"Statistical Analysis of Intel intra platform product routing by Dealer computer brand model in International Data Group’s PC World Top PC Sales Racket follows.
Note: Post rebated fee year 2008 level market high = 233%; market average = 166%."
Graphs and Details at www.BruceSewell.com on Top of Blog
" Statistical analysis reveals some Intel dealers and publishing agents are cheating their organic probabilities.
That is by placing more of certain Intel Inside branded PCs for sale given their known high level of commission values waiting media release from dealer rebate fee pools accumulating for Intel Insider charge back.
The Media Agent’s sales reward is paid for moving computer brand models to consumer from stocks and discharging their effect on the supply system in exchange for the charge back value.
Through this function Media Sales Agent register Intel product movement from Dealer stocks reporting back to Intel for their ‘metered’ sales reward; the commission.
Method 2 on Media Agent Percentage of Total Editor’s Choice Awards
Statistical Analysis of Editor’s Choice skew on intra platform product routing by Dealer Computer Brand Model, April 1987 through August 2008, in the Bill Ziff Davis Cartel, PC Magazine, PC Sales Racket:
Please consider PC Dealer Analysis using Method 1; for PC Magazine; PC Company comparison solely on product review space, allocated to 48 companies across 104 issues.
Frequency of product review space placement mean average is 0.02083.
Time Period is February 2000 through August 2008.
Above, comparing skew on Editors Choice to space allocation reveals Intel Dealing Group, tied by the charge back, to PC Magazine Media Sales Agent channel.
Findings from Decomposition of Intel Economics
Decomposing components of the Intel Economics Simulation has revealed a number of hidden aspects concerning Intel’s business, the PC Dealing Combination and Media Cartels who are and have been Intel’s primary business partners.
First, Intel's primary business is not the microprocessor or compute platform business. Intel's primary business is selling product routes that PC Companies bid on and
Media Sales Agent’s determine their future case flows on.
Obviously this form of racketeering restrains inter brand computer and PC platform, and x86 microprocessor price competition, and is a per se illegal under the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, Title 48 pursuant to GSA procurement including the 1986 anti kick back Act.
The power of Intel to fix the price of the product which it manufacturers with a tied charge back, which broker dealers and agents scramble to benefit from, and to whom all have been and are actual or potential competitors is a powerful inducement to abandon competition.
Active and vigorous competition then tends to be impaired, not from any preference of the end buyer for an Intel microprocessor based computer, but from the preference of Intel broker dealers and agents to accrue the benefits of a tied rebate matched by that broker dealer, and charged back to Intel, for payment to media agents on every future computer sale.
This analyst believes on the weight of findings, FTC Docket 9341 First Amended Complaint will add forms of Intel price fixing to government current claims.
Precariously, some individuals within FTC might also now be threatened by Intel Network; to bury the case and its anticipated affirmative outcomes.
When Intel Network has a history of hooligans sent in to remind competitors how to compete, and for this Docket 9341 case, the post FTC employment and Bar potentials of either competing, or not competing with Intel Network.
Second, the Quanda is relied upon by Intel PC Dealers to determine which Intel microprocessor product routes to bid on given Intel searching for highest price taker.
Savvy procurement can use the Quanda to simulate the optimum microprocessor routes to
jockey purchases given their revenue, margin potential and Intel retrospective sales rewards including the sales system tying charge back value.
Third, horizontal competitors operating under a Cournet economic assumption rely on the Quanda for determining their Nash equilibrium; which isn't under Intel methods of selling at and less then Average Fixed Cost.
Nor does an oligopoly welfare space exist in many Intel microprocessor production short runs.
Fourth, Intel media sales agents including the Bill Ziff Davis Cartel used the model to calculate their revenue and sales commissions from Intel and PC Dealers; retrospectively, up to two years in advance.
Media knows values misrepresented in Intel and Dealer financials as Intel Inside marketing expense are 100% recoverable by them; as a sales commission for pushing computers onto consumers for the Intel Inside tied kickback.
As they did very successfully for 15 years until the model disintegrated under Intel production constraints and a distribution channel reconfiguration. Approximately 2005/6 Intel Inside tied charge back morphs into the first Dollar discount scheme. First dollar discount values also need to be calculated.
The $22.657 billion Intel Insides tied charge back value from January 1, 1999 through program end in 2006/7 remains fully recoverable by FTC. Intel Inside tied charge back is addressed within Docket 9341 claims, discounts & rebates, for whom this analyst is the FTC documented original source.
By FTC Record this analyst is also believed original source concerning some Intel benchmark rigging claims addressed in Docket 9341.
Where this analyst was previously responsible for designing patches that worked around some rigged benchmark’s in efforts with PC User Groups across the country; as a Cyrix, NexGen, AMD and IDT Centaur employee or consultant.
This includes Docket 9288 field reports concerning Intel run time benchmark rig and PC User group work around. ""
Full Document and Source:
www.CEOpaulOtellini.com
on Top of Site...
Information by
Mike Bruzzone
Intel Case Technical Analysis since 1996
Camp Marketing Consultancy
posted Here by
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Got an Intel Insider Trading TIP?
Have you Been Threatened by Intel ?
Crystal@CrystalCox.com
Showing posts with label FTC Analyst. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FTC Analyst. Show all posts
Friday, August 27, 2010
FTC in Intel Settlement Talks; before July 22? Intel Closed Door Settlements with the FTC? Intel Executive Amnesty???
"FTC in Intel Settlement Talks; before July 22?
Please be advised this analyst is opposed to Intel closed door settlement with FTC on or before July 22; transparency being at issue.
Commissioners and discovery team know RICO, Sherman Act Section 1 and Section 2 per se violations are documented.
This analyst encourages the September hearing proceed accordingly for full disclosure, full remedies, consumer recovery which is a core value of the FTC’s charter.
Advantageously and for hearing efficiency, all Section 2 Rule of Reason claims lacking specific per se condemnation precedent, can be reviewed between the Section 1 and RICO Proofs, without fear of FTC 9341 overall case loss.
Including waste of Federal financial and manpower resource, further, that FCA has already been won on weight of evidence and is itself capable of recovering a portion, if not all, FTC 9341 litigation costs.
This analyst believes it important that every American know how to spot competition espionage occurring in the work place in real time, how to report in real time, how to resolve in real time and not over 18 year’s time as in my case.
In this continuing case of Intel Monopoly analysis, meant for FTC and DOJ discovery, leadership, error correction, law augments, inter Nation competition policy evolution, Intel Network, system and structural improvement, RICO and competition remedies and consumer recoveries.
In addition financial recovery of the economic damages for all targets harmed and pushed under by Intel Network, including in the Docket 9288 case obstruction are required under Intel’s DOJ antitrust compliance obligations.
That is for Intel and Network Executive Amnesty and or immunity from maximum antitrust and RICO damages. This would seem to include those associated with FTC Docket 9341.
I’d presume Intel is Participating in reversing the frame and fraud associated with Docket 9288 obstruction.
Alternatively in the face of a known obstruction in the administration of justice which includes witness tampering, fraudulent construction and white wash, the Docket 9341 clock could be reset to June 11, 1991.
June 11, 1991 is the inception of the Intel Insider Scheme enabling a complete Intel monopoly consumer recovery.
Pursuant to Docket 9341, I am concerned that $72 billion dollars in monopolization have been calculated.
And that the worldwide consumer recoverable from Intel tied charge back, and monopoly price of up to $42 billion, will be left un-recovered or left on the negotiating table in any FTC closed door Docket 9341 settlement.
Our knowing this fact of the consumer recoverable, legitimately, consumers are due their return from Intel and Network members.
The history of Intel class actions suggests any privately litigated consumer class action will be blown or settled on disproportionate values too harms.
This attorney opinion is supported by historical evaluation, including attorneys who would take the FCA, if not for their knowledge of the history of Intel market rigging, the various corporate political, time trap and litigation hurdles.
Intel Network adverse litigation for year’s has been sand bagged, blown, thrown and settled on minor causes with slim remedies and minor financial recovery in relation to harms. Here our countries history of private antitrust litigation ends until attorneys who would risk toughest corporate, political, legal and judicial hurdles resolves itself.
FTC and DOJ can restart that tradition of private antitrust litigation with full Intel Network disclosures, monopoly encompassing remedies and recoveries, where world wide consumer recoveries are due consumers including the Federal government.
Bursting boilers and the Federal Power, Garrison Dam Disaster and the Federal Power, Bar Pilots and the Federal Power, Finance & Securities Disaster and Federal Power, broken oil well valves and the Federal Power, broken regulatory & the Federal Power; fixing broken Intel and the Federal Power, transparently, offers the potential for one of Intel’s greatest legacies.
A cornerstone on which willing members of Bar and Bench, and corporate entities, will see and take action regulation seriously. Lacking Bar and Bench free from corporate political network control, I fear broken regulatory will remain.
A functional regulatory, Bar & Bench, are required first lines of monopoly and rackets error detection and correction.
Pursuant to FCA, I will be requesting Congress and/or President Obama please assign a Federal attorney for qui tam representation.
A case to whom I am recognized Relator and hold the U.S. Attorney recovery reward letter, having been steward for many years before and following my official Relator status.
No legitimate private attorney will take the case in the face of the market rig.
Fifth, finance and investment bankers use Quanda model, with price projection tools, to model Intel revenue and margins; like media retrospectively, to play the stock up to two years in advance.
Sixth, Intel inside individual stock traders can do the same thing as I’ve demonstrated to FTC and U.S. DOJ.
Seventh, the Intel Quanda on mass weight of use, retrospectively, extended Intel’s x86 and PC market rigs to the NASDAQ; including in relation to other exchanges.
Think about it, Intel Insider ability to play the stock of Intel and PC Dealers up to two years in advance is an extreme catalyst to rig not only individual stock prices, but the NASDAQ index itself.
The Quanda was used to rig markets;
Intel had DOJ 1st report responsibility.
Eight, combination and cartel proofs exist throughout Intel economic and system structural proofs. Structural proofs are easily deciphered from their component patterns and prove intent to monopolize per se. No other conduct proofs are required.
Nine, U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission are well aware of the Section 1 per se condemnations, Section 2 per se intent, RICO, Quanda and its reliance by Intel Network as one of their many market rigging tools.
Ten, for FTC there is no risk of Docket 9341 case loss where all Section 2 Rule of Reason claims concerning access to Intel component taper, Intel benchmark rigging, false statements to Federal procurement by Intel, Dealers and Agents concealing fraudulent and monopoly costs assessed on the Federal Government computer payment claims.
All can be heard within the bracket; Section 1 structure, Section 2 intent and RICO proofs. Please consider one of multiple proofs below:
In the RICO proof below, find partial classic Intel Xeon Tanner and Xeon Copper mine economic analysis. Playing signaling revealed by the Quanda, savvy PC Dealers were informed to stick with the quasi static equilibrium and back eddy offered by Xeon Tanner, and to avoid being washed over the falls that is Xeon Cascades.
Cascades is the Intel desktop microprocessor Copper mine 256, repackaged as a high performance Xeon server product at monopoly price premium and for dumping onto AMD. Xeon Cascades was not a high performance product and by June 2000 main board suppliers serving the broker system market, had rejected it, causing Intel to cancel its retail boxed version of the Cascade product line. Cascade’s was then left to sell through Intel primary Dealer channels.
Please note that AMD Opteron code names; Sledge Hammer and Claw Hammer, follow in response to Intel Network notice of Tanner signaling and pending Cascade predatory product dumping. Dumping is relied on by Intel a lot.
Strategically to stop current competitive product flows in channels or to make it unprofitable for competitors to enter that product category.
Full Document and Source:
www.CEOpaulOtellini.com
on Top of Site...
Information by
Mike Bruzzone
Intel Case Technical Analysis since 1996
Camp Marketing Consultancy
posted Here by
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Got an Intel Insider Trading TIP?
Crystal@CrystalCox.com
Please be advised this analyst is opposed to Intel closed door settlement with FTC on or before July 22; transparency being at issue.
Commissioners and discovery team know RICO, Sherman Act Section 1 and Section 2 per se violations are documented.
This analyst encourages the September hearing proceed accordingly for full disclosure, full remedies, consumer recovery which is a core value of the FTC’s charter.
Advantageously and for hearing efficiency, all Section 2 Rule of Reason claims lacking specific per se condemnation precedent, can be reviewed between the Section 1 and RICO Proofs, without fear of FTC 9341 overall case loss.
Including waste of Federal financial and manpower resource, further, that FCA has already been won on weight of evidence and is itself capable of recovering a portion, if not all, FTC 9341 litigation costs.
This analyst believes it important that every American know how to spot competition espionage occurring in the work place in real time, how to report in real time, how to resolve in real time and not over 18 year’s time as in my case.
In this continuing case of Intel Monopoly analysis, meant for FTC and DOJ discovery, leadership, error correction, law augments, inter Nation competition policy evolution, Intel Network, system and structural improvement, RICO and competition remedies and consumer recoveries.
In addition financial recovery of the economic damages for all targets harmed and pushed under by Intel Network, including in the Docket 9288 case obstruction are required under Intel’s DOJ antitrust compliance obligations.
That is for Intel and Network Executive Amnesty and or immunity from maximum antitrust and RICO damages. This would seem to include those associated with FTC Docket 9341.
I’d presume Intel is Participating in reversing the frame and fraud associated with Docket 9288 obstruction.
Alternatively in the face of a known obstruction in the administration of justice which includes witness tampering, fraudulent construction and white wash, the Docket 9341 clock could be reset to June 11, 1991.
June 11, 1991 is the inception of the Intel Insider Scheme enabling a complete Intel monopoly consumer recovery.
Pursuant to Docket 9341, I am concerned that $72 billion dollars in monopolization have been calculated.
And that the worldwide consumer recoverable from Intel tied charge back, and monopoly price of up to $42 billion, will be left un-recovered or left on the negotiating table in any FTC closed door Docket 9341 settlement.
Our knowing this fact of the consumer recoverable, legitimately, consumers are due their return from Intel and Network members.
The history of Intel class actions suggests any privately litigated consumer class action will be blown or settled on disproportionate values too harms.
This attorney opinion is supported by historical evaluation, including attorneys who would take the FCA, if not for their knowledge of the history of Intel market rigging, the various corporate political, time trap and litigation hurdles.
Intel Network adverse litigation for year’s has been sand bagged, blown, thrown and settled on minor causes with slim remedies and minor financial recovery in relation to harms. Here our countries history of private antitrust litigation ends until attorneys who would risk toughest corporate, political, legal and judicial hurdles resolves itself.
FTC and DOJ can restart that tradition of private antitrust litigation with full Intel Network disclosures, monopoly encompassing remedies and recoveries, where world wide consumer recoveries are due consumers including the Federal government.
Bursting boilers and the Federal Power, Garrison Dam Disaster and the Federal Power, Bar Pilots and the Federal Power, Finance & Securities Disaster and Federal Power, broken oil well valves and the Federal Power, broken regulatory & the Federal Power; fixing broken Intel and the Federal Power, transparently, offers the potential for one of Intel’s greatest legacies.
A cornerstone on which willing members of Bar and Bench, and corporate entities, will see and take action regulation seriously. Lacking Bar and Bench free from corporate political network control, I fear broken regulatory will remain.
A functional regulatory, Bar & Bench, are required first lines of monopoly and rackets error detection and correction.
Pursuant to FCA, I will be requesting Congress and/or President Obama please assign a Federal attorney for qui tam representation.
A case to whom I am recognized Relator and hold the U.S. Attorney recovery reward letter, having been steward for many years before and following my official Relator status.
No legitimate private attorney will take the case in the face of the market rig.
Fifth, finance and investment bankers use Quanda model, with price projection tools, to model Intel revenue and margins; like media retrospectively, to play the stock up to two years in advance.
Sixth, Intel inside individual stock traders can do the same thing as I’ve demonstrated to FTC and U.S. DOJ.
Seventh, the Intel Quanda on mass weight of use, retrospectively, extended Intel’s x86 and PC market rigs to the NASDAQ; including in relation to other exchanges.
Think about it, Intel Insider ability to play the stock of Intel and PC Dealers up to two years in advance is an extreme catalyst to rig not only individual stock prices, but the NASDAQ index itself.
The Quanda was used to rig markets;
Intel had DOJ 1st report responsibility.
Eight, combination and cartel proofs exist throughout Intel economic and system structural proofs. Structural proofs are easily deciphered from their component patterns and prove intent to monopolize per se. No other conduct proofs are required.
Nine, U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission are well aware of the Section 1 per se condemnations, Section 2 per se intent, RICO, Quanda and its reliance by Intel Network as one of their many market rigging tools.
Ten, for FTC there is no risk of Docket 9341 case loss where all Section 2 Rule of Reason claims concerning access to Intel component taper, Intel benchmark rigging, false statements to Federal procurement by Intel, Dealers and Agents concealing fraudulent and monopoly costs assessed on the Federal Government computer payment claims.
All can be heard within the bracket; Section 1 structure, Section 2 intent and RICO proofs. Please consider one of multiple proofs below:
In the RICO proof below, find partial classic Intel Xeon Tanner and Xeon Copper mine economic analysis. Playing signaling revealed by the Quanda, savvy PC Dealers were informed to stick with the quasi static equilibrium and back eddy offered by Xeon Tanner, and to avoid being washed over the falls that is Xeon Cascades.
Cascades is the Intel desktop microprocessor Copper mine 256, repackaged as a high performance Xeon server product at monopoly price premium and for dumping onto AMD. Xeon Cascades was not a high performance product and by June 2000 main board suppliers serving the broker system market, had rejected it, causing Intel to cancel its retail boxed version of the Cascade product line. Cascade’s was then left to sell through Intel primary Dealer channels.
Please note that AMD Opteron code names; Sledge Hammer and Claw Hammer, follow in response to Intel Network notice of Tanner signaling and pending Cascade predatory product dumping. Dumping is relied on by Intel a lot.
Strategically to stop current competitive product flows in channels or to make it unprofitable for competitors to enter that product category.
Full Document and Source:
www.CEOpaulOtellini.com
on Top of Site...
Information by
Mike Bruzzone
Intel Case Technical Analysis since 1996
Camp Marketing Consultancy
posted Here by
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Got an Intel Insider Trading TIP?
Crystal@CrystalCox.com
Proof Of Insider Stock Trading? Surely the SEC does NOT know about THIS?
SEC - FTC - DOJ - Judges - State Attorney General - and more.. they DO know ..
I think that whenever they need some Xtra Cash... IN MY OPINION.. they just initiate an Intel Lawsuit then Settle.. and WELL you.. the Little People. .the Millionaires.. the Investors.. the Good Attorneys.. the Taxpayers. .the Analysts and Investigators... ahhh Shucks.. WELL your Just Collateral Damage...
So What's this About PROOF of Insider Trading at Intel
and Well RICO Proof and ....
" Quantitative Model confirms RICO Proof of Intel Insider Stock Trading.
In analyzing the economics of Intel Production Short Runs for FTC, this analyst has been decomposing the components of an Intel insider stock trading tool.
Recomposed components of the tool yield a rudimentary Intel Economics Simulation.
The tool requires one quasi public, and one public signal, that when filtered together enable the inside trader to estimate changes in Intel’s revenue and margin out into the future.
And can specifically be used to estimate Intel Profit Margin ahead into future time; for playing the stock price, INTC.
Input to perform the necessary economics calculations to Play the Stock are supplied by the quasi public signal from Micro Design Resource; which are Intel Quarterly Microprocessor quantities estimated two years into future time.
The public signal is Intel change in price notices which are widely publicized in business, finance and trade news sources; including New York Times, PC Week, CNET, Register and other hard copy and web publications.
Who knew they were more then simply Intel Price Announcements?
Intel change in price notices have traditionally been released to the public audience, trade and Intel supply channels 90 days ahead of the actual price changes taking affect.
This lag effect gives the Intel Inside Stock Trader a 90 day window for recalculating change in Intel revenues and profit margins for playing the stock. And can be accomplished simply with two inputs; price change calculated against Micro Design Resource quantities estimated into future time.
Typically the Inside Trader could Project Intel Revenue and Margin Value 3 months ahead on Intel Advance Notice of changes in Microprocessor Prices.
Periodically, public notice of Intel price change has been shorter then 3 months.
And multiple price changes have occurred within some
Intel Quarterly Production periods under analysis.
Mr. Gwennap who is principle analyst and proprietor of Micro Design Resource (MDR), raised concerns on his perceived misuse of MDR Intel production estimates, by the investment banking community, to this analyst in 2001.
Mr. Gwennap provided the Intel Production Estimates on which this analyst has decomposed the Quanda against Intel 1,000 piece stated price.
Resulting in a tool for retrospectively playing Intel Corporation Stock Price and for calculating monopoly costs and consumer harms based on change in quarterly revenue and margin potential.
Several questions exist concerning future time Micro Design Resource estimate of Intel microprocessor quantities on wafer dice estimates.
First are they purely an MDR estimate of Intel production capability?
Second, might estimates be Intel’s actual production forecast passed to MDR for industry publication?
Third, if purely MDR estimates were quantities confirmed by Intel end of quarter, as quarterly PC shipments are confirmed by PC Companies to PC industry analysts?
Fourth, how accurate are the MDR estimates? Fifth, and the wild card, are estimates fictitious designed by late 1990’s MDR owner, the Bill Ziff Davis Publishing Company, purely to lead and pump the stock price?
Micro Design Resource estimates of Intel Production are widely accepted as accurate.
Given the best price projection and economic tools Intel Inside Traders can calculate change in Intel revenue and margin, by microprocessor product line, and from the outcome play the stock on quarterly financial outcomes up to two years into the future.
I have no doubt all major trading houses knew of the Quanda, including Robertson Stephens, and were running this software simulation on Intel Xeon Servers performing similar exchange calculations and financial simulations.
Noteworthy the Quanda is also how Media Sales Agents calculated their future revenue flows from Intel Network.
Retrospectively, the Quanda enables the Media Sales Agent to calculate their Intel Inside charge back flows from Intel Combine up to two years into the future.
On this cash flow projection media based their Intel product production plan; the amount of Intel dedicated page space, Dealer PC product reviews and sales coverage.
The Quanda can also be used to estimate advance PC company revenues and margins; specifically Intel Dealers; Dell, Gateway, others by extending the simulations inputs to two additional public signals.
Those Signals are sales space invested by Ziff Davis, IDG and other publications on PC product coverage and review pages.
Media Sales Agents push computer brand models known to carry the highest value Intel Inside charge backs.
Media focuses on skimming these Intel and Dealer values through their focused PC review coverage.
Intel product allocation to Dealers can be estimated by the specific weight of PC Company Brand models that Media Agents push onto consumers in real time.
Two metrics can be used for determining which Dealer’s computer brand models Media Sales Agents are pushing onto consumers for their Intel ‘tied charge’ kick back.
The best metric here shown in PC World analysis, below, is purely the page space allocated to any one Dealer’s PC brand model product reviews.
With this method there is no subjectivity associated with Editorial Accolade, the sole determinants being Media Sales Agent cost of page space and kick back revenues on this investment in Intel Dealership.
The second metric is more subjective, harder to prove as a stand alone indicator, potentially much more evil from the standpoint of an affront to journalism.
That is when the Media Sales Agent begins skewing Editor’s Choice and similar Product Awards to Dealer’s brand models.
This tactic is relied upon for accelerated sales and major capture of the Intel tied charge back. Note that Media Sales Agents compete with one another for total kick back values associated from anyone Intel production short run.
For the purpose of this analysis that charge back value is always 3% (times 2; one half representing Intel Kick Back, the other is Dealer half representing charge back trigger) calculated against Intel total revenues from anyone production short run. ""
Full Document and Source:
www.CEOpaulOtellini.com
on Top of Site...
Information by
Mike Bruzzone
Intel Case Technical Analysis since 1996
Camp Marketing Consultancy
posted Here by
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Got an Intel Insider Trading TIP?
Crystal@CrystalCox.com
I think that whenever they need some Xtra Cash... IN MY OPINION.. they just initiate an Intel Lawsuit then Settle.. and WELL you.. the Little People. .the Millionaires.. the Investors.. the Good Attorneys.. the Taxpayers. .the Analysts and Investigators... ahhh Shucks.. WELL your Just Collateral Damage...
So What's this About PROOF of Insider Trading at Intel
and Well RICO Proof and ....
" Quantitative Model confirms RICO Proof of Intel Insider Stock Trading.
In analyzing the economics of Intel Production Short Runs for FTC, this analyst has been decomposing the components of an Intel insider stock trading tool.
Recomposed components of the tool yield a rudimentary Intel Economics Simulation.
The tool requires one quasi public, and one public signal, that when filtered together enable the inside trader to estimate changes in Intel’s revenue and margin out into the future.
And can specifically be used to estimate Intel Profit Margin ahead into future time; for playing the stock price, INTC.
Input to perform the necessary economics calculations to Play the Stock are supplied by the quasi public signal from Micro Design Resource; which are Intel Quarterly Microprocessor quantities estimated two years into future time.
The public signal is Intel change in price notices which are widely publicized in business, finance and trade news sources; including New York Times, PC Week, CNET, Register and other hard copy and web publications.
Who knew they were more then simply Intel Price Announcements?
Intel change in price notices have traditionally been released to the public audience, trade and Intel supply channels 90 days ahead of the actual price changes taking affect.
This lag effect gives the Intel Inside Stock Trader a 90 day window for recalculating change in Intel revenues and profit margins for playing the stock. And can be accomplished simply with two inputs; price change calculated against Micro Design Resource quantities estimated into future time.
Typically the Inside Trader could Project Intel Revenue and Margin Value 3 months ahead on Intel Advance Notice of changes in Microprocessor Prices.
Periodically, public notice of Intel price change has been shorter then 3 months.
And multiple price changes have occurred within some
Intel Quarterly Production periods under analysis.
Mr. Gwennap who is principle analyst and proprietor of Micro Design Resource (MDR), raised concerns on his perceived misuse of MDR Intel production estimates, by the investment banking community, to this analyst in 2001.
Mr. Gwennap provided the Intel Production Estimates on which this analyst has decomposed the Quanda against Intel 1,000 piece stated price.
Resulting in a tool for retrospectively playing Intel Corporation Stock Price and for calculating monopoly costs and consumer harms based on change in quarterly revenue and margin potential.
Several questions exist concerning future time Micro Design Resource estimate of Intel microprocessor quantities on wafer dice estimates.
First are they purely an MDR estimate of Intel production capability?
Second, might estimates be Intel’s actual production forecast passed to MDR for industry publication?
Third, if purely MDR estimates were quantities confirmed by Intel end of quarter, as quarterly PC shipments are confirmed by PC Companies to PC industry analysts?
Fourth, how accurate are the MDR estimates? Fifth, and the wild card, are estimates fictitious designed by late 1990’s MDR owner, the Bill Ziff Davis Publishing Company, purely to lead and pump the stock price?
Micro Design Resource estimates of Intel Production are widely accepted as accurate.
Given the best price projection and economic tools Intel Inside Traders can calculate change in Intel revenue and margin, by microprocessor product line, and from the outcome play the stock on quarterly financial outcomes up to two years into the future.
I have no doubt all major trading houses knew of the Quanda, including Robertson Stephens, and were running this software simulation on Intel Xeon Servers performing similar exchange calculations and financial simulations.
Noteworthy the Quanda is also how Media Sales Agents calculated their future revenue flows from Intel Network.
Retrospectively, the Quanda enables the Media Sales Agent to calculate their Intel Inside charge back flows from Intel Combine up to two years into the future.
On this cash flow projection media based their Intel product production plan; the amount of Intel dedicated page space, Dealer PC product reviews and sales coverage.
The Quanda can also be used to estimate advance PC company revenues and margins; specifically Intel Dealers; Dell, Gateway, others by extending the simulations inputs to two additional public signals.
Those Signals are sales space invested by Ziff Davis, IDG and other publications on PC product coverage and review pages.
Media Sales Agents push computer brand models known to carry the highest value Intel Inside charge backs.
Media focuses on skimming these Intel and Dealer values through their focused PC review coverage.
Intel product allocation to Dealers can be estimated by the specific weight of PC Company Brand models that Media Agents push onto consumers in real time.
Two metrics can be used for determining which Dealer’s computer brand models Media Sales Agents are pushing onto consumers for their Intel ‘tied charge’ kick back.
The best metric here shown in PC World analysis, below, is purely the page space allocated to any one Dealer’s PC brand model product reviews.
With this method there is no subjectivity associated with Editorial Accolade, the sole determinants being Media Sales Agent cost of page space and kick back revenues on this investment in Intel Dealership.
The second metric is more subjective, harder to prove as a stand alone indicator, potentially much more evil from the standpoint of an affront to journalism.
That is when the Media Sales Agent begins skewing Editor’s Choice and similar Product Awards to Dealer’s brand models.
This tactic is relied upon for accelerated sales and major capture of the Intel tied charge back. Note that Media Sales Agents compete with one another for total kick back values associated from anyone Intel production short run.
For the purpose of this analysis that charge back value is always 3% (times 2; one half representing Intel Kick Back, the other is Dealer half representing charge back trigger) calculated against Intel total revenues from anyone production short run. ""
Full Document and Source:
www.CEOpaulOtellini.com
on Top of Site...
Information by
Mike Bruzzone
Intel Case Technical Analysis since 1996
Camp Marketing Consultancy
posted Here by
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Got an Intel Insider Trading TIP?
Crystal@CrystalCox.com
Intel Corp. Owes Consumers Lots of Money - Monopoly Price Premiums. Intel Planned Economy..
SEC, U.S. Senate, Congressional Committees, State Attorney Generals, U.S. Attorneys, FTC have ALL been Notified of Intel Corps. Crimes.
"" Consumer Recovery Subset 2; Monopoly Price Premiums -
The remaining 15% consumer subset recovery of $3.785 billion is associated with personal computer end buyers paying a monopoly price premium on some Intel PC purchases.
That percent of product, one Intel product generation to the next, where consumers paid a monopoly price for the microprocessor above the monopoly competitive or equilibrium price. Which means computer’s containing the latest and greatest Intel microprocessors.
Computer’s featuring the highest speed, or most microprocessor cores, or the highest combination of performance and power savings in a notebook model. Microprocessors typically offered in the high performance computer brand models within Intel Dealer PC product lines. But can also be associated with computers containing Intel value priced microprocessors.
$3.785 billion dollar sum is conservative and advantages Intel on analysis which uses average price on quantities. Using preferred average weighted price across product types, the monopoly price premium can grow.
Infra marginal product, that which Intel makes least of and charges most for, offers highest end buyer recovery potential for these small short lots of monopoly priced microprocessors.
Product associated with Intel new microprocessor and new PC product introductions displaying patterns of 1st degree price discrimination, exclusive dealing, the raising of microprocessor price following predatory price moves designed to monopolize markets and to stop channel sales flows of competitor’s products.
Competitors include x86 microprocessor horizontal competitors including AMD, chip set & graphic vertical rivals and compliments, like VIA and nVidia, other x86 and inter platform computers and some PC platform replacements.
One of the consumer monopoly price premium examples -
Below find partial economic analysis from the Intel Planned Economy; Pentium 3 risk production code name Katmai, 0.25 micron lithography, 450 to 600 MHz clock speeds.
Katmai average weighted price is calculated on Intel 1,000 piece price and Micro Design Resource quantities on speed splits.
Micro Design Resource quantity estimates are long time and widely accepted by technology, finance and media industries who are Intel customers, stake holders and stockholders.
MDR Estimates are in fact the intra industry regulator itself, that was made into an inter industry sales game by Intel Network.
For Katmai, economic analysis below reveals $300,990,000 in consumer loss from paying a monopoly price greater than $450 for first quarter’s production of 1,905,000 units.
Monopoly competitive equilibrium price is $363 which suggests a monopoly deadweight cost of up to $400,106,000 on second quarter production of 5,438,000 units.
Run down quantities are less than $363, with end of run quantities priced $262 down to $178; are between average total and average fixed costs.
No below fixed cost production is recorded for this specific desktop microprocessor short run. Although quantity and revenue difference in analyst and MDR Intel estimated shut down points are raised.
Foremost, consumer monopoly price premium of $300,900,000 and $764,517,480 in Intel Inside charge back values are recorded. Charge back values represent matching halves of the Intel and PC Dealer tie passed through to Media Sales Agents.
In this estimate at 3% each on Intel total production revenue’s of $12,741,958,000. The specific percentage pass through value is defined contractually within the Intel Inside contract agreement between Intel, Dealers and Media Sales Agents.
An evolutionary series of guidelines concerning tied charge back I’ve encouraged FTC to discovery for a decade now.
Katmai analysis is not a proof, but a pointer to two consumer losses totaling $1,065,417,480 for FTC Docket 9341 discovery.
Findings from this analyst are passed on by FTC to Intel, for Intel rebuttal. So what has FTC learned from Intel’s document production in rebuttal?
Consumer Recovery Time Frame
$3.785 billion consumer monopoly price recovery is calculated on Intel product runs occurring between January 1, 1999 and July 2004.
The analysis is undergoing a third evolution of refinement.
For FTC Docket 9341 review period, additionally, six years of Intel production estimates are currently missing from this specific analysis. Both the existing and remaining
production and price data require FTC and or DOJ discovery from Intel for validation as a monopoly proof.
RICO; specifically Cross Enterprise, cross profession network driven markets rigging is proven regardless. Proven on structure and directly witnessed conduct.
Industrial Subset 3
Industrial subset is estimated principally on Micro Design Resource estimates of Intel product short runs; estimated quarterly quantities at Intel stated price in period, cross referred against Intel average total cost, average fixed cost, variable cost determined on Intel financials.
Finally, the marginal cost estimate to produce a single microprocessor from economic analysis cross checked with variable cost from Intel Financials.
Classic economics analysis is used because classic era rules appear to offer the foundation of Intel’s economic technology until Pentium M 2005 product segmentation phase.
In decomposing Intel systems structure academic theory of the 1930s through 1970s is insightful. This key for decomposing Intel systems theory appears established using similar texts that Messrs.
Moore, Grove, Barrett and other executives might have been taught, as the syllabus of FTC primary and secondary case research documents. Although practiced on a slightly more sophisticated level then solely running the neighborhood breakfast shop or determining the customer demand for egg dishes. Intel system mechanics appear to be designed by engineers and system theorists.
Economic Calculations
Five primary calculations are used in Intel Economic Analysis Decomposing a cost based quantitative mathematical model relied on by inside traders for playing the Intel stock price.
Price multiplied by quantities to determine quarterly revenue and change in revenue.
Change in price and quantities to determine price elasticity.
For a cost based model, change in revenue (suspect as change in total cost), divided by change in total quantity for estimating marginal cost average.
The result can correlate with variable cost cross check from financials. Change in revenue (suspect as cost) divided by change in quantity suspect at Marginal Revenue Approximation.
Actually an indicator of Intel Product Stocks .. ""
Full Document and Source:
www.CEOpaulOtellini.com
on Top of Site...
Information by
Mike Bruzzone
Intel Case Technical Analysis since 1996
Camp Marketing Consultancy
the Point: Intel Corp. is Lying - Cheating and Stealing and if your a Shareholder, Consumer, Taxpayer.... WELL you are Paying the Price.
Do you have a Tip on Intel Insider Trading, Corruption, RICO Complaints, Flat OUT Fraud, Intel Bullying, Intel Corp. forcing Economic Terrorism onto you or your Company? Email your Tips - Documents - Videos to me, Crystal L. Cox ~ Investigative Blogger - Crystal@CrystalCox.com
"" Consumer Recovery Subset 2; Monopoly Price Premiums -
The remaining 15% consumer subset recovery of $3.785 billion is associated with personal computer end buyers paying a monopoly price premium on some Intel PC purchases.
That percent of product, one Intel product generation to the next, where consumers paid a monopoly price for the microprocessor above the monopoly competitive or equilibrium price. Which means computer’s containing the latest and greatest Intel microprocessors.
Computer’s featuring the highest speed, or most microprocessor cores, or the highest combination of performance and power savings in a notebook model. Microprocessors typically offered in the high performance computer brand models within Intel Dealer PC product lines. But can also be associated with computers containing Intel value priced microprocessors.
$3.785 billion dollar sum is conservative and advantages Intel on analysis which uses average price on quantities. Using preferred average weighted price across product types, the monopoly price premium can grow.
Infra marginal product, that which Intel makes least of and charges most for, offers highest end buyer recovery potential for these small short lots of monopoly priced microprocessors.
Product associated with Intel new microprocessor and new PC product introductions displaying patterns of 1st degree price discrimination, exclusive dealing, the raising of microprocessor price following predatory price moves designed to monopolize markets and to stop channel sales flows of competitor’s products.
Competitors include x86 microprocessor horizontal competitors including AMD, chip set & graphic vertical rivals and compliments, like VIA and nVidia, other x86 and inter platform computers and some PC platform replacements.
One of the consumer monopoly price premium examples -
Below find partial economic analysis from the Intel Planned Economy; Pentium 3 risk production code name Katmai, 0.25 micron lithography, 450 to 600 MHz clock speeds.
Katmai average weighted price is calculated on Intel 1,000 piece price and Micro Design Resource quantities on speed splits.
Micro Design Resource quantity estimates are long time and widely accepted by technology, finance and media industries who are Intel customers, stake holders and stockholders.
MDR Estimates are in fact the intra industry regulator itself, that was made into an inter industry sales game by Intel Network.
For Katmai, economic analysis below reveals $300,990,000 in consumer loss from paying a monopoly price greater than $450 for first quarter’s production of 1,905,000 units.
Monopoly competitive equilibrium price is $363 which suggests a monopoly deadweight cost of up to $400,106,000 on second quarter production of 5,438,000 units.
Run down quantities are less than $363, with end of run quantities priced $262 down to $178; are between average total and average fixed costs.
No below fixed cost production is recorded for this specific desktop microprocessor short run. Although quantity and revenue difference in analyst and MDR Intel estimated shut down points are raised.
Foremost, consumer monopoly price premium of $300,900,000 and $764,517,480 in Intel Inside charge back values are recorded. Charge back values represent matching halves of the Intel and PC Dealer tie passed through to Media Sales Agents.
In this estimate at 3% each on Intel total production revenue’s of $12,741,958,000. The specific percentage pass through value is defined contractually within the Intel Inside contract agreement between Intel, Dealers and Media Sales Agents.
An evolutionary series of guidelines concerning tied charge back I’ve encouraged FTC to discovery for a decade now.
Katmai analysis is not a proof, but a pointer to two consumer losses totaling $1,065,417,480 for FTC Docket 9341 discovery.
Findings from this analyst are passed on by FTC to Intel, for Intel rebuttal. So what has FTC learned from Intel’s document production in rebuttal?
Consumer Recovery Time Frame
$3.785 billion consumer monopoly price recovery is calculated on Intel product runs occurring between January 1, 1999 and July 2004.
The analysis is undergoing a third evolution of refinement.
For FTC Docket 9341 review period, additionally, six years of Intel production estimates are currently missing from this specific analysis. Both the existing and remaining
production and price data require FTC and or DOJ discovery from Intel for validation as a monopoly proof.
RICO; specifically Cross Enterprise, cross profession network driven markets rigging is proven regardless. Proven on structure and directly witnessed conduct.
Industrial Subset 3
Industrial subset is estimated principally on Micro Design Resource estimates of Intel product short runs; estimated quarterly quantities at Intel stated price in period, cross referred against Intel average total cost, average fixed cost, variable cost determined on Intel financials.
Finally, the marginal cost estimate to produce a single microprocessor from economic analysis cross checked with variable cost from Intel Financials.
Classic economics analysis is used because classic era rules appear to offer the foundation of Intel’s economic technology until Pentium M 2005 product segmentation phase.
In decomposing Intel systems structure academic theory of the 1930s through 1970s is insightful. This key for decomposing Intel systems theory appears established using similar texts that Messrs.
Moore, Grove, Barrett and other executives might have been taught, as the syllabus of FTC primary and secondary case research documents. Although practiced on a slightly more sophisticated level then solely running the neighborhood breakfast shop or determining the customer demand for egg dishes. Intel system mechanics appear to be designed by engineers and system theorists.
Economic Calculations
Five primary calculations are used in Intel Economic Analysis Decomposing a cost based quantitative mathematical model relied on by inside traders for playing the Intel stock price.
Price multiplied by quantities to determine quarterly revenue and change in revenue.
Change in price and quantities to determine price elasticity.
For a cost based model, change in revenue (suspect as change in total cost), divided by change in total quantity for estimating marginal cost average.
The result can correlate with variable cost cross check from financials. Change in revenue (suspect as cost) divided by change in quantity suspect at Marginal Revenue Approximation.
Actually an indicator of Intel Product Stocks .. ""
Full Document and Source:
www.CEOpaulOtellini.com
on Top of Site...
Information by
Mike Bruzzone
Intel Case Technical Analysis since 1996
Camp Marketing Consultancy
the Point: Intel Corp. is Lying - Cheating and Stealing and if your a Shareholder, Consumer, Taxpayer.... WELL you are Paying the Price.
Do you have a Tip on Intel Insider Trading, Corruption, RICO Complaints, Flat OUT Fraud, Intel Bullying, Intel Corp. forcing Economic Terrorism onto you or your Company? Email your Tips - Documents - Videos to me, Crystal L. Cox ~ Investigative Blogger - Crystal@CrystalCox.com
Cartel Proof Constantly PROVEN - Yet intel Steal STOMPS on Competition Constantly.
Wake Up Intel Shareholders Before You Lose Everything !!!
Cartel Proof - Intel Kick Backs - Cartel Margin Gain - Intel Annual Pages
Consumer Transport Tax - Competitive Limiter - Intel Economy - Intel Microprocessor Product Routing - SEC was Notified of Intel Market Rigging - Variable Commission Rewards - Documented DELL Accounting Fraud -
Computer Consumers Pay The Hidden Costs.
Investors - Shareholders PAY when Intel is Caught ?
"" Combined Cartel Proof
Additionally, for Dell and Gateway certainly, Intel PC Dealers earn a cartel margin gain from their Media Sales Agents as a result of their Intel Inside Kick Back.
Cartel Margin Gain on this routing fee is secured when any PC Dealer’s annual advertising pages exceed Intel’s annual advertising pages.
Under Intel Inside Contract Guide all PC Dealers receive the Intel Corporation advertising page frequency discount rate from Media Sales Agents.
Note the competitive limiter here for non Intel Dealers lacking this form of Intel Network scale economy.
For PC Dealers who advertise at a greater annual page frequency rate then Intel Corporation annual pages, Cartel margin gain is secured on the difference in frequency discounts applied to Intel pages verse any Dealer’s deeper ad discount rate from Media Sales Agents.
Media’s ad frequency discounts, called network buys, are based on any one Dealer’s annual volume page purchase agreement with Media Sales Agents.
When anyone Intel Dealer’s annual pages of advertisement exceed Intel Annual Pages, added margin value is earned on every Intel Kick Back for every future ad insertion by these foremost cartel members.
System diagram of cross enterprise industry bottleneck monopoly is depicted above. ( at www.CEOpaulOtellini.com )
PC Company matching half of the media sales tie triggers the tied charge back match from Intel’s Dealer Accruals to Media Sales Agents.
That value tie is misrepresented in PC Dealer Financials as an advertising cost applied to every computer sale.
Taken together computer end buyers pay both halves of this hidden transport charge in their computer’s end sales price. 100% of the consumer charge is taken by Media Sales Agents for directing Intel PC consumer search. Making consumer search focused, quick and easy.
This hidden consumer transport tax for Intel microprocessor product routing, taken by Intel and PC Companies from consumers, and paid to Media Sales Agents, is meant as a sales commission to pay for Media’s cost of Intel product sales; communications medium, display space, news coverage, Intel and Dealer content development including Dealer’s PC product reviews.
For ZD, certainly, this payment was also a form of extorted tribute.
Because the tie is based on a variable commission reward on Intel Microprocessor Price, Media Sales Agents tend to push computers to consumers containing Intel’s highest priced; latest and greatest microprocessors.
Or will focus on moving large lots of slow moving Intel microprocessor based computers that have been clogging up the Intel supply system; those capable of delivering a large total reward value to Media, when routed together until discharged from Intel PC Dealer inventories.
The existence of this Intel Tied Charge Back System is the accounting compliment to Dell Corporation Misrepresenting Intel Kickbacks;
rebates and loyalty rewards,
as sales revenue now under investigation by the SEC.
Intel’s half of the Dell Accounting Fraud is Documented as cooperative advertising accounts misrepresented within Intel’s own financials since 1993.
There is currently a rather extensive accounting fraud being hidden within Intel, by Intel and Intel Network.
And I would presume under current investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Securities Exchange Commission?
Intel market rig was reported by this analyst to SEC in 2007; HO 1248999.
Intel tied charge back misrepresented in financials as a cooperative advertising expense documented contractually with Dealers x 2 for total set consumer calculation.
Reported in $ Billions .. ""
Source with Graphs and Full Details
www.CEOpaulOtellini.com
Document On Top of Blog - Download It..
Written by
Mike Bruzzone
Camp Marketing Consultancy
The .. SEC, U.S. Senate, Congressional Committees, State Attorney Generals, U.S. Attorneys - they Know and your Left to Fend for Yourself.
No Wonder Shareholders of Intel Corp. and Many other Major Companies will Soon Pay Trillons as there is a Decade of Without a Doubt Proof on the Iviewit Stolen Technology and Intel's Involvement. ( www.DeniedPatent.com )
Oh and Don't forget you need some Corrupt SEC Investigators, Corrupt Attorneys, Bought of Judges - Corrupt Patent Attorneys such as Foley and Lardner and Proskauer Rose Corrupt Patent Attorneys Chris Wheeler and Kenneth Rubenstein (MPEG LA's Golden Boy) .
Got a Tip on Dell, Gateway, Intel Corruption - Monopolies..
did they Bully You, Intimidate you, Threaten You..
Got a Video.. ??
Email Me
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Crystal@CrystalCox.com
www.InvestigativeBlogger.com
Cartel Proof - Intel Kick Backs - Cartel Margin Gain - Intel Annual Pages
Consumer Transport Tax - Competitive Limiter - Intel Economy - Intel Microprocessor Product Routing - SEC was Notified of Intel Market Rigging - Variable Commission Rewards - Documented DELL Accounting Fraud -
Computer Consumers Pay The Hidden Costs.
Investors - Shareholders PAY when Intel is Caught ?
"" Combined Cartel Proof
Additionally, for Dell and Gateway certainly, Intel PC Dealers earn a cartel margin gain from their Media Sales Agents as a result of their Intel Inside Kick Back.
Cartel Margin Gain on this routing fee is secured when any PC Dealer’s annual advertising pages exceed Intel’s annual advertising pages.
Under Intel Inside Contract Guide all PC Dealers receive the Intel Corporation advertising page frequency discount rate from Media Sales Agents.
Note the competitive limiter here for non Intel Dealers lacking this form of Intel Network scale economy.
For PC Dealers who advertise at a greater annual page frequency rate then Intel Corporation annual pages, Cartel margin gain is secured on the difference in frequency discounts applied to Intel pages verse any Dealer’s deeper ad discount rate from Media Sales Agents.
Media’s ad frequency discounts, called network buys, are based on any one Dealer’s annual volume page purchase agreement with Media Sales Agents.
When anyone Intel Dealer’s annual pages of advertisement exceed Intel Annual Pages, added margin value is earned on every Intel Kick Back for every future ad insertion by these foremost cartel members.
System diagram of cross enterprise industry bottleneck monopoly is depicted above. ( at www.CEOpaulOtellini.com )
PC Company matching half of the media sales tie triggers the tied charge back match from Intel’s Dealer Accruals to Media Sales Agents.
That value tie is misrepresented in PC Dealer Financials as an advertising cost applied to every computer sale.
Taken together computer end buyers pay both halves of this hidden transport charge in their computer’s end sales price. 100% of the consumer charge is taken by Media Sales Agents for directing Intel PC consumer search. Making consumer search focused, quick and easy.
This hidden consumer transport tax for Intel microprocessor product routing, taken by Intel and PC Companies from consumers, and paid to Media Sales Agents, is meant as a sales commission to pay for Media’s cost of Intel product sales; communications medium, display space, news coverage, Intel and Dealer content development including Dealer’s PC product reviews.
For ZD, certainly, this payment was also a form of extorted tribute.
Because the tie is based on a variable commission reward on Intel Microprocessor Price, Media Sales Agents tend to push computers to consumers containing Intel’s highest priced; latest and greatest microprocessors.
Or will focus on moving large lots of slow moving Intel microprocessor based computers that have been clogging up the Intel supply system; those capable of delivering a large total reward value to Media, when routed together until discharged from Intel PC Dealer inventories.
The existence of this Intel Tied Charge Back System is the accounting compliment to Dell Corporation Misrepresenting Intel Kickbacks;
rebates and loyalty rewards,
as sales revenue now under investigation by the SEC.
Intel’s half of the Dell Accounting Fraud is Documented as cooperative advertising accounts misrepresented within Intel’s own financials since 1993.
There is currently a rather extensive accounting fraud being hidden within Intel, by Intel and Intel Network.
And I would presume under current investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Securities Exchange Commission?
Intel market rig was reported by this analyst to SEC in 2007; HO 1248999.
Intel tied charge back misrepresented in financials as a cooperative advertising expense documented contractually with Dealers x 2 for total set consumer calculation.
Reported in $ Billions .. ""
Source with Graphs and Full Details
www.CEOpaulOtellini.com
Document On Top of Blog - Download It..
Written by
Mike Bruzzone
Camp Marketing Consultancy
The .. SEC, U.S. Senate, Congressional Committees, State Attorney Generals, U.S. Attorneys - they Know and your Left to Fend for Yourself.
No Wonder Shareholders of Intel Corp. and Many other Major Companies will Soon Pay Trillons as there is a Decade of Without a Doubt Proof on the Iviewit Stolen Technology and Intel's Involvement. ( www.DeniedPatent.com )
Oh and Don't forget you need some Corrupt SEC Investigators, Corrupt Attorneys, Bought of Judges - Corrupt Patent Attorneys such as Foley and Lardner and Proskauer Rose Corrupt Patent Attorneys Chris Wheeler and Kenneth Rubenstein (MPEG LA's Golden Boy) .
Got a Tip on Dell, Gateway, Intel Corruption - Monopolies..
did they Bully You, Intimidate you, Threaten You..
Got a Video.. ??
Email Me
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Crystal@CrystalCox.com
www.InvestigativeBlogger.com
Beginning Docket 9288, May 1998.. So How Long has the FTC, SEC, DOJ Protected Intel Corp.?
Over a Decade. WHAT !!
Prior Reports IGNORED by those Paid to Protect YOU???
"" Beginning Docket 9288, May 1998, various reports and analysis are submitted by this analyst to FTC now operating in voluntary civic service capacity under Department of Labor Code 3363.5. Today a decade of analysis delivers tens of Docket 9341 discovery proofs or pointers to proofs.
Many of which this audience are familiar from prior reports by this analyst submitted to U.S. Senate, Congress, State AGs and U.S. Attorneys.
Under Docket 9341 discovery rules, work from this analyst is passed by FTC Bureau of Competition to Intel for legal rebuttal.
Three Components of Monopoly Recovery
Monopoly recovery is a worldwide financial value having three main components:
1) Consumer recovery is based on the system costs of Intel Inside tied charge back for routing Intel microprocessors across state lines and inter nation boundaries inside a computer chassis. See prior analyst submissions for specific details covering the illegal aspects of this market rigging rebate fee scheme.
SEC, U.S. Senate, Congressional Committees, State Attorney Generals, U.S. Attorneys
2) Consumer recovery from monopoly price premium associated with some Intel microprocessor and PC product introductions.
3) Industrial harms which include predatory product dumping, Intel selling at a price less then average total cost, measures of variable down to average fixed cost. Finally, estimation of the marginal cost for Intel to produce a single x86 microprocessor in relation to price sought with variable cost cross check. Where price is within or lower then average fixed cost, variable or marginal cost, revenues
from those quantities are recorded as an industrial monopolization recovery value for FTC discovery.
Consumer Recovery Subset 1; kick back, in violation of Sherman Act Section 1, Section 2, Clayton Act Section 2, 3, 4, 5, 13e, 13c, 13d, Title 48, 1986 anti kickback act
Of the $26.442 billion subset of consumer recovery documented from Intel production estimates (where $42 billion total set is documented by contract), $22.657 billion or 85% is associated with Intel Inside tied charge back sum misrepresented in Intel and PC Dealer financials. That sum is split between Intel and PC Companies 50:50 for the purpose of this analysis based on the Intel Inside monopoly system metric. Yet Intel’s portion is known to increase, and PC Companies decrease, over the 15 year duration of this Intel Insider operation.
Intel financials associate Intel Inside as a marketing cost credited to PC Company micro- processor sales. When this commissionable sales value is actually an accrued Dealer rebate passed through Intel as a sales reward for Media Sales Agents taken as their fee, to sustain the supply chain’s product distribution ties between Intel, PC Dealers and Media Agent’s sales channels. Sales Channels include PC Week, PC Magazine, Computer Shopper, Family Computing, PC World, Windows Magazine, other PC and some general media.
Rebate values are sustained from back in time with forward time purchase agreements. Production short run to short run, Dealer’s microprocessor purchases are unnaturally weighted to benefit them guiding Media Agents sales preferences. Intel 1st tier Dealers purchase microprocessors in excess of end demand solely to strip margin values, including consumer transport charge, prior to reselling overage into secondary broker channels. PC Dealers who are Intel’s 1st tier brokers monopolize majority of Intel margin values, including tied charge back, sustaining their Media Sales Agent artificial attractor and the cross industry distribution tie in total.
This relationship is a financially driven one, planned and implemented for Media Sales Agents to register, meter, report level’s of Intel microprocessor flows through PC dealer channels back to Intel. That is the nature of the charge back; for media registering and reporting back channel sales flows through PC Companies to Intel. Over time the system evolved into one which accelerated Dealer product flows artificially from one Intel product generation to the next, on the weight of Intel kickback placements meant to discharge certain Dealer inventory, to end market buyers, on an Intel time schedule.
SEC, U.S. Senate, Congressional Committees, State Attorney Generals, U.S. Attorneys ""
Source of Post
Document the FTC, DOJ, SEC, State Attorney Generals, FBI and more know of and seem to be ignoring.. Go to www.CEOpaulOtellini.com document at top of blog...
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Crystal@CrystalCox.com
Prior Reports IGNORED by those Paid to Protect YOU???
"" Beginning Docket 9288, May 1998, various reports and analysis are submitted by this analyst to FTC now operating in voluntary civic service capacity under Department of Labor Code 3363.5. Today a decade of analysis delivers tens of Docket 9341 discovery proofs or pointers to proofs.
Many of which this audience are familiar from prior reports by this analyst submitted to U.S. Senate, Congress, State AGs and U.S. Attorneys.
Under Docket 9341 discovery rules, work from this analyst is passed by FTC Bureau of Competition to Intel for legal rebuttal.
Three Components of Monopoly Recovery
Monopoly recovery is a worldwide financial value having three main components:
1) Consumer recovery is based on the system costs of Intel Inside tied charge back for routing Intel microprocessors across state lines and inter nation boundaries inside a computer chassis. See prior analyst submissions for specific details covering the illegal aspects of this market rigging rebate fee scheme.
SEC, U.S. Senate, Congressional Committees, State Attorney Generals, U.S. Attorneys
2) Consumer recovery from monopoly price premium associated with some Intel microprocessor and PC product introductions.
3) Industrial harms which include predatory product dumping, Intel selling at a price less then average total cost, measures of variable down to average fixed cost. Finally, estimation of the marginal cost for Intel to produce a single x86 microprocessor in relation to price sought with variable cost cross check. Where price is within or lower then average fixed cost, variable or marginal cost, revenues
from those quantities are recorded as an industrial monopolization recovery value for FTC discovery.
Consumer Recovery Subset 1; kick back, in violation of Sherman Act Section 1, Section 2, Clayton Act Section 2, 3, 4, 5, 13e, 13c, 13d, Title 48, 1986 anti kickback act
Of the $26.442 billion subset of consumer recovery documented from Intel production estimates (where $42 billion total set is documented by contract), $22.657 billion or 85% is associated with Intel Inside tied charge back sum misrepresented in Intel and PC Dealer financials. That sum is split between Intel and PC Companies 50:50 for the purpose of this analysis based on the Intel Inside monopoly system metric. Yet Intel’s portion is known to increase, and PC Companies decrease, over the 15 year duration of this Intel Insider operation.
Intel financials associate Intel Inside as a marketing cost credited to PC Company micro- processor sales. When this commissionable sales value is actually an accrued Dealer rebate passed through Intel as a sales reward for Media Sales Agents taken as their fee, to sustain the supply chain’s product distribution ties between Intel, PC Dealers and Media Agent’s sales channels. Sales Channels include PC Week, PC Magazine, Computer Shopper, Family Computing, PC World, Windows Magazine, other PC and some general media.
Rebate values are sustained from back in time with forward time purchase agreements. Production short run to short run, Dealer’s microprocessor purchases are unnaturally weighted to benefit them guiding Media Agents sales preferences. Intel 1st tier Dealers purchase microprocessors in excess of end demand solely to strip margin values, including consumer transport charge, prior to reselling overage into secondary broker channels. PC Dealers who are Intel’s 1st tier brokers monopolize majority of Intel margin values, including tied charge back, sustaining their Media Sales Agent artificial attractor and the cross industry distribution tie in total.
This relationship is a financially driven one, planned and implemented for Media Sales Agents to register, meter, report level’s of Intel microprocessor flows through PC dealer channels back to Intel. That is the nature of the charge back; for media registering and reporting back channel sales flows through PC Companies to Intel. Over time the system evolved into one which accelerated Dealer product flows artificially from one Intel product generation to the next, on the weight of Intel kickback placements meant to discharge certain Dealer inventory, to end market buyers, on an Intel time schedule.
SEC, U.S. Senate, Congressional Committees, State Attorney Generals, U.S. Attorneys ""
Source of Post
Document the FTC, DOJ, SEC, State Attorney Generals, FBI and more know of and seem to be ignoring.. Go to www.CEOpaulOtellini.com document at top of blog...
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Crystal@CrystalCox.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)