Concord, CA 94519

November 7, 2017

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

Office of Chief Counsel

Division of Corporation Finance

100 F Street, NE

Washington, DC 20549-2736

Re: Shareholder Proposal for Inclusion in Applied Material Inc. Proxy Statement

Ladies and Gentlemen:

There is no need to use common sense to rebut the two excuses citing irrelevant cases for exclusion of my proposal in Applied Materials’ November 3, 2017 letter. However, to help the Company’s Board not to repeat the same baseless statements against my proposal, I would like to point out:

[A] My proposal is neither inherently vague nor indefinite. For the purpose not to “micro-manage” the company business, the proposal does not redefine the commonly understood English words “improve,” “actual compensation,” and “realized pay” so the Company retains the flexibility to implement the proposal. I don’t agree that the Company’s shareholders would not understand such words as “realized pay” while the Wall Street Journal readers and the American public have no difficulty to read reports about CEO’s realized pay.

The Applied Materials letter listed many cases the SEC concurring with exclusion of shareholder proposals because these shareholder proposals may be vague and/or indefinite, but my proposal is neither inherently vague nor indefinite.  In fact, Applied Materials tried to use the same excuse to exclude my last year’s proposal (its letter to the SEC on November 7, 2016) but the SEC did not concur (the SEC letter to Christina Y. Lai on December 15, 2016).  While I have no statistics, I think in majority cases, the SEC did not concur with exclusion of shareholder proposals based on this convenient “inherently vague and/or indefinite” label.

On the Yahoo! Inc. case (avil. Mar. 26, 2008), again, besides my letter to the SEC on November 10, 2016 “Re: Shareholder Proposal for Inclusion in Applied Material Inc. Proxy Statement”, the American public now have read much more disclosed information how Yahoo has misled and cheated the shareholders, the SEC, the Congress and the American public to utilize the so-called “Yahoo Human Rights Fund” and Yahoo’s agent Harry Wu against the Chinese human rights movement.  See, e.g., my human rights proposals to Verizon Communications (#6) and Altaba (#7) this year.  As reported today: “Senate Committee Subpoenaed Former Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer,” former Yahoo board and executives deserve the same fate of former Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf.

While it is a common sense, the Company can choose not to violate federal security law to implement my proposal (Re: the Applied Materials letter page 4 note 1).

Furthermore, the fact that the Company claimed that “the Company Has Already Substantially Implemented the Proposal” indicates that my proposal is neither inherently vague nor indefinite.

The Company has not substantially implemented my proposal.  The Applied Materials letter itself is an indication that the Company refuses to make any effort to improve the method to disclose the Company’s executive compensation.

Shareholders have the right to know and vote on this information.  Should you have any questions, please contact me at zhao.cpri@gmail.com or 925-643-****.

Respectfully,

Jing Zhao