Intel Corp. Above the Law - Corrupt? And Why are Shareholders NOT Demanding Accountabiity.

This Shareholder Derivative Action was in the Fall of 2009.

Intel is Corrupt and Is Constantly Pulling the "Wool" over Shareholder. Intel CEO Paul Otellini Knows of Major Liabilities to the Intel Stockholders in the Iviewit Stolen Technologies and has still NOT disclosed this information Intel Stockholders.

It seems like with AMD, and the Other Anti-Trust Lawsuits and Issues that Intel is in Constantly in some sort of Illegal Scandaling.. stomping on the rights of others.. and Wellthe Stockholders pay the price for the Illegal and DirtyDeals by the Big Wigs at Intel.

Attention Intel Stockholders:
YOU Need to Know about the Iviewit Stolen Technology - this is a Massive Shareholder Fraud Upon YOU and YOU will paythe price for Their Lies, Deciet and Dirty Deeds. More on the Iviewit Trillion Dollar Liability NOW affecting Intel Stockholders .. at www.DeniedPatent.com - over a thousand documents of Proof.. and Intel is Hiding this CRIME from Intel Stockholders.

Below is the Shareholder Derivative Action

"" TO: ALL RECORD AND BENEFICIAL HOLDERS OF SHARES OF COMMON STOCK OF INTEL CORPORATION ("INTEL" OR THE "COMPANY") AS OF MAY 25, 2010.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN THIS LITIGATION. IF THE COURT APPROVES THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, YOU WILL BE FOREVER BARRED FROM CONTESTING THE FAIRNESS, REASONABLENESS AND ADEQUACY OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND FROM PURSUING THE SETTLED CLAIMS (DEFINED HEREIN).

IF YOU HOLD INTEL COMMON STOCK FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANOTHER,

1. PURPOSE OF NOTICE
Pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the "Court") dated June 2, 2010, and further pursuant to Rule 23.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Notice is to inform you of (a) the above-captioned action (the “Delaware Action”) pending in the Court, (b) the proposed settlement of the Delaware Action (the "Settlement") as provided for in a Stipulation of Settlement (the "Stipulation") dated May 25, 2010, and (c) your right to participate in a hearing to be held on July 20, 2010 at 10 a.m., before the Honorable Joseph J. Farnan at the United States Courthouse, 844 N. King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801 (the "Settlement Hearing") to (i) determine whether the Court should approve the Settlement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1 as fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of Intel and its shareholders,

(ii) determine whether an Order and Final Judgment should be entered dismissing the Delaware Action with prejudice, and releasing and barring prosecution of any and all Settled Claims, as defined below, (iii) consider and determine whether to enter an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses to counsel for the plaintiffs in the Delaware Action and in the Related Actions, as defined below, and (iv) consider such other matters as the Court deems appropriate.

This Notice describes the rights you may have with respect to the Delaware Action and pursuant to the Stipulation and what steps you may take, but are not required to take, in relation to the Settlement.

2. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
THE FOLLOWING RECITATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE FINDINGS OF THE COURT. IT IS BASED ON STATEMENTS OF THE PARTIES AND SHOULD NOT BE UNDERSTOOD AS AN EXPRESSION OF ANY OPINION OF THE COURT AS TO THE MERITS OF ANY OF THE CLAIMS OR DEFENSES RAISED BY ANY OF THE PARTIES.

On November 13, 2009, Charles A. Gilman, an Intel Stockholder, commenced a shareholder derivative action in the Court (the “Gilman Action”) on behalf of Intel against defendants Craig R. Barrett, Carol Bartz, Charlene Barshefsky, Susan L. Decker, John J. Donahoe, D. James Guzy, Sr., Paul S. Otellini, David S. Pottruck, James D. Plummer, Jane E. Shaw, David B. Yoffie, and Frank D. Yeary (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”) and nominal defendant Intel (together with the Individual Defendants, the “Defendants”).

On December 23, 2009, the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System (“MPERS”) commenced a shareholder derivative action in the Court on behalf of Intel against the Individual Defendants and nominal defendant Intel (the “MPERS Action”).
On January 15, 2010, the Court entered an order consolidating the Gilman Action and the MPERS Action into this action, appointing Mr. Gilman and MPERS as lead plaintiffs in the Delaware Action (the “Delaware Plaintiffs”), and appointing Paskowitz & Associates and Berman DeValerio to be Co-Lead Counsel (together, the “Delaware Plaintiffs’ Counsel”).

On February 12, 2010, the Delaware Plaintiffs filed a Shareholders’ Demand-Made Consolidated Derivative Complaint (the "Delaware Complaint"), alleging, inter alia, that Intel has, for a number of years, engaged in conduct which violates U.S. and foreign competition laws, resulting in civil suits and regulatory investigations and proceedings against Intel (together the “Antitrust Proceedings”) including, without limitation:

(1) A suit commenced by Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. and AMD International Sales & Services, Ltd. in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, entitled Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp., Civil Action No. 05-441 (JJF) (the “AMD Action”);

(2) A series of puntative class action suits brought under state competition laws, consolidated in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware under the caption In re Intel Corporation Microprocessor Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 05-1717 (JJF);

(3) A proceeding by the Japan Fair Trade Commission against Intel Kabushiki Kaisha, Intel’s Japanese subsidiary, which resulted in a consent decree ordering Intel Kabushiki Kaisha to cease and desist certain actions;

(4) An investigation and proceeding brought by the European Commission, in which the European Commission issued a decision and imposed a fine against Intel in May 2009;

(5) A proceeding brought by the Korea Fair Trade Commission, in which the Korea Fair Trade Commission entered a ruling against Intel in June 2008;

(6) An action commenced by the New York Attorney General in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, entitled State of New York v. Intel Corp., Civil Action No. 09-827 (JJF); and (7) An administrative proceeding commenced by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission against Intel on or about December 16, 2009, Docket No. 9341.

The Delaware Complaint incorporates the allegations made in certain of the Antitrust Proceedings, and further asserts that Intel’s alleged anticompetitive conduct has resulted in damage to Intel, and that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Intel by failing to, among other things, rein in, ameliorate, or countermand such conduct, and failing to institute certain remedial measures.

The Delaware Complaint seeks recovery for and on behalf of Intel of the damages it allegedly suffered as a result of the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the Individual Defendants.

Intel and certain of its current or former officers, directors, and employees are parties to other litigation relating to, arising out of, or making allegations similar to, the allegations contained in the Delaware Complaint, including the following (the “Related Actions”):

(1) A shareholder derivative suit pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, Santa Clara County, entitled Paris v. Otellini, et al., Case No. 110CV166850; and

(2) An action pursuant to Delaware General Corporation Law § 220 pending in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware, entitled Rosenfeld Family Foundation, et ano. v. Intel Corporation, Civil Action No. 5070-VCS. The Rosenfeld Family Foundation action was filed following the dismissal by this Court of a demand futility shareholder derivative suit, entitled In re Intel Corp. Derivative Litigation, Civ. A. No. 08-93-JJF (D. Del.). The two actions are collectively referred to as the “Rosenfeld Action.”

Counsel for the Defendants and Delaware Plaintiffs’ Counsel have engaged in extensive negotiations concerning a possible settlement of the Delaware Action. In connection therewith, Delaware Plaintiffs’ Counsel have conducted a thorough investigation of the claims and allegations asserted in the Delaware Action, including:

(i) review of publicly-available documents concerning Intel and the Antitrust Proceedings, (ii) review of over 17,000 pages of documents produced by Intel, including transcripts of the depositions of twenty Intel officers, directors, or employees that were taken in the AMD Action,

(iii) the deposition of Evangelina Almirantearena, Senior Counsel, Competition Compliance for Intel, and (iv) consultation with experts in the areas of corporate governance, antitrust law, and compliance. As a result of the extensive negotiations, the Delaware Plaintiffs and the Defendants have agreed to the proposed Settlement described below, as provided for in the Stipulation, and have moved the Court for final approval of the Settlement.

Plaintiffs and counsel to the plaintiffs in the Rosenfeld Action ("Rosenfeld’s Counsel") have engaged in extensive negotiations concerning the terms of a possible settlement of the Rosenfeld Action.

In connection therewith, Rosenfeld’s Counsel have conducted a thorough investigation of the allegations asserted in the Rosenfeld Action, including a review of publicly-available documents concerning Intel and the Antitrust Proceedings, review of documents produced by Intel, the transcript, and accompanying exhibits, to the deposition of Evangelina Almirantearena, Senior Counsel, Competition Compliance for Intel, and consultation with experts in the areas of corporate governance, antitrust law, and compliance.

As a result of the extensive negotiations, Plaintiffs and counsel to the plaintiffs in the Related Actions (the "Related Plaintiffs" and "Related Plaintiffs’ Counsel," respectively) also have agreed to the proposed Settlement described below and have executed the Stipulation. ...""


Source and Full Document Click Here

Intel Stockholders, You Pay the Price for their Crimes. They Get Richer from their Crimes Everyday. Time for Intel to Disclose the Liability of the Iviewit Stolen Technology.

Craig R. Barrett, Carol Bartz, Charlene Barshefsky, Susan L. Decker, John J. Donahoe, D. James Guzy, Sr., Paul S. Otellini, David S. Pottruck, James D. Plummer, Jane E. Shaw, David B. Yoffie, and Frank D. Yeary ARE accountable to YOU: The Sooner you Stand up to them the Less Money you will Lose as the Iviewit Technologies Trillion Dollar Liability to Intel Stockholders Will Never Go Away... it will Only Get Bigger and Bigger.

So Intel Executive Make Decisions that Shareholders Take the Hit On? Looks like a RICO Pattern and History to ME.

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

$1.45 Billion Fine Against Intel Kicks Chipmaker Battle Into Overdrive

So a Company that Can afford a Billion and half Dollar Fine, but cannot seem to pay for a license to use Stolen Techology.

What is the Secrets and Whose are they in the Cover Up of the Stolen Iviewit Technology, it Cannot be about money alone, I mean Come on SONY, Warner Bros., Intel Corp. and all the players of this Stolen Technology they certainly through the Money around, So why not jsut pay for the rights to the invention years ago and Move on? What is the Real Story to all of this and Who Really needed PROTECTED that bad?

$1.45 Billion in fines in May of 2009 and yet has no money to spend on paying Inventors for inventions?? Why bother I suppose when it seems to Be Legal to Just STEAL them.


"" $1.45 Billion Fine Against Intel Kicks Chipmaker Battle Into Overdrive

Even as Advanced Micro Devices Inc. and its lawyers at O'Melveny & Myers celebrated the $1.45 billion fine handed down by the European Commission on Wednesday against rival Intel Corp., they were rolling up their sleeves for impending fights between the chipmakers in the United States.

"We believe the types of conduct that appear to have been found unlawful by the European Commission would also be unlawful under U.S. antitrust laws," said David Beddow, a partner at O'Melveny & Myers' Washington, D.C., office.

Intel is under investigation by the Federal Trade Commission on similar complaints that its contracts with computer makers unfairly quashed competition. The chip giant, which controls 80 percent of the microprocessor market, is accused of offering discounts to manufacturers who agreed not to do business with AMD, its only competition. The Silicon Valley rivals have been fighting with each other over the issue for years.

The FTC and European Commission are in "close coordination" on the issue, Beddow said.

Intel said Wednesday it will appeal. It contends its business practices have resulted in lower prices and better technology for consumers.

"We believe the decision is wrong and ignores the reality of a highly competitive microprocessor marketplace -- characterized by constant innovation, improved product performance and lower prices. There has been absolutely zero harm to consumers," said a statement by Intel CEO Paul Otellini.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, which represents Intel, declined to comment.

Intel also faces scrutiny by multiple attorneys general, class actions filed in Delaware, as well as private litigation filed by AMD in Delaware, which is slated to go to trial early next year.

Last year, South Korea's Fair Trade Commission slammed Intel with a $25 million fine for similar practices.

In 2005, the Japan Fair Trade Commission ruled Intel had violated its anti-monopoly laws.

Ricardo Celli, who led the O'Melveny team from Brussels, said the New York AG is investigating the same business practices that the European Commission ruled were illegal.

"This is a worldwide market, so the computer manufacturers are global companies. I believe the Intel practices are similar everywhere in the world," Celli said.

The European decision does not bode well for Intel, given signs from Washington that it will step up enforcement, said antitrust expert Gary Reback, author of a new book "Free the Market!" and of counsel at the Silicon Valley office of Carr & Ferrell.

"That doesn't spell good news for Intel in its U.S. cases, not by any stretch of the imagination," Reback said. "The point of all this is: Is the government going to look harder at the way products are sold by dominant companies? You bet."

Just Monday, the new antitrust chief at the Justice Department, Assistant Attorney General Christine Varney, said enforcement over the last decade was too relaxed. She vowed to investigate corporations that unfairly dominate markets.

Reback said other high-tech companies could face tough scrutiny as well, because they often rely on an economic phenomenon called "network effect," where a product -- like the telephone -- becomes more valuable to each consumer the more other people own it, too.

"Its effect is going to be particularly pronounced in Silicon Valley," Reback said. "Because of those network effects, the markets become easier to manipulate by dominant companies. If someone gets the lead in a market like that, it's easier for them to manipulate that market than if they were operating in a market without network effects."

Intel's discounts appear to be what the antitrust world calls bundling discounts or loyalty discounts, Reback said. Many companies have them, but until now, only the biggest have come under scrutiny for them, he said.

"It's going to be a big issue, because they are prevalent," he said.

EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes said Varney's words gave her hope that the EU's current "close cooperation" and information exchanges with the Federal Trade Commission "could go in a very positive way" in the future. The FTC upgraded a probe into Intel last year.

"The more competition authorities are joining us in our philosophy, the better it is, for it is a global world," she said. "The more who are doing the job ... and with the same approach, then the better it is."

Intel general counsel Bruce Sewell said the concept that rebates could damage competition was an area "where the law is now in flux" and regulators were testing the boundaries.

"There is a line of thought developing, primarily out of the European antitrust authorities but also perhaps being picked up by the Japanese and the Koreans, that suggests that rebates can be anti-competitive," he said. ""

Source:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202430693919

NY AG Cuomo Files Antitrust Lawsuit Against Intel - Is there ANY Justice in site for Iviewit - Does Cuomo Care about the Connection...

As you Read This Keep in Mind the Connection Between New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo - Ex-Supreme Court Judge Judith Kay and the Mega Law Firm Proskaur Rose.

More on these Connections at My Other Blogs Exploring the Whole Picture of the Trillion Dollar Technology Heist of the Iviewit Holdings and Technology Inc. Also ask Where Does Bruce Sewell fit into all this.. Innocent I don't THINK So...

www.DeniedPatent.com

www.ProskauerSucks.com

www.KennethRubbenstein.com

HERE is the ARTICLE...

"Posted by: Arik Hesseldahl on November 04, 2009
New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, has filed an antitrust lawsuit against the computer chip manufacturing giant Intel, accusing the company of engaging in a “systematic worldwide campaign of illegal, exclusionary conduct to maintain its monopoly power,” in the market for computer chips starting in 2001.

The complaint alleges that Intel paid hundreds of millions and in some cases billions of dollars in rebates to PC manufacturers in an attempt to limit their use of chips from rival Advanced Micro Devices.

When PC companies appeared to be getting too close to AMD, Intel would, the complaint says, threaten them with retribution by withholding payments they were receiving from Intel.

These payments, which Intel called “rebates,” amounted to what Cuomo called “payoffs with no legitimate business purpose that Intel invented to disguise their anticompetitive nature.”

“Rather than compete fairly, Intel used bribery and coercion to maintain a stranglehold on the market,” Cuomo said in a statement. “Intel’s actions not only unfairly restricted potential competitors, but also hurt average consumers who were robbed of better products and lower prices. These illegal tactics must stop and competition must be restored to this vital marketplace.”

The complaint paints a picture of PC makers struggling to maintain their slim profit margins, fearing that Intel’s payments might dry up if they used AMD chips in their computers.

The complaint accuses Intel of threatening PC makers with retaliation if they did business with AMD. During the period from 2001 to 2006, the complaint alleges, Dell sold no computers with AMD chips in exchange for billions in payments from Intel.

In cases where PC makers did business with AMD against its wishes, the complaint says that Intel made efforts to limit how much business AMD could get. In 2002, the complaint says, Intel reached an agreement with Hewlett-Packard under which HP would cap the amount of AMD-based computers it would offer at 5%, effectively giving Intel a guaranteed 95% share of HP’s computer business.

The complaint also covers the server business, a space where AMD made some serious competitive gains against Intel during 2005 through 2007.

In instance, the complaint alleges that IBM agreed to cancel a server that was to use AMD chips after being offered a $130 million payment from Intel and various threats.

Another server that used AMD chips was marketed only on an “unbranded” basis, the complaint says.

Intel didn’t immediately return a call seeking comment, but I’ll update this post as soon as I hear from someone there.

The entire 87-page complaint is embedded below. There’s a lot more information after the jump.

The complaint is full of anecdotes where Intel and its senior executives are portrayed as throwing their weight around with PC company executives.

It cites an instance in March of 2006 where Intel CEO Paul Otellini received a courtesy call from an executive at HP concerning HP's plan to sponsor an advertisement touting its long relationship with AMD, built around the theme of customer choice.

Otellini's reaction, according to the complaint: "It is certainly insulting to us and I do not see how it helps you....If we are your key partner, this is nothing but a slap at us."

Intel used what the complaint describes as a "favorite code word" in its dealings with PC companies: That word was "alignment." If a PC company was not "aligned" then they could not expect favorable treatment from Intel, the complaint says, including the payment of rebates, pricing concessions, priority in obtaining needed parts during shortages, and marketing funds."

Full Article, Link to Complaint and Source Click Below
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/
archives/2009/11/ny_ag_cuomo_fil.html