backtop


Print 92 comment(s) - last by Targon.. on Jul 31 at 4:24 PM


Robert J. Rivet, AMD Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer  (Source: AMD)
Just a day after Intel's Q2 performance report, it's now AMD's turn

Yesterday, DailyTech reported on Intel's Q2 earnings. The company posted Q2 revenue of $8.7 billion USD, operating income of $1.35 billion USD and net income of $1.3 billion USD.

Today, it's archrival AMD's turn with regards to financial performance for the quarter. AMD recorded revenue of $1.378 billion USD, an operating list of $457 million USD and a net loss of $600 million USD.

This compares with revenue of $1.216 billion USD and operating income of $102 million USD for Q2 2006.

"While we made solid progress in the second quarter across a number of fronts, we must improve our financial results," said AMD CFO Robert J. Rivet. "We achieved a 12 percent sequential revenue increase, improved the gross margin and won back microprocessor unit and revenue market share."

AMD appears to have worked out problems that it had in late 2006 with OEM/channel processor distribution and attributes 38 percent sequential increase in microprocessor unit shipments to orders from Toshiba, an increased adoption of AMD-based platforms and strong initial sales of the ATI Radeon HD 2000 graphics family.

"We continue to focus on realigning our business model and reducing our capital expenditures and cost structure in the second half of the year," said Rivet.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: 1.2 Billion in Losese Total Now
By defter on 7/20/2007 2:37:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The agreement does indeed allow Intel to cancel a 3rd party's access to x86, however you are forgetting that this is a CROSS-licensing agreement. Intel use just as much of AMD's IP as AMD uses of Intel's in their chips. What that means is that if Intel chose to cancel the agreement, they would ALSO have to stop selling their OWN chips as the 3rd party would own a good portion of those rights.


True, but we aren't talking about Intel cancelling the agreement. We are talking about situation where the agreement is cancelled automatically if AMD is purchased by another company.

In that case, Intel retains all rights to use ex-AMD's IP, but company that purchased AMD will not get rights to use Intel's IP.


RE: 1.2 Billion in Losese Total Now
By Viditor on 7/20/2007 3:04:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
True, but we aren't talking about Intel cancelling the agreement. We are talking about situation where the agreement is cancelled automatically if AMD is purchased by another company

Not the case here...if you re-read the contract, there is a provision for 3rd parties to receive the same rights that AMD had as long as Intel agrees. If Intel doesn't agree, then the contract is nullified.
quote:
Intel retains all rights to use ex-AMD's IP, but company that purchased AMD will not get rights to use Intel's IP

That is NEVER the case (it violates contract law because IP rights and licenses are considered assets of a company).


RE: 1.2 Billion in Losese Total Now
By Phynaz on 7/21/2007 7:00:32 AM , Rating: 2
You're making stuff up again.

Having sold a company I founded, I can tell you there is no such case law.

If you think there is please post a link.


RE: 1.2 Billion in Losese Total Now
By Viditor on 7/21/2007 7:58:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're making stuff up again

Still the flame machine, eh?
quote:
Having sold a company I founded, I can tell you there is no such case law

LOL! Now that was truly amusing (thank you!)...it's sort of like saying that since you've flown on a jet, you're qualified to repair it.
quote:
If you think there is please post a link

No need for case law, this is about the basic requirements of a contract (Contract Law 101).
There are 3 basic requirements for any contract...Offer, Acceptance, and Consideration (please look it up). In this hypothetical case, by withdrawing their IP, Intel would be withdrawing any consideration from the contract rendering it null and void.

Do you really think that a company that owns the patents and IP of AMD would be prevented from collecting revenue on it?


RE: 1.2 Billion in Losese Total Now
By Phynaz on 7/22/2007 1:31:51 AM , Rating: 2
Never said anything about it.

I said it would be perfectly fine to write a contract in which conditions could be set in which party A would lose the rights to party B's IP without it affecting the rights of party B.

I'm still waiting for you site a law that would prevent two parties from entering this agreement.


RE: 1.2 Billion in Losese Total Now
By Viditor on 7/22/2007 5:07:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Never said anything about it

Never said anything about what?
quote:
I said it would be perfectly fine to write a contract in which conditions could be set in which party A would lose the rights to party B's IP without it affecting the rights of party B

I can see that you're still having trouble...the contract you are describing is not a legal one because something must be given by both parties. This is called Consideration. In your description, party A no longer recieves consideration while party B does...that makes the contract null and void.
See if the following definitions of Consideration help you at all...
http://www.lawteacher.net/Contract/Agreement/Consi...


"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki