Neowin.net

Intel slashed the price of Pentium 4 processors for desktops and notebooks over the weekend by up to 53 percent, an annual spring ritual designed to stimulate demand for its premier PC chip.

Thanks ICE-XP for the email.

The chipmaker cut the price of the desktop version of the chip from 12 percent to 43 percent, according to a price list issued by the company. The 2.4GHz P4 dropped from $562 to $400, a 29 percent drop, while the 2.26GHz and 2.2GHz P4s fell from $423 to $241, a 43 percent drop.

Notebook chips dropped even more. Pentium 4 notebook chips have not sold as well as expected, according to analysts, especially in the corporate market. The chip is primarily usedin the thicker "desktop replacement" notebooks rather than the "thin and light" versions more popular with corporate America. Both price cuts have been expected.

The 1.8GHz mobile Pentium 4 fell 48 percent, from $637 to $348, while the 1.7GHz mobile P4 dropped from $508 to $241, a 53 percent decline. The 1.6GHz version was discounted 51 percent, from $401 to $198. The company also marginally cut prices on Pentium III mobile chips.

News source: C|Net News
View: The entire article

"Litigation is never our preferred course" said Edward P. Murphy, NMPA's CEO. "But when a company repeatedly demonstrates its intent, despite repeated warnings, to continue to engage in and facilitate activities it knows are causing grave harm to creators and copyright owners, there is little choice but to defend our rights through the legal system. To do otherwise would be to abandon America¡¦s music community to the pirates"
Among the numerous recording artists and songwriters whose works are being unlawfully distributed include: Brandy, Boys II Men, Dave Mathews Band, Celine Dion, Shakira, Enya, the Beatles, Shakira, Billy Joel, Destiny's Child, Alicia Keyes, James Brown, Linkin Park, Madonna, Jerry Leiber, Mike Stoller, Paula Cole, Lalo Schifrin, Henry Mancini, Johnny Mercer, and countless others.

Matt Oppenheim, Senior Vice President, Business and Legal Affairs of the RIAA, said that the litigation was a last resort after numerous out-of-court warnings to Audiogalaxy were ignored or resulted in half-hearted attempts to fix the problem.

"Audiogalaxy and Napster are cut from the same cloth," said Oppenheim. "Audiogalaxy is profiting by providing its users a library of pirated music, including today's most popular hits. Though claiming fealty to copyrights, Audiogalaxy continues to offer up virtually all of the music we told them should be excluded. The firm's sieve-like filter has been totally ineffective."

Specifically, the suit, which also names Michael Merhej, head of Audiogalaxy as a defendant, charges that:

* Audiogalaxy had ample knowledge of the massive infringements occurring daily on its system, and in fact marketed itself as the next Napster.

* Audiogalaxy clearly had the ability to control the works available on its system and acknowledged the ability to remove users, or alternatively, to exclude certain content.

* Audiogalaxy provided users with a fully integrated, centralized structure and facility, including a hub of central computers to which users connected; a continuously updated database and index of infringing sound recordings; information about file size, popularity and download speed of files; and proprietary software to facilitate efficient identification, copying and distribution of recordings.

* Like Napster, Audiogalaxy seeks to profit from its pirate system by building an extensive user base to attract advertisers and investment dollars.