous internal Intel email from Intel’s Dell account representative to top Intel executives states that Dell must be made to understand two things: First, that Intel’s payments to Dell would decrease “if they have AMD in their arsenal.” Second, that Dell should be warned of the “possibility that [MCP] dollars that we’re (sic) applied to DELL could go somewhere else” if Dell starts to offer AMD-based products.
96. The message was apparently conveyed in fact. A Dell executive testified that, at the time of the Boomerang analysis, Intel had conveyed “the concept of their statement back that … as long as [Dell is] Intel only, our discount structure is what it is.” He added that he understood from Intel that, “[i]f there was a change in our Intel only [status], then our discount program would have to be revisited.”
97. Under these circumstances, Dell decided not to launch AMD-based products at
that time. A Dell executive who was responsible for the “analytics” and “cost assumptions” of
the Boomerang study testified to the Attorney General that concern about Intel’s reaction was a substantial part of that decision. ""
Starting on Page 33 of Source Below
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/media_center/2009/
nov/NYAG_v_Intel_COMPLAINT_FINAL.pdf
CEO Paul Otellini
More at www.DeniedPatent.com and www.Iviewit.TV on the Evils of Intel...
www.CEOPaulOtellini.com
Intel Pays Dell, AMD, Anti-Trust Violations,
CEO Paul Otellini, Kevin Rollins, Michael Dell
Monday, January 4, 2010
Stocks Up on Upgrade: Intel (INTC) - Headlines Today - I Would NOT get To Excited if I Were You....
Headlines are Simply going Crazy today, as if to get you excited about Your Intel Stock. Come on in the face of an Insider Trading Scandal as with Intel Capital and the SEC Complaints Against Intel Corp. Due to a Trillion Dollar Accounting Error that was not Disclosed by CEO Paul Otellini and then General Council D. Bruce Sewell, I would certainly be Leary of thinking those Stocks are going to Keep Rising... and Of Course not being a Stock Analyst of even someone who owns any Stocks, what Would I Know?
Then let's not forget, isn't the Excitement all about this New Fangled Chip ... well What about Nvidia, How will Intel Corp. Quiet the Noise they are Making with a Competing Chip, or have I got this story all wrong... Ok So... didn't CEO Paul Otellini brag to President Obama about the 7 Billion Intel was putting into the US Job Market - Recent News talks about All that "once a lifetime" investments that Intel (INTC) was making to create factories in Oregon ... and other US States... Right? You Remember all this? Ok .. Well now it seems not all those Factories will be US Based so.. more Intel Lies? Or is the Tech Room Mill just a Bunch of Hooey....?
Did Intel Corp. Get any Kind of Incentives or Deals with the US Promised Jobs that they are Not Following Through on ?
Now onto this Nightmare of Information that Will in My VERY UNeducated, and NON-professional Opinion will sent Intel (INTC) socks plummeting... Well Add to This... SEC Complaints of Insider Trading from Intel Capital, and Suppose that CEO Paul Otellini Really was "Surprised" as he is touting in the Media, well certainly this will affect the Reputation of Intel Corp. Right? Which will in turn affect their Stocks, Right? Or is Intel Corp. and CEO Paul Otellini so Connected and inter-Connected that they are Above all that.... Above the Law, Above Anti-Trust Violations and
Truly, How Long Can CEO Paul Otellini and the Intel Corporation Keep us this Charade to Fool Shareholders?
It seems to Me that the Iviewit Trillion Dollar Accounting LIE and Cover Up would be Enough to RUIN Intel ... but Add to it the Intel Capital Insider Trading Scandal, the Lies and Cover Ups of D. Bruce Sewell and the Nvidia Scandal and Well You certainly have a House of Cards in a Hurricane.
Now Nvidia is creating so much noise for a buy out right? I mean we can't have small companies like Nvidia in the Market with a Better Product making Super Duper Intel Corp. and their head Honcho CEO Paul Otellin Look Bad. So They will Buy Nvidia and the Stocks will Stabilize or Rise... Right? What? I Don't think So... Intel Lies are Falling Down... and there is No Stopping the SEC, the FTC, the Attorney General, the FBI, the Department of Justice FROM Holding Intel Corp. ACCOUNTABLE ... oh Wait... Intel Owns them Right? or Owns Attorneys? or has "People" - Something like that and Intel Will Continue with the Technology Stealing Monopoly and well YOU Lose..
To Read Stock Article Click Below
http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=153698&cat=1
Intel (INTC), Intel Stocks, Intel Shareholders,
Below is a Lots of Good Stuff on the Names and Players
of the Galleon Management Insider Trading Scandal
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/?s=%22aj+Rajaratnam&x=27&y=12
CEO Paul Otellini
Then let's not forget, isn't the Excitement all about this New Fangled Chip ... well What about Nvidia, How will Intel Corp. Quiet the Noise they are Making with a Competing Chip, or have I got this story all wrong... Ok So... didn't CEO Paul Otellini brag to President Obama about the 7 Billion Intel was putting into the US Job Market - Recent News talks about All that "once a lifetime" investments that Intel (INTC) was making to create factories in Oregon ... and other US States... Right? You Remember all this? Ok .. Well now it seems not all those Factories will be US Based so.. more Intel Lies? Or is the Tech Room Mill just a Bunch of Hooey....?
Did Intel Corp. Get any Kind of Incentives or Deals with the US Promised Jobs that they are Not Following Through on ?
Now onto this Nightmare of Information that Will in My VERY UNeducated, and NON-professional Opinion will sent Intel (INTC) socks plummeting... Well Add to This... SEC Complaints of Insider Trading from Intel Capital, and Suppose that CEO Paul Otellini Really was "Surprised" as he is touting in the Media, well certainly this will affect the Reputation of Intel Corp. Right? Which will in turn affect their Stocks, Right? Or is Intel Corp. and CEO Paul Otellini so Connected and inter-Connected that they are Above all that.... Above the Law, Above Anti-Trust Violations and
Truly, How Long Can CEO Paul Otellini and the Intel Corporation Keep us this Charade to Fool Shareholders?
It seems to Me that the Iviewit Trillion Dollar Accounting LIE and Cover Up would be Enough to RUIN Intel ... but Add to it the Intel Capital Insider Trading Scandal, the Lies and Cover Ups of D. Bruce Sewell and the Nvidia Scandal and Well You certainly have a House of Cards in a Hurricane.
Now Nvidia is creating so much noise for a buy out right? I mean we can't have small companies like Nvidia in the Market with a Better Product making Super Duper Intel Corp. and their head Honcho CEO Paul Otellin Look Bad. So They will Buy Nvidia and the Stocks will Stabilize or Rise... Right? What? I Don't think So... Intel Lies are Falling Down... and there is No Stopping the SEC, the FTC, the Attorney General, the FBI, the Department of Justice FROM Holding Intel Corp. ACCOUNTABLE ... oh Wait... Intel Owns them Right? or Owns Attorneys? or has "People" - Something like that and Intel Will Continue with the Technology Stealing Monopoly and well YOU Lose..
To Read Stock Article Click Below
http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=153698&cat=1
Intel (INTC), Intel Stocks, Intel Shareholders,
Below is a Lots of Good Stuff on the Names and Players
of the Galleon Management Insider Trading Scandal
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/?s=%22aj+Rajaratnam&x=27&y=12
CEO Paul Otellini
Intel is No Stranger to Crossing the Line of "Fair Play". Intel is an Evil Monopolistic Bullying Company that is Above all Laws and Morals.
April 10th 2008 News Archive
"Nvidia CEO goes on Intel Rant
Nvidia CEO and co-founder Jen-Hsun Huang let rip with a diatribe against Intel at Nvidia's financial analyst day on Thursday. Huang cited frustration with recent Intel comments stating that discrete graphics cards will become "unnecessary."
Nvidia CEO Jen-Hsun Huang(Credit: Nvidia)
Because Intel, the world's largest chipmaker, includes integrated-graphics silicon in most of its chipsets the company has become the world's largest supplier of graphics chips.
Its upcoming Nehalem processors will move the graphics from the chipset onto the same piece of silicon as the main processor. A design that is expected to result in vastly better performance.
(Note: A contrarian take on the graphics market states that Nvidia remains the #1 graphics supplier because approximately 73 million Intel integrated graphics processors (IGP) are unused in systems due to "double-attach" with an Nvidia solution, according to Doug Freedman of American Technology Research. More here at ExtremeTech.)
This image of Intel as an unstoppable graphics juggernaut is what Huang takes issue with. What set him off initially was a comment from an Intel graphics and gaming technologist who said that consumers "probably won't need" discrete cards in the future. Nvidia's primary business is designing and supplying graphics chips for discrete graphics cards that go into PCs.
"We don't typically like to do this. It's just that we've been taking it and taking it and taking it. Every single frickin' day. Are you allowed to say that word? Every day all over the world. Enough is Enough."
Huang was especially upset about Intel's claims of boosting integrated graphics performance in the future, saying Intel's claims paled against what Nvidia will achieve by that time.
"Claim after claim after claim. They're just false. They cross the line of fair play," he said. "Here's another one. Nvidia's gonna be dead. Because we're (Intel) sticking the graphics in the CPU and (Nvidia) will have no place to stick it," he said.
Huang also attacked Intel's marketing machine. "Just because they have this enormous marketing budget. Just because they have platforms everywhere in the world. It doesn't make it right. To take on smaller companies. It's just not right."
Huang also mounted an aggressive defense of gaming on the PC--one of the main reasons many consumers opt for Nvidia graphics chips. He began by claiming that Intel graphics can't run games. "We're not the only ones saying this. This is Tim Sweeney.
One of the most important game developers in the entire world. 'Intel is incapable of running modern games. Intel's integrated graphics just don't work. I don't think they will ever work.'
This wasn't said in 1994. This was said on March 10, 2008," Huang said.
"(It's) one of the most important apps. I play games. A lot more people play games today than before. It's a big industry. We happen to think games are important. Game developers are important. Game players are important. Online games, important. Retail games, important. First person shooters, important. Simulation games, important. I'm a perfectly grown adult. I'm not ashamed of them."
Intel also has plans to bring out a graphics engine code-named Larrabee that uses "many cores" to take on high-end engineering and scientific applications. And presumably games too.
When asked to comment, Intel spokesman Dan Snyder said, "Are you surprised? Nvidia's CEO has been very vocal about their feelings for several months now, so I don't think any of this comes as a surprise." "
Source of Above Post
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-9916414-64.html
How Many Companies has Intel, has CEO Paul Otellini been involved in Destroying?
How Many Lives have Been Ruined by CEO Paul Otellini and the Intel Corporation. Intel is an Evil Company as they Bully the Industry, Monopolize so that even if you Invent Something AMAZING they will find a way to ruin you, and put the run on you...
Stop Intel Corp.'s Reign of Terror on Smaller Businesses.
CEO Paul Otellini
"Nvidia CEO goes on Intel Rant
Nvidia CEO and co-founder Jen-Hsun Huang let rip with a diatribe against Intel at Nvidia's financial analyst day on Thursday. Huang cited frustration with recent Intel comments stating that discrete graphics cards will become "unnecessary."
Nvidia CEO Jen-Hsun Huang(Credit: Nvidia)
Because Intel, the world's largest chipmaker, includes integrated-graphics silicon in most of its chipsets the company has become the world's largest supplier of graphics chips.
Its upcoming Nehalem processors will move the graphics from the chipset onto the same piece of silicon as the main processor. A design that is expected to result in vastly better performance.
(Note: A contrarian take on the graphics market states that Nvidia remains the #1 graphics supplier because approximately 73 million Intel integrated graphics processors (IGP) are unused in systems due to "double-attach" with an Nvidia solution, according to Doug Freedman of American Technology Research. More here at ExtremeTech.)
This image of Intel as an unstoppable graphics juggernaut is what Huang takes issue with. What set him off initially was a comment from an Intel graphics and gaming technologist who said that consumers "probably won't need" discrete cards in the future. Nvidia's primary business is designing and supplying graphics chips for discrete graphics cards that go into PCs.
"We don't typically like to do this. It's just that we've been taking it and taking it and taking it. Every single frickin' day. Are you allowed to say that word? Every day all over the world. Enough is Enough."
Huang was especially upset about Intel's claims of boosting integrated graphics performance in the future, saying Intel's claims paled against what Nvidia will achieve by that time.
"Claim after claim after claim. They're just false. They cross the line of fair play," he said. "Here's another one. Nvidia's gonna be dead. Because we're (Intel) sticking the graphics in the CPU and (Nvidia) will have no place to stick it," he said.
Huang also attacked Intel's marketing machine. "Just because they have this enormous marketing budget. Just because they have platforms everywhere in the world. It doesn't make it right. To take on smaller companies. It's just not right."
Huang also mounted an aggressive defense of gaming on the PC--one of the main reasons many consumers opt for Nvidia graphics chips. He began by claiming that Intel graphics can't run games. "We're not the only ones saying this. This is Tim Sweeney.
One of the most important game developers in the entire world. 'Intel is incapable of running modern games. Intel's integrated graphics just don't work. I don't think they will ever work.'
This wasn't said in 1994. This was said on March 10, 2008," Huang said.
"(It's) one of the most important apps. I play games. A lot more people play games today than before. It's a big industry. We happen to think games are important. Game developers are important. Game players are important. Online games, important. Retail games, important. First person shooters, important. Simulation games, important. I'm a perfectly grown adult. I'm not ashamed of them."
Intel also has plans to bring out a graphics engine code-named Larrabee that uses "many cores" to take on high-end engineering and scientific applications. And presumably games too.
When asked to comment, Intel spokesman Dan Snyder said, "Are you surprised? Nvidia's CEO has been very vocal about their feelings for several months now, so I don't think any of this comes as a surprise." "
Source of Above Post
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-9916414-64.html
How Many Companies has Intel, has CEO Paul Otellini been involved in Destroying?
How Many Lives have Been Ruined by CEO Paul Otellini and the Intel Corporation. Intel is an Evil Company as they Bully the Industry, Monopolize so that even if you Invent Something AMAZING they will find a way to ruin you, and put the run on you...
Stop Intel Corp.'s Reign of Terror on Smaller Businesses.
CEO Paul Otellini
Friday, January 1, 2010
Bruce Sewell, the Pompass ASS, Double Talk - "“Other companies must compete with us by inventing their own technologies, not just by stealing ours,”
From the Apple Press Room - Online Of Course.. We have the Double Standards, Flat out Lies and Serious Double Talk from One D. Bruce Sewell General Council to Apple.
I mean this Cannot Really Be CAN IT..?.. Shocking Statement by Now Infamous Double Talker and Patent Infringement Companies BEST BUDDY - Bruce Sewell ...
DurWOOD.. oh I mean DurWard - Bruce Sewell Says THIS...
"“Other companies must compete with us by inventing their own technologies, not just by stealing ours,” said Bruce Sewell, Apple’s General Counsel and senior vice president. " "
OH Yes, there it in Lights. Never Forget this Now Famous Statement that Will End Bruce Sewell's Career as He Once Knew It. Bruce Sewill - the POT Calling the KETTLE Black - per say... as he Smacks down the REAL inventors NOW at his NEW Job at Apple just like he DID at Intel Corp... Now at Intel - CEO Paul Otellini KNEW - we Wonder WHO at APPLE knows the TRUTH about Bruce Sewell and if that is WHY he Was Hired as General Council...
Bruce Sewell knowing Full Well of the Trillion Dollar Patent Theft of the REAL Inventors of the Iviewit Technology - Having FULL knowledge that "other companies" the ONE he was Representing was USING this Stolen Patent and NOT honoring Contract Commitments with the Iviewit Technology Company, and having been Fully Informed of the Importance this Matter was to the Financial Future of the Intel Company and to their Shareholders.... Bruce Sewell withheld this information and Denied the Real Inventors THEIR RIGHTS.
D. Bruce Sewell did this Blatantly, he knew he was above the Law and would never be held accountable for this. For NO ONE would EVER know RIGHT?
Boy if I Was APPLE ... I would Want to Hire the Almighty Bruce Sewell as Well this Way, all those Smart Boys and Girls out there inventing that Really Neat Stuff will have no rights and Get nothing and when they squirm and Fight about it we will just sick Ol' Bruce on Em' - Cuz... Bruce Sewell has Connections in VERY high places, and Bruce Sewell Knows the Ropes when it Comes to SHUTTING up those Pesky inventors, those Patent Owners...
So Again This Statement...
"“Other companies must compete with us by inventing their own technologies, not just by stealing ours,” said Bruce Sewell, Apple’s General Counsel and senior vice president. "
and Oh Believe Me this Will SOON be the Most Highlighted Statement of D. Bruce Sewell's Career... Anyway...
Iviewit Did Invent "their own Technolgy" - D. Bruce Sewell then of Intel as their "General Counsel" Well he was informed of this.
Bruce Sewell knew that the Technology Was STOLEN - and he stood by the Criminals and NOT with the Victims as he Denied the REAL inventors their rights.
And now when the Shoe is on the Other Foot, the Self Righteous Pompass Ass Bruce Sewell says that " "“Other companies must compete with us by inventing their own technologies, not just by stealing ours,” said Bruce Sewell " -
How in the Heck do you COMPETE with a General Counsel from a MAJOR Tech Company when He is Above the Law, knows the Names and Players, has inside information and Stands Seriously on the WRONG side of the MORAL Compass?
You can't win against Liars like Bruce Sewell. He Condones the Stealing of Patents when at Intel and Now is suggesting that Nokai is Falsley Accusing Apple and that Nokai is "stealing ours" - sounds like a School Yard Bully .... but This School Yard Bully Packs a Trillion Dollar Punch and YOU LOSE!!
Here is the Now Infamous APPLE Press Release...
" Apple Countersues Nokia
CUPERTINO, California—December 11, 2009—Responding to a lawsuit brought against the company by Nokia, Apple® today filed a countersuit claiming that Nokia is infringing 13 Apple patents.
“Other companies must compete with us by inventing their own technologies, not just by stealing ours,” said Bruce Sewell, Apple’s General Counsel and senior vice president.
Apple ignited the personal computer revolution in the 1970s with the Apple II and reinvented the personal computer in the 1980s with the Macintosh. Today, Apple continues to lead the industry in innovation with its award-winning computers, OS X operating system and iLife and professional applications.
Apple is also spearheading the digital media revolution with its iPod portable music and video players and iTunes online store, and has entered the mobile phone market with its revolutionary iPhone.
Press Contacts:
Steve Dowling
Apple
dowling@apple.com
(408) 974-1896
NOTE TO EDITORS:
For additional
Source:
Apples Own Press Room...
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/12/11countersue.html
Copy This, Print It Out... Frame It...
Words Durward... YEP thats his Name..
D. Bruce Sewell ..
Words He WILL never Forget Saying.
Bruce Sewell
I mean this Cannot Really Be CAN IT..?.. Shocking Statement by Now Infamous Double Talker and Patent Infringement Companies BEST BUDDY - Bruce Sewell ...
DurWOOD.. oh I mean DurWard - Bruce Sewell Says THIS...
"“Other companies must compete with us by inventing their own technologies, not just by stealing ours,” said Bruce Sewell, Apple’s General Counsel and senior vice president. " "
OH Yes, there it in Lights. Never Forget this Now Famous Statement that Will End Bruce Sewell's Career as He Once Knew It. Bruce Sewill - the POT Calling the KETTLE Black - per say... as he Smacks down the REAL inventors NOW at his NEW Job at Apple just like he DID at Intel Corp... Now at Intel - CEO Paul Otellini KNEW - we Wonder WHO at APPLE knows the TRUTH about Bruce Sewell and if that is WHY he Was Hired as General Council...
Bruce Sewell knowing Full Well of the Trillion Dollar Patent Theft of the REAL Inventors of the Iviewit Technology - Having FULL knowledge that "other companies" the ONE he was Representing was USING this Stolen Patent and NOT honoring Contract Commitments with the Iviewit Technology Company, and having been Fully Informed of the Importance this Matter was to the Financial Future of the Intel Company and to their Shareholders.... Bruce Sewell withheld this information and Denied the Real Inventors THEIR RIGHTS.
D. Bruce Sewell did this Blatantly, he knew he was above the Law and would never be held accountable for this. For NO ONE would EVER know RIGHT?
Boy if I Was APPLE ... I would Want to Hire the Almighty Bruce Sewell as Well this Way, all those Smart Boys and Girls out there inventing that Really Neat Stuff will have no rights and Get nothing and when they squirm and Fight about it we will just sick Ol' Bruce on Em' - Cuz... Bruce Sewell has Connections in VERY high places, and Bruce Sewell Knows the Ropes when it Comes to SHUTTING up those Pesky inventors, those Patent Owners...
So Again This Statement...
"“Other companies must compete with us by inventing their own technologies, not just by stealing ours,” said Bruce Sewell, Apple’s General Counsel and senior vice president. "
and Oh Believe Me this Will SOON be the Most Highlighted Statement of D. Bruce Sewell's Career... Anyway...
Iviewit Did Invent "their own Technolgy" - D. Bruce Sewell then of Intel as their "General Counsel" Well he was informed of this.
Bruce Sewell knew that the Technology Was STOLEN - and he stood by the Criminals and NOT with the Victims as he Denied the REAL inventors their rights.
And now when the Shoe is on the Other Foot, the Self Righteous Pompass Ass Bruce Sewell says that " "“Other companies must compete with us by inventing their own technologies, not just by stealing ours,” said Bruce Sewell " -
How in the Heck do you COMPETE with a General Counsel from a MAJOR Tech Company when He is Above the Law, knows the Names and Players, has inside information and Stands Seriously on the WRONG side of the MORAL Compass?
You can't win against Liars like Bruce Sewell. He Condones the Stealing of Patents when at Intel and Now is suggesting that Nokai is Falsley Accusing Apple and that Nokai is "stealing ours" - sounds like a School Yard Bully .... but This School Yard Bully Packs a Trillion Dollar Punch and YOU LOSE!!
Here is the Now Infamous APPLE Press Release...
" Apple Countersues Nokia
CUPERTINO, California—December 11, 2009—Responding to a lawsuit brought against the company by Nokia, Apple® today filed a countersuit claiming that Nokia is infringing 13 Apple patents.
“Other companies must compete with us by inventing their own technologies, not just by stealing ours,” said Bruce Sewell, Apple’s General Counsel and senior vice president.
Apple ignited the personal computer revolution in the 1970s with the Apple II and reinvented the personal computer in the 1980s with the Macintosh. Today, Apple continues to lead the industry in innovation with its award-winning computers, OS X operating system and iLife and professional applications.
Apple is also spearheading the digital media revolution with its iPod portable music and video players and iTunes online store, and has entered the mobile phone market with its revolutionary iPhone.
Press Contacts:
Steve Dowling
Apple
dowling@apple.com
(408) 974-1896
NOTE TO EDITORS:
For additional
Source:
Apples Own Press Room...
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/12/11countersue.html
Copy This, Print It Out... Frame It...
Words Durward... YEP thats his Name..
D. Bruce Sewell ..
Words He WILL never Forget Saying.
Bruce Sewell
CEO Paul Otellini is Guilty of SEC Fraud the Way I See it..
CEO Paul Otellini of Intel knew of a Trillion Dollar Liability and REFUSED to tell his Shareholders. Why ? And now as insider Trading News is going around about Intel and IBM, now Paul Otellini says It is news to us... Paul Otellini KEEPS shareholders in the Dark, Does not Honor Contracts with Inventors and STANDS on the Wrong Side of the Moral Compass..
I Guess it is a Matter of Who Ya Know... Boy if I had Intel Stocks I would Sure Be MAD if the Boys in Charge and their Attorney ( Bruce Sewell ) Were .. Well aware of a Trillion Dollar Stolen Patent and were well aware of Contracts they Refused to Make Good on and ... D. Bruce Sewell ... Attorney and CEO Paul Otellini knowing of this HUGE Liability .. and Did they Tell their Shareholders... Is this a Crime? Is it an Ethics Violation? Does it Even Matter at All?
Did Bruce Sewell and CEO Paul Otellini Make any Attempt to Make Good on the Contracts they Assumed... or did they Just Ignore it.. and Now D. Bruce Sewell is at Apple where it Seems he is part of the Fight with Nokio and this Patent Infringment... anyway MUCH More on that Issue and Connected Parties Later...
http://www.iphonejd.com/iphone_jd/2009/09/apple-hires-bruce-sewell-as-new-general-counsel.html
Why are Lengthy Court Battles Needed in Fights Such as Iviewit Getting their Patent, or in Nokai Getting Their Rights Honored against APPLE?
I mean It should take a Week, may be a month to Read the Patents and to see if they have been used by APPLE and do the right thing.
However, Keeping Nokai, Iviewit and REAL patent owners such as them in Court for years well this keeps Stock Prices Stable as the Decision is Pending and Meanwhile Guys like CEO Paul Otellini, the Apple Owners, Intel Corporation, Warner, Sony, MPEGLA - well they can lie about all this so Shareholders won't panic.
Though the Proof is Right there, if the Courts can be bought off in some way or some how manipulated well then it can drag on for years, GET those Attorneys Plenty of Money and NOT create a Panic in the Stock Market with the TRUTH that there is Trillions in Liability that Have not Been Reported on the Books.
Related Documents and Links...
http://www.pbs.org/nbr/site/onair/transcripts/intel_ceo_paul_otellini_on_galleon_group_091019/
http://www.deniedpatent.com/2009/12/intel-ibm-lockheed-sgi-in-trillion.html
http://www.deniedpatent.com/2009/12/intel-ibm-lockheed-sgi-in-trillion.html
http://www.deniedpatent.com/2009/12/federal-complaint-service-intel.html
http://www.deniedpatent.com/2009/12/to-paul-s-otellini-president-and-chief.html
Crystal@CrystalCox.com
Crystal
Is all this Not Fraud?
I Guess it is a Matter of Who Ya Know... Boy if I had Intel Stocks I would Sure Be MAD if the Boys in Charge and their Attorney ( Bruce Sewell ) Were .. Well aware of a Trillion Dollar Stolen Patent and were well aware of Contracts they Refused to Make Good on and ... D. Bruce Sewell ... Attorney and CEO Paul Otellini knowing of this HUGE Liability .. and Did they Tell their Shareholders... Is this a Crime? Is it an Ethics Violation? Does it Even Matter at All?
Did Bruce Sewell and CEO Paul Otellini Make any Attempt to Make Good on the Contracts they Assumed... or did they Just Ignore it.. and Now D. Bruce Sewell is at Apple where it Seems he is part of the Fight with Nokio and this Patent Infringment... anyway MUCH More on that Issue and Connected Parties Later...
http://www.iphonejd.com/iphone_jd/2009/09/apple-hires-bruce-sewell-as-new-general-counsel.html
You will NEVER confince me that CEO Paul Otellini is not GUILTY, that he had no INSIDE information on any of this.
Come on Paul Otellini, as we Well Know .. had Knowledge of a Trillion Dollar Patent Theft which affects Stocks NOT ONLY in CEO Paul Otellini's Company but in many SEC Regulated Companies... Trillions of Dollars and ( Silent Fraud ) CEO Paul Otellini Said NOTHING to Shareholders RIGHT? And doesn't this So Called Pillar of the Financial Community owe any Fiduciary Duty to Other Companies, to Shareholders, to Inventors?
CEO Paul Otellini would have us believe he is NOT involved in this Multi-Billion Dollar Scandal....?? Hmmm.. Well I Say CEO Paul Otellini is GUILTY... But hey that is Just My Opinion.
We all Need to Complain to the SEC ON this guy.
Oh Nevermind CEO Paul Otellini and Intel are Above the Law because of Politicians they Know, Political Favors Owed to Them, Billions of Dollars and Corruption Beyond the Comprehension of Folks who have Morals.
Does the ITC (International Trade Commission) Really Care about Patent Infringement and the True Rights of Inventors, My Guess is AGAIN it is a matter of Who your Connected to, How Much Money the Bad Guys Have and Who is Above the Law, Ethics and Morals of Any Kind.Why are Lengthy Court Battles Needed in Fights Such as Iviewit Getting their Patent, or in Nokai Getting Their Rights Honored against APPLE?
I mean It should take a Week, may be a month to Read the Patents and to see if they have been used by APPLE and do the right thing.
However, Keeping Nokai, Iviewit and REAL patent owners such as them in Court for years well this keeps Stock Prices Stable as the Decision is Pending and Meanwhile Guys like CEO Paul Otellini, the Apple Owners, Intel Corporation, Warner, Sony, MPEGLA - well they can lie about all this so Shareholders won't panic.
Though the Proof is Right there, if the Courts can be bought off in some way or some how manipulated well then it can drag on for years, GET those Attorneys Plenty of Money and NOT create a Panic in the Stock Market with the TRUTH that there is Trillions in Liability that Have not Been Reported on the Books.
Related Documents and Links...
http://www.pbs.org/nbr/site/onair/transcripts/intel_ceo_paul_otellini_on_galleon_group_091019/
http://www.deniedpatent.com/2009/12/intel-ibm-lockheed-sgi-in-trillion.html
http://www.deniedpatent.com/2009/12/intel-ibm-lockheed-sgi-in-trillion.html
http://www.deniedpatent.com/2009/12/federal-complaint-service-intel.html
http://www.deniedpatent.com/2009/12/to-paul-s-otellini-president-and-chief.html
Insider Trading News Links ( Again Print or Copy to your Computer - as Links and Information Disappear once the BOUGHT Media see the Dots Being Connected by Obnoxious Bloggers.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10377395-64.html
http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2009/10/26/daily153.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/12/11/intel_insider_trader_fined/
More on What CEO Paul Otellini and D. Bruce Sewell ( Now a Liability at APPLE) - More on What they Knew and did not Disclose to Shareholders COMING SOON.... Oh and Don't Think that IBM and Intel Were NOT Talking on this Trillion DOLLAR Patent Theft that WOULD affect both their Stock Prices.Crystal@CrystalCox.com
Crystal
D. Bruce Sewell - Formerly of Intel - Now General Councel at Apple - Formerly of Perkins Coie and Now Head of the Nokia Smackdown...
Bruce Sewell comes to Apple from Intel in the Fall of 2009
When did Bruce Sewell FIRST know of The Trillion Dollar Stolen Patent and the FACT that Intel was using this patent, this Stolen Technology though Intel was NOT honoring contracts they assumed ?
Well Scour www.DeniedPatent.com for One and Find Emails, Phone Conversations and More that PROVE D. Bruce Sewell not only knew about this Patent Theft, but also Was informed that Intel was using it, was informed of Contracts that Intel was not Honoring and REFUSED to make this right with the Rightful Patent Owners and For Some Reason D. Bruce Sewell and CEO Paul Otellini seemingly FAILED to Disclose this Dirty Little Trillion Dollar Secret To Their Shareholders.
Bruce Sewell, CEO Paul Otellini, D. Bruce Sewell
When did Bruce Sewell FIRST know of The Trillion Dollar Stolen Patent and the FACT that Intel was using this patent, this Stolen Technology though Intel was NOT honoring contracts they assumed ?
Well Scour www.DeniedPatent.com for One and Find Emails, Phone Conversations and More that PROVE D. Bruce Sewell not only knew about this Patent Theft, but also Was informed that Intel was using it, was informed of Contracts that Intel was not Honoring and REFUSED to make this right with the Rightful Patent Owners and For Some Reason D. Bruce Sewell and CEO Paul Otellini seemingly FAILED to Disclose this Dirty Little Trillion Dollar Secret To Their Shareholders.
"Before Intel, Sewell worked at Brown & Bain, which became a part of Perkins Coie in 2004, and before that he was an associate at the firm now known as Schnader. "
Now Where Do I Know the Perkins Coie name From? Oh I know their involvement in Corrupting the Bankruptcy Courts in Oregon from my Blog at www.ObsidianFinanceSucks.com
With Perkins Coie in Bruce Sewell's Resume we Begin to See where his Lack of Ethics Comes From. So Check more on the Bio of D. Bruce Sewell at the Link Below..
http://www.iphonejd.com/iphone_jd/2009/09/apple-hires-bruce-sewell-as-new-general-counsel.htmlBruce Sewell, CEO Paul Otellini, D. Bruce Sewell
Silicon Graphics NEVER been Served.. What.. Trillion Dollar Fraud - Does anyone Care?
Look on Page 2 of this Link.. Well just Read this Whole
Court Document.. Trillion Dollar Liablity.. oh Well..
Let's Pretend we Just did not Know...
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/SGI%20Bankruptcy/Ramirez%20Declaration.pdf
intel
Bankruptcy Court Fraud,
Court Document.. Trillion Dollar Liablity.. oh Well..
Let's Pretend we Just did not Know...
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/SGI%20Bankruptcy/Ramirez%20Declaration.pdf
intel
Bankruptcy Court Fraud,
CEO Paul Otellini Says - "It was a Surprise to Us" - this is the Line of BULL he Will Feed you about Iviewit when the TRUTH Surfaces.
" Intel CEO Paul Otellini Reacts to the Galleon Group Investigation
Monday, October 19, 2009
SUSIE GHARIB: More repercussions today from the big insider trading investigation at hedge fund Galleon Group. IBM put a top executive on administrative leave.
The move came after Robert Moffat, a senior vice president at IBM was arrested for allegedly passing tips to Galleon. An Intel executive was also implicated in the Galleon case. We had the opportunity to sit down with Intel CEO Paul Otellini today. Scott Gurvey began by asking him about Intel's connection to the Galleon insider trading case.
PAUL OTELLINI, PRESIDENT & CEO, INTEL: It was a surprise to us. And to my knowledge, no one at Intel knew about it, including the employee.
And they have not asked for our cooperation. Of course we would give it if they have.
SCOTT GURVEY, NIGHTLY BUSINESS REPORT CORRESPONDENT: And does it require any special changes at this point in the way that you do business? I mean you must have these kind of protections.
Paul OTELLINI: I don't think so. People are people. And you know, our employees know in the area where he worked they know that there is a zero tolerance policy on this kind of thing. You just don't do it and the sake of your job and who knows what is true. I don't want to proclaim him guilty, but the allegations suggest that he leaked information. Whether he made any money off it or not, I don't know.
GURVEY: The other question of course goes on with some of the anti- trust issues that Intel is facing. There's an AMD lawsuit that begins, I believe goes to trial maybe next year. There is the EU which is still -- which is still outstanding. What is your position at this point on those? I mean is it the point where you are trying to make any kind of a settlement or arrangements or change the way you do things or is this going to be something that will be adjudicated?
Paul OTELLINI: They are on independent paths, independent parallel paths. The AMD case comes to trial in Delaware late March, early April. As much as you can I'm looking forward to that trial because it is the first time that these allegations will be brought forth in the manner which has clear evidentiary rules, third party judicial things, the jury, all the things that we take for granted in America in terms of justice and getting your story out will happen there.
GURVEY: And you're saying the kind of things you don't have in terms of the EU proceedings.
Paul OTELLINI: We certainly didn't see that in Europe. In Europe the same commission that begins the investigation completes the investigation, judges the investigation, levees the fine, is the same group of people. There is no third party independent review of that.
That first happens on appeal which is the quarter first (ph) instance and in Europe and that's probably two to three years out.
GURVEY: The earnings report surprised everybody, surprised them in a very positive way. Is that -- how much of that is cost-cutting? How much of that is new demand that you are seeing?
Paul OTELLINI: This quarter's news was all demand. Demand and some pipeline refilling on inventory which is seasonal. I don't think it is anything that is out of the ordinary. But it was the largest Q2 to Q3 growth of top line that we've seen in three decades plus and so it was very solid quarter. I think more than half of that was probably demand and the other was building the pipe for what looks to be the seasonal Q4 peak. The back to school selling season was very good.
GURVEY: And do you see that going forward in the holiday season with the release now of Microsoft's Windows 7 and things like that?
Paul OTELLINI: Yes, I do. I mean this is a global phenomenon. We saw in Q3 and actually the whole year has been global phenomenon. It's been consumer driven around the world. That's good. That says that when enterprise starts buying again, perhaps next year, you get an additive effect on top of that.
GURVEY: So the consumers will come first. Do you think the enterprise will pick up next year?
Paul OTELLINI: Eventually they have to. The fleets of corporations, the machines are aging pretty rapidly. The average notebook is over four years old, the average desktop is over three years old. That mean these are out of warranty. So the break-fix problem is costing more than buying a new machine at this point.
GURVEY: Let me ask you while you are here, do you have actually a position on some of these health reform strategies? I mean, for example, when you consider the cost factor of having an employee, an American employee versus an employee in any of the other countries that you operate.
Paul OTELLINI : We've had a very proactive program in the U.S. on wellness, employee wellness for three or four years now. And that has allowed to us attenuate the growth for the cost per employee over a three year period.
The things that we're looking at in terms of the legislation are really more focused along that line. So electronic medical records drive productivity up, take errors down, lower costs we like.
The home health care environment, the wellness parts of the program we like. The outcome- based payment systems we like because they are focused on results. Doctors and hospitals that deliver better results will get paid more. That is a good thing. We're not getting in the middle of the debate of who pays and what is the cost. There is enough people in the middle of that one. Whatever system we do get we would just like to be more efficient.
GURVEY: And you are, of course, opening some new facilities in the United States so this hasn't deterred you.
OTELLINI: Our next generation of technology will only be open in the United States this time. All 32 nanometer technologies are here and they're in four factories in the U.S.
GURVEY: What else is coming up that you can tell us about that I haven't asked you about?
Paul OTELLINI: I can't share those secrets with you.
GURVEY: You would have to shoot me.
OTELLINI: I would have to shoot you.
GURVEY: All right then the next time. Thank you.
OTELLINI: You are welcome. "
Source of Post
http://www.pbs.org/nbr/site/onair/transcripts/
intel_ceo_paul_otellini_on_galleon_group_091019/
CEO Paul Otellini - Above the Law ???
Zero Tolerance Policy Says CEO Paul Otellini - I Say Bull … he not only tolerates a WHOLE lot - CEO Paul Otellini Hides information from Shareholders that Could affect them and Legally breaks the law by NOT honoring Contracts.
Monday, October 19, 2009
SUSIE GHARIB: More repercussions today from the big insider trading investigation at hedge fund Galleon Group. IBM put a top executive on administrative leave.
The move came after Robert Moffat, a senior vice president at IBM was arrested for allegedly passing tips to Galleon. An Intel executive was also implicated in the Galleon case. We had the opportunity to sit down with Intel CEO Paul Otellini today. Scott Gurvey began by asking him about Intel's connection to the Galleon insider trading case.
PAUL OTELLINI, PRESIDENT & CEO, INTEL: It was a surprise to us. And to my knowledge, no one at Intel knew about it, including the employee.
And they have not asked for our cooperation. Of course we would give it if they have.
SCOTT GURVEY, NIGHTLY BUSINESS REPORT CORRESPONDENT: And does it require any special changes at this point in the way that you do business? I mean you must have these kind of protections.
Paul OTELLINI: I don't think so. People are people. And you know, our employees know in the area where he worked they know that there is a zero tolerance policy on this kind of thing. You just don't do it and the sake of your job and who knows what is true. I don't want to proclaim him guilty, but the allegations suggest that he leaked information. Whether he made any money off it or not, I don't know.
GURVEY: The other question of course goes on with some of the anti- trust issues that Intel is facing. There's an AMD lawsuit that begins, I believe goes to trial maybe next year. There is the EU which is still -- which is still outstanding. What is your position at this point on those? I mean is it the point where you are trying to make any kind of a settlement or arrangements or change the way you do things or is this going to be something that will be adjudicated?
Paul OTELLINI: They are on independent paths, independent parallel paths. The AMD case comes to trial in Delaware late March, early April. As much as you can I'm looking forward to that trial because it is the first time that these allegations will be brought forth in the manner which has clear evidentiary rules, third party judicial things, the jury, all the things that we take for granted in America in terms of justice and getting your story out will happen there.
GURVEY: And you're saying the kind of things you don't have in terms of the EU proceedings.
Paul OTELLINI: We certainly didn't see that in Europe. In Europe the same commission that begins the investigation completes the investigation, judges the investigation, levees the fine, is the same group of people. There is no third party independent review of that.
That first happens on appeal which is the quarter first (ph) instance and in Europe and that's probably two to three years out.
GURVEY: The earnings report surprised everybody, surprised them in a very positive way. Is that -- how much of that is cost-cutting? How much of that is new demand that you are seeing?
Paul OTELLINI: This quarter's news was all demand. Demand and some pipeline refilling on inventory which is seasonal. I don't think it is anything that is out of the ordinary. But it was the largest Q2 to Q3 growth of top line that we've seen in three decades plus and so it was very solid quarter. I think more than half of that was probably demand and the other was building the pipe for what looks to be the seasonal Q4 peak. The back to school selling season was very good.
GURVEY: And do you see that going forward in the holiday season with the release now of Microsoft's Windows 7 and things like that?
Paul OTELLINI: Yes, I do. I mean this is a global phenomenon. We saw in Q3 and actually the whole year has been global phenomenon. It's been consumer driven around the world. That's good. That says that when enterprise starts buying again, perhaps next year, you get an additive effect on top of that.
GURVEY: So the consumers will come first. Do you think the enterprise will pick up next year?
Paul OTELLINI: Eventually they have to. The fleets of corporations, the machines are aging pretty rapidly. The average notebook is over four years old, the average desktop is over three years old. That mean these are out of warranty. So the break-fix problem is costing more than buying a new machine at this point.
GURVEY: Let me ask you while you are here, do you have actually a position on some of these health reform strategies? I mean, for example, when you consider the cost factor of having an employee, an American employee versus an employee in any of the other countries that you operate.
Paul OTELLINI : We've had a very proactive program in the U.S. on wellness, employee wellness for three or four years now. And that has allowed to us attenuate the growth for the cost per employee over a three year period.
The things that we're looking at in terms of the legislation are really more focused along that line. So electronic medical records drive productivity up, take errors down, lower costs we like.
The home health care environment, the wellness parts of the program we like. The outcome- based payment systems we like because they are focused on results. Doctors and hospitals that deliver better results will get paid more. That is a good thing. We're not getting in the middle of the debate of who pays and what is the cost. There is enough people in the middle of that one. Whatever system we do get we would just like to be more efficient.
GURVEY: And you are, of course, opening some new facilities in the United States so this hasn't deterred you.
OTELLINI: Our next generation of technology will only be open in the United States this time. All 32 nanometer technologies are here and they're in four factories in the U.S.
GURVEY: What else is coming up that you can tell us about that I haven't asked you about?
Paul OTELLINI: I can't share those secrets with you.
GURVEY: You would have to shoot me.
OTELLINI: I would have to shoot you.
GURVEY: All right then the next time. Thank you.
OTELLINI: You are welcome. "
Source of Post
http://www.pbs.org/nbr/site/onair/transcripts/
intel_ceo_paul_otellini_on_galleon_group_091019/
CEO Paul Otellini - Above the Law ???
Zero Tolerance Policy Says CEO Paul Otellini - I Say Bull … he not only tolerates a WHOLE lot - CEO Paul Otellini Hides information from Shareholders that Could affect them and Legally breaks the law by NOT honoring Contracts.
CEO Paul Otellini cares about Employee Wellness.. Are you Kidding.. Cares about the Quality of life of some but Condones the Total Ruin of Others.. Makes No Sense.
CEO Paul Otellini Claims that this is NEWS TO US - my Guess is when the Shareholders are Faced with the TRUTH about the Iviewit Stolen Patent and the Trillion Dollar Liability that Intel Faces, that CEO Paul Otellini will have the Same Lies to Tell … “It Was a Surprise to Us”. BULL.
I wonder if CEO Paul Otellini is Looking Forward to His Trial as he becomes involved in the Trillion Dollar Patent Heist - in FULL Public View - Coming SOON to a Court Near YOU.
And CEO Paul Otellini seems to be BRAGGING about the Zillions Intel is Making.. Well I can See why if they Do NOT have to Pay for Patents They are Using.
Doe Shareholder Still Have NO Idea About the Trillion Dollar Liability with the Iviewit Stolen Patents and Contracts Intell Assumed .....
Why is CEO Paul Otellini NOT talking about this.
Paul Otellini does know inside information that WOULD definately affect the Price of Intel Stocks and When the Truth is ALLOWED in the US Lack of Justice System.. WELL Intel Corporation and Shareholders Will Certainly Be taking a Financial Hit.
And this Financial Fiasco is Something that THE then "General Counsel" Bruce Sewell KNEW about and So did and DOES CEO Paul Otellini.
CEO Paul Otellini
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)