Talk:Qimonda/Archive 1

Untitled
Changed (repeated) deliberate mis-spelling of CEO’s name. Removed reference to QR owing “creditors and workers to the tune of $100m”. I can find no confirmation of this. Court filing shows top 30 creditors owing around $54m. If proper citation can be found, it should be added.

Deleted two instances of duplication which were also out of chronological sequence.

Deleted and reworded several references to the transfer of a proportion of graphics DRAM production from QR300 to QD300 due to the following issues: (i) Richmond did not develop the graphics products, as stated (although, the local management had falsely stated that). The GH70 family had been developed at QD300 prior to QR300 running it as production. The QD300 site did not run significant quantities of production GH70 prior to October 2008. (ii) The statement that graphics memory fetches a “premium price” over consumer DRAM. I can find no independent source that confirms this (again, local management had stated this during meetings). All spot market pricing I have been able to find shows all DRAM as one market and with one pricing per technology node. If independent confirmation can be found, this can be altered. (iii) The inference that QR300 could have continued as a viable unit if a portion of the graphics production had not been transferred to QD300. Since all money from the sale of chips from QR300 went directly to QAG, it makes no difference what product QR300 ran. Due to (ii) above, this is uncorroborated. Additionally, cost per chip at QR300 was higher than QD300 for 70nm technologies. QAG had reduced the total manufacture of GH70 production in the months preceding and following transfer, indicating that the product was not cost-viable or was over-supplied and was not selling.

The future of this market would seem to provide limited viability given these articles: http://www.dramexchange.com/WeeklyResearch/Post/2/1918.html http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20090306/166865/ http://www.pcworld.com/article/158619/sales_of_graphics_chips_sink_on_falling_demand.html?tk=rss

Created new section, headed "Bankruptcy/Litigation" with specific details on this and copied reference contained in the other sections to this new chapter. New information regarding bankruptcy or litigation should be added to this section only.

Tls_01 - March 07, 2009

I have removed one of the updates for this entry. Other than the points below it only seemed to revert to prior spelling and grammatical errors.

The reference to QAG selling its interest in Inotera had been removed, returning to the "QAG sold Inotera" version. This is not accurate because QAG was never a majority stakeholder in the company from its inception, therefore it was not capable of "selling" the company - only of selling its interest in the company (interest = shares). Initially a 49% stakeholder (with Nanya holding the remaining 51%), QAG divested itself of shares so that it only owned 36.5% at the time of sale. Insertion of the "interest" portion makes it clear that QAG did not "own" the company.

Whilst the insertion of the money owed by QR is useful information, where it is inserted appears to conflate two ideas. A company can owe money and still be technically solvent. In fact, most companies owe money to some extent (the current banking crisis is a case in point, with many major banks owing more than their assets, but have not been declared bankrupt). Solvency in this sense is a legal condition. It does not relate to the simple fact of whether a company owes money or not. I am assuming that the amount owed comes from the financial statements supplied at the time of bankruptcy declaration. If this is so, perhaps it would be better to create this information as a separate section?

Tls_01 - March 05, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tls 01 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow does this article violate NPOV in the opening... Andrewhime (talk) 04:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Quimonda Portugal as been ^(25-11-2009) bought by a consortium of the state, public and private banks and it's own engineers/administrators. Will update the page when I find a proper quotable article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.155.161.216 (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)