backtop


Print 91 comment(s) - last by misbfa1.. on Nov 17 at 1:36 PM


  (Source: softsailor.com)
Intel, AMD kiss and make up

Intel and AMD have been involved in long-standing dispute over intellectual property and antitrust issues. Intel was fined $1.45B by the EU for its anticompetitive practices and last week, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo filed an antitrust lawsuit against Intel.

Cuomo had rather harsh words for Intel, stating, “Rather than compete fairly, Intel used bribery and coercion to maintain a stranglehold on the market. Intel’s actions not only unfairly restricted potential competitors, but also hurt average consumers who were robbed of better products and lower prices.”

However, Intel and AMD now appear to be making amends. The pair issued a joint statement today which reads, “While the relationship between the two companies has been difficult in the past, this agreement ends the legal disputes and enables the companies to focus all of our efforts on product innovation and development.”

As a part of the settlement, Intel will pay AMD $1.25 billion, AMD will drop all of its pending lawsuits against Intel, and the pair will enter into a new 5-year cross license agreement. In addition, Intel will "abide by a set of business practice provisions" in the future.

AMD CEO Dirk Meyer today championed the agreement, stating, "Today, I am pleased to announce the last major component of that transformation – in the form of a transparent and public agreement with Intel to create a level playing field in the x86 processor industry – taking us one big step closer to achieving our bold vision."

Meyer continued, adding, "Today marks the beginning of a new era... one that confirms that the game has changed for AMD. It is an important milestone for us, for our customers, our partners, and most important – for consumers and businesses worldwide. In addition, it represents the culmination many years of litigation and regulatory engagement."

Following the announcement, AMD shares are up 25 percent to $6.61 while Intel is up almost a percentage point to $20.05 as of 10:00 AM EST.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Should have Held Out for more Cash
By Sahrin on 11/12/2009 10:09:41 AM , Rating: 5
Good news, but AMD could've gotten a lot more money at trial. My thinking is (though I certainly hope it's not true) that AMD's situation is pretty fianncially bleak. A meager 5 year extension of the cross-licensing agreement and 1 and a quarter B?

That aside, there's the moral satisfaction and vindication that your struggles over the last 30 years have been, at least in part, attributable to your competitor stealing from you by bribing your customers.

Nothing against Intel, but the 1.5B plus 1.25B paid to AMD comes nowhere near the extra profits driven by (relatively) higher prices they've created through their illegal behaviour.

Kudos to AMD. Now let's get this behind us and move Bulldozer up a year and get back to kicking Inte's tail where it matters - in the benchmarks.




RE: Should have Held Out for more Cash
By Amiga500 on 11/12/2009 11:05:51 AM , Rating: 3
I agree.

Considering Intel is supposed to have paid over $10 BILLION to Dell alone, it is not unreasonable to expect AMD to have gotten much more out of Intel in fines.

Although, I suppose one could argue that not all of the money from fines would have found its way to AMD's bank account, if any.

I think this was a bad move by AMD IMO.


By Nehemoth on 11/12/2009 11:17:13 AM , Rating: 5
The same here. That's no a huge sum of cash as I was expecting.

Course maybe this was the best move, we must remember that AMD have to pay lawyers, Intel is getting strong and AMD needs money NOW, and of course Intel knows this.

Maybe this was the reason behind the deal right now.


By just4U on 11/12/2009 11:23:22 AM , Rating: 5
I don't feel that it was a bad move for AMD at all. Sure they could have squeezed more but it's probably unlikely it would have gone as high as 10 Billion. As it stands they have a new cross licensing agreement and over a Billion more in funds... "NOW!" That's key to remember as this lawsuit could have dragged on for many years rather then being settled now.

In reading this article .. I was happy for AMD.


RE: Should have Held Out for more Cash
By rs1 on 11/12/2009 3:32:53 PM , Rating: 5
I see your reasoning, but I can also see AMD's strategy here:

1. They need cash NOW. They might have been able to get more cash later, but what good is that if it takes so long that AMD is no longer a viable company when it finally does get the cash. Court cases take a long time, and consume a significant amount of resources while they are ongoing.

2. Under the agreement, Intel drops its licensing suit, which AMD would probably have lost. AMD saves a bunch of extra money by not having to defend itself in this suit, and also no longer has to worry about either getting cut off from its x86 license or being forced to renegotiate at extremely unfavorable terms. Given that AMD's business is built around selling x86 CPU's, this is hugely important for them.

3. AMD doesn't have anything all that impressive on their roadmap until 2011. Now is a good time for them to be taking a cash infusion from Intel, even if it is a smaller one. It ensures that the company should be able to survive through 2010 so that maybe they can become competitive again in 2011 if they manage to stick to their plan.

I think AMD's settlement was aimed more at preserving their ability to compete successfully with Intel in the future than it was at maximizing the amount of cash extracted from Intel. The two goals are slightly different.


By ajfink on 11/12/2009 6:56:34 PM , Rating: 2
AMD never would have lost an x86 licensing suit - it would immediately lead to a practical monopoly.


By Proteusza on 11/12/2009 11:14:54 AM , Rating: 3
I think thats the point though.

I mean, Intel probably said something along the lines of:

"We both know that we're guilty and you can probably prove it in court. But long term, this legal battle is something you cant afford in your present state. Give it up, and we'll admit you were right and give you these trinkets to seal the bargain."

Doesnt mean much to Intel but will help AMD's bottom line quite a bit.


RE: Should have Held Out for more Cash
By Mint on 11/12/2009 12:24:33 PM , Rating: 4
Anti-trust is not something that's easy to win. For example, rebates to Dell are nothing more than a volume discount with different financing.

Moreover, it's rare that the company suffering from the actions gets a decent chunk of the fines. I don't think the EU gave anything to AMD.

$1.25B is a pretty strong admission of guilt. Intel would rather avoid paying $2-5B to the DoJ, and AMD would rather get $1.25B instead of nothing. Everyone's happy.


RE: Should have Held Out for more Cash
By Sahrin on 11/12/2009 2:06:52 PM , Rating: 4
It sounds like you're making the mistake of confusing a criminal case with a civil one. This is *not* anti-trust. AMD is suing for damages, not filing criminal charges for anti-trust violations.

All AMD has to do is get the jury to agree that it's troubles were even remotely related to Intel's actions. Intel has earned well over 250 Billion in revenue since 1999 - if AMD were to even get an integer percentage of that (likely what they would be awarded by a jury - damages plus (percent culpability times revenue)) it would blow away the settlement being agreed to.

A company never gets a chunk of fines, fines are damages done to the public - not damages done to a private enterprise. AMD's only recourse to get money is to sue Intel itself for violating the law. My point was to say that Intel is 'getting off easy' relative to their crime, not that AMD had experienced a windfall (or missed out on one).

An out-of-court settlement will as a rule include *NO* admission of guilt. Intel is paying AMD to shut up, not paying AMD because they were wrong.

This does *nothing* to help Intel with the DoJ. If they broke the law (violated anti-trust laws and injured the marketplace) the Justice Department's responibility is to protect the people (not private enterprise) from law-breakers. Intel will be held responsible for the damage done to the market, not to AMD - and no amount of paying off AMD will protect it from that (should justice decide to pursue a case against Intel), which at this point is pretty much a given. This is the kind of case a US Attorney can make his career (all the way up to SG or Assistance AG) on.


RE: Should have Held Out for more Cash
By sonoran on 11/12/2009 2:52:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Intel has earned well over 250 Billion in revenue since 1999 - if AMD were to even get an integer percentage of that

Are you arguing that Intel was not entitled to compete for ANY of the x86 processor market share over this time? That's the only way your total revenue figure makes any sense. How about subtracting the percentage of the total market they are legally allowed to compete for? And good luck defining what that is, since no law on the books codifies that percentage - what's "allowed" and what's not is all up to interpretation.


By Sahrin on 11/12/2009 3:14:00 PM , Rating: 2
I wasn't arguing anything like that, I was using it as an arbitrary basis for possible damages. I wouldn't be surprised if AMD would use that as a baseline figure (Intel's total revenue during that period was...we believe Intel's actions denied AMD an approximate 10% of market share over 10 years...thus we should be entitled to 10% of revenue, plus triple damages...but we're not greedy - so we'll settle for the $25B).

Probably, AMD would end up getting something in the high singles to low teens - not less that $5B, not more than $12-13B. Of course, they probably wouldn't get paid for 10-15 years, but there it is. My bet would be $7B when all was said in done.

Of course at this point it's all academic.


RE: Should have Held Out for more Cash
By nafhan on 11/12/2009 12:39:37 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget that they got the cross-licensing agreement out of this, too. Thanks to their IP, AMD is in a much better position than nVidia, but if they'd had gotten tied up in court seperately over the cross licensing, it could have caused major problems for AMD.


By Mr Perfect on 11/12/2009 12:52:47 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think I'd count the license agreement for much. From what Anandtech and others have said, it's pretty much a given that these agreements get extended. Intel owns x86, and AMD owns the x86-64 extensions. If either party doesn't extend the licenses, it's damn sure the other guy won't either and then nobody's chips are in license.


RE: Should have Held Out for more Cash
By Calin on 11/12/2009 12:57:33 PM , Rating: 2
5 years from now, when everyone will use 64-bit software, Intel will want to continue the cross licensing agreement.


RE: Should have Held Out for more Cash
By Supa on 11/12/2009 1:27:01 PM , Rating: 2
At least it's a positive news.

Although considering that AMD lost over $3 billions last year, and over $3.3 billions the year before, it makes you wonder how long $1.25 billion will last.

---


By CyborgTMT on 11/13/2009 1:49:39 AM , Rating: 2
Well both of the previous losses were mostly due to the ATI deal. Current losses for AMD are mostly related to Global Foundries. As said on Anand had AMD fully split from GF, they would have turned a profit last quarter. So I would be willing to say that after the 1.25 bil. from Intel and cash of selling of their part of GF, AMD is going to be sitting pretty good for a while.


RE: Should have Held Out for more Cash
By Reclaimer77 on 11/13/2009 3:06:04 AM , Rating: 2
I'm curious. Since we know at the time AMD's production lines were already maxed out, and they could barely deliver product for what demand they had. How were they going to make billions more in OEM sales if they couldn't meet demand ??

I think you guys should be happy that AMD extorted this much from Intel.

quote:
That aside, there's the moral satisfaction and vindication that your struggles over the last 30 years have been, at least in part, attributable to your competitor stealing from you by bribing your customers.


Completely unfounded and unproven statement. And since they didn't go to trial, you sure as hell can't state this with utter certainty.

quote:
Nothing against Intel , but the 1.5B plus 1.25B paid to AMD comes nowhere near the extra profits driven by (relatively) higher prices they've created through their illegal behaviour.


Right, nothing against INtel, but AGAIN you slander their name with unproven accusations. Also you fail in understanding economics, Intel didn't create prices, the market did. What's rule number 1 ? A good price is one that the consumer is willing to pay.

And before you bring up competetion, AGAIN, my original point. There wasn't going to be more competition because AMD could NOT deliver more product. It's that simple.


RE: Should have Held Out for more Cash
By Silver2k7 on 11/13/2009 4:22:58 AM , Rating: 2
"Intel didn't create prices, the market did."

Yeah a market with only 2 competitors.. thats nothing compared to most other markets.


By xaders on 11/13/2009 6:17:48 PM , Rating: 1
i agree and should got more out of it. like another billion or two. should have asked for more.

intel is clone amd technology with the i5/i7 CPUs. intel isnt called their CPU lines pentium 5, now, CPU speed is rated on models & performance instead of CPU speed, & etc. you can thank that to AMD.

overall, if company need newer & better products, they need R & D spending. basically, you need to spend money to make money.


By Sahrin on 11/13/2009 11:44:51 AM , Rating: 2
You're confusing my supposition cases with statements of fact. While I do believe that it's fact that Intel broke anti-trust law and caused harm to AMD and the marketplace in doing so and I also think you're blind if you can't see that (based on what INTEL executives have said), I am not guaranteeing an outcome; I am extrapolating one.

quote:
I'm curious. Since we know at the time AMD's production lines were already maxed out, and they could barely deliver product for what demand they had. How were they going to make billions more in OEM sales if they couldn't meet demand ??


First of all, the range of time we're talking about extends all the way back to the K7 (not just K8). Up until Northwood, AMD had the performance lead over Intel in most applications, and got almost *zero* design wins. If AMD had gotten those design wins, they'd've had the revenue to invest in greater production expansion, etc.

That aside, AMD had already put in place agreements to expand production up to 50% of desktop shipments (see: Chartered Semi). This was never fully implemented, because the orders never materialized, because Intel bribed AMD's customers not to buy AMD. The EU has already determined this happened in Europe. There is no conviction in the US (just a bunch of lawsuits and criminal charges filed), but given that Europe is a much stricter regulatory climate than the US (*especially* in the period we are talking about) what is it about Intel that makes you think they wouldn't use the same tactics here? I agree that "guilty in Europe" does't equate with "guilty in America" - but combine "guilty in Europe" with "openly stated they were concerned their behaviours violated anti-trust laws in e-mails" and "execs of OEM's openly stated they were be retaliated against financially if they bought from AMD" and you get: guilty in America.

AMD's case would've been: if the market would've been free, we would have HAD the production capacity. You're presupposing a situation that didn't exist: AMD could've supplied to Dell, et al. They couldn't've - even if they *had* the capacity, because Intel would've bribed the OEM's away.

quote:
Completely unfounded and unproven statement. And since they didn't go to trial, you sure as hell can't state this with utter certainty.


That's true, I did not present any foundation or proof in my post. But since it's a supposition predicated on the information presented in the article the comment appears directly under, I thought you would pick up on it there. My bad. I'll be sure to re-post the text of the article in my comments for your benefit heretofore.

quote:
Right, nothing against INtel, but AGAIN you slander their name with unproven accusations. Also you fail in understanding economics, Intel didn't create prices, the market did. What's rule number 1 ? A good price is one that the consumer is willing to pay.


First of all, slander is spoken. Since I don't talk as a type (...most of the time), you mean to accuse me of libel - which again, I am not guilty of because libel or slander is to present false information as factual. The information is neither presented as factual nore false; it is my opinion and it is almost certainly true (though I leave room for the extremely unlikely possibility that it is incorrect).

And AGAIN, you are confusing two fundamental but equally seperate concepts of economics: Competition and Supply and Demand. Supply and Demand has *nothing* to do with competition - it is a macroeconomic force which is based on availability and consumption. When you say AMD 'couldn't've possibly supplied the chips' (which is false, by the way) - this doesn't have anything to do with whether "AMD's products were competitive with Intel's." It's that simple. You concede this point right up front when you try to turn it into a conversation about supply (otherwise you would say "AMD's parts suck" not "AMD couldn't make enough of them") and not competition.

Competition is about having a superior product to your competitiors...supply is about product existing on the marketplace. Low supply itself, believe it or not, is not against anti-trust law, because generally speaking it is not illegal to not be able to make enough of your products. It is, however, illeagal to ration your customers' consumption from other suppliers by imposing financial penalties for buying from your competitors in the first place.


What will be AMD's excuse in the future be then?
By Superguy on 11/12/09, Rating: 0
By weskurtz0081 on 11/12/2009 11:23:45 AM , Rating: 2
Who the hell knows that AMD might do IF certain things happens, wait and find out with the rest of us.


By just4U on 11/12/2009 11:34:48 AM , Rating: 3
They really don't have to supply any excuse.. as they are dealing with Chipzilla and no one expects them to be on par with Intel. It's just one less hurdle they have to overcome is all.


By fatedtodie on 11/12/2009 11:54:39 AM , Rating: 5
Not really in tune with what Intel did are you? It wasn't just Intel squeezing and bribing and all that. That cost revenue, which in turn stunted product AND R&D. So it is not an excuse, it was a REASON (please learn the difference). I would use a car analogy but people on this site automatically rate down for that.

Basically they were being smothered. Now they have potentially a chance to breathe. If Intel gives nvidia the same courtesy maybe we might have true competition again. Competition is good for all of us (even if you hate AMD) as it drives everyone to make better products.

And while Intel is leading the way it is with ALOT of AMD ideas. It wasn't until the i7 that Intel used a cache/core idea rather than a pooled cache, which ALL AMD multi-core chips do. AMD developed the more compatible x64 standard...

Intel does lead... for now, but hopefully they will lose market share to AMD and need to stay innovating and cost effective. AMD has always been better at the Ghz/price wars.


By Reclaimer77 on 11/13/2009 3:07:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not really in tune with what Intel did are you?


What they were ACCUSED of doing, not what they did. Correction.


By psychobriggsy on 11/12/2009 12:02:34 PM , Rating: 3
"when it had Intel on the ropes."

Technology-wise, yes.

But Intel was busy paying the OEMs to not use it, however good it was. AMD offered an OEM 1 million free CPUs, but because that would have meant the OEM wouldn't get their Intel payback cheque it wasn't accepted.

That's why Intel was to blame for all AMDs woes. They didn't get the returns to invest in their own future designs, and thus they fell behind.


RE: What will be AMD's excuse in the future be then?
By Mint on 11/12/2009 12:12:32 PM , Rating: 2
There is no excuse. In the past, we were all baffled why AMD couldn't break 20% market share when Intel's crappy P4 was getting trounced in all metrics. That's mostly what these lawsuits were about - the past.

Now Intel actually has the best processors, so they deserve their success. All AMD can do is hope their engineers can figure out the same things Intel's have in boosting IPC, and that Global Foundaries doesn't keep falling further behind Intel's fabs.

Either that, or hope that Intel decides to revel in huge margins rather than continue to force AMD into the red. This is quite possible, as CPUs are getting too cheap for Intel's liking anyway. NVidia did the same thing in the G7x days.


By weskurtz0081 on 11/12/2009 12:14:42 PM , Rating: 2
It's not just about the past, it's about how the past has hurt AMD's future.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 11/12/2009 12:26:35 PM , Rating: 2
You do realize back when the Athlon was king, AMD was selling their processors as fast as they could make them. In the P4 era, AMD was simply not large enough to produce processors to meet demand. Intel kept their large market share because they could deliver on demand. I remember Dell forcing AMD to guarantee processor inventories prior to signing a deal with them. As soon as AMD started to supply Dell, channel chips dried up rapidly as AMD was unable to keep up demand.

I expect AMD to not pass 20% until they can get the new fab in New York online.


By William Gaatjes on 11/12/2009 12:39:44 PM , Rating: 1
You forget the little cross license agreement details that prevented AMD from using external chip foundries like for exampl TSMC. AMD was to only make x86 cpu's at their own foundries. THat was the reason AMD could not make more. AMD did not had enough production capacity and AMD was not allowed to go to other foundries. If my memory services me right, that is.


By weskurtz0081 on 11/12/2009 1:38:24 PM , Rating: 1
Basically, Intel was trying to make it prohibitively expensive for other companies to rival them in the X86 market.


RE: What will be AMD's excuse in the future be then?
By molgenit on 11/13/2009 8:14:45 AM , Rating: 3
Your right, however that is NOT illegal nor has that changed. That would also have been a sticking point in any trial, basically AMD had to present the case that Intel forced them to sell at a lower price, and thus they lost profits, not that Intel stopped them from selling more since they simply could not. That (and of course the immediate need for cash)is probably the reason for the settlement.


By weskurtz0081 on 11/13/2009 11:36:00 AM , Rating: 1
The cross license agreement actually HAS changed. Now, AMD will be able to use external foundries to make chips.


By William Gaatjes on 11/13/2009 12:26:54 PM , Rating: 1
Indeed.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...

quote:
Out of this settlement come four major things for AMD:

1. $1.25 billion in cold, hard cash.
2. Intel will stop doing things that they and AMD agree they shouldn’t be doing.
3. The right to not have to produce x86 CPUs in-house.
AMD can go fabless.


4. The right to have their x86 processors fabricated anywhere of AMD’s choosing .


By William Gaatjes on 11/14/2009 3:02:09 AM , Rating: 2
We got rated down. Somebody does not like the truth even if it is partial. :)

But i remember that it was not an all or nothing case. It was percentage wise. AMD was able to outsource but on a severe limited amount. As far as i can remember it was 20 percent and that was being done at Chartered semiconductor based in Singapore.


By bruce24 on 11/13/2009 1:54:35 PM , Rating: 2
re: we were all baffled why AMD couldn't break 20% market share

But they did from Q4 of 2005 through Q1 of 2008, except for Q1 2007 where it dropped un der 20%. The high was 25.3% in Q4 of 2006.


RE: What will be AMD's excuse in the future be then?
By niaaa on 11/12/2009 12:16:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now that Intel has better products


This has to be proven, the I7 does not represent the whole market, and also is way overpriced.

In mid to low range AMD has the best products.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 11/12/2009 12:27:12 PM , Rating: 1
Since the introduction of the Core 2 Duo, Intel has held the price/performance crown.


By niaaa on 11/12/2009 12:30:58 PM , Rating: 2
Phenom II X3 anyone ? Athlon II X4 ?

I'm sorry but when you look at benchmarks the latest AMD CPU's have more horsepower for the money.

Even my Phenom II X4 965 competes with intel CPUs that are 50 euros more expensive, and I don't count the motherboard


By niaaa on 11/12/2009 12:31:21 PM , Rating: 1
Phenom II X3 anyone ? Athlon II X4 ?

I'm sorry but when you look at benchmarks the latest AMD CPU's have more horsepower for the money.

Even my Phenom II X4 965 competes with intel CPUs that are 50 euros more expensive, and I don't count the motherboard


By nafhan on 11/12/2009 12:35:59 PM , Rating: 2
Intel has definitely held the performance crown. The price/performance winner is almost always in the low-midrange area (where AMD is very competitive). The winner there has been going back and forth between the two every time one of them comes out with a new chip/manufacturing process or lowers prices. I would say AMD has had the price/performance crown more often than not during that time, but it has been at the expense of profit margins.


By just4U on 11/12/2009 12:39:02 PM , Rating: 1
I'd have to say they hold the performance crown but price? MMM not so much. Since the Launch of the Phenom 2 I haven't bought any of Intel's lower end offerings. Amd's lineup was just to much of a good deal to pass up on at that price point.

Im sure you've had the oportunity to get on some of those Phenom2 setups Kenobi so you know what I am talking about.


By Reclaimer77 on 11/13/2009 3:16:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This has to be proven, the I7 does not represent the whole market, and also is way overpriced.


Hello this is five months ago calling to remind you about the i5. Might wanna look it up.


All I can say is...
By kroker on 11/12/2009 10:22:28 AM , Rating: 2
Yay!

I'm glad that's over with and that AMD has some more cash in their pockets. Hope they will put it to good use, especially now that they also got rid of Ruiz and that their graphics division is very competitive. Thinks are starting to look better for AMD.

I'm still going to buy Intel processors until AMD comes up with a better solution though... My buying decisions are strictly based on performance / price. But this is good news nonetheless.




RE: All I can say is...
By just4U on 11/12/2009 11:47:46 AM , Rating: 3
Not me. I tend to go with AMD products for the lower and mid range. I've been very impressed with the PII and Athlon 2 are no slouches either. Plus the current selection of board offering are (imo)icing on the cake.


RE: All I can say is...
By rcc on 11/12/2009 12:13:12 PM , Rating: 2
lol, the PII has been obsolete for a lot of years, although you still run across them occasionally.

Why do people insist on reusing common acronyms within the same field.


RE: All I can say is...
By just4U on 11/12/2009 12:27:21 PM , Rating: 2
Because it's popular and catchy... so why not? People know that in this context the PII means the Phenom 2. I expect to hear the same complaint when they eventually launch the P3 (chuckle)


RE: All I can say is...
By GodisanAtheist on 11/12/2009 3:41:20 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, but why not the PH2? Not only does it better differentiate the product, it should make any red-blooded nerd think of acidity, which in some circles is cool.

And its only gonna bite them in the ass if they make it to P4...


RE: All I can say is...
By Silver2k7 on 11/13/2009 4:25:01 AM , Rating: 2
lol yeah PII = Pentium 2 ^^


RE: All I can say is...
By niaaa on 11/12/2009 12:27:36 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I'm still going to buy Intel processors until AMD comes up with a better solution though... My buying decisions are strictly based on performance / price.


One more reason to buy AMD, really


Didn't see this one coming....
By weskurtz0081 on 11/12/2009 9:49:13 AM , Rating: 2
Clearly Intel knew this one was going to be a losing battle, and AMD probably didn't want to drag it out any longer for financial reasons. But, the outcome seems fair I guess.




RE: Didn't see this one coming....
By ksherman on 11/12/2009 9:54:55 AM , Rating: 3
Plus it gives AMD an infusion to survive 2010 until their new architecture hits in 2011. Though that means Intel will likely be somewhat stagnant for 2010. Gonna be a boring year ;-)


RE: Didn't see this one coming....
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 11/12/2009 12:30:49 PM , Rating: 3
1.25B is a drop in the bucket for Intel. Their R&D yearly is somewhere in the 3-4B range.


RE: Didn't see this one coming....
By 3minence on 11/12/2009 1:20:26 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't Intel Object to AMD spinning the Fabs off? Didn't they say it was a violation of their licensing agreement because they were no longer owned by AMD? I bet that case is now also dropped as part of this deal. A protracted legal battle was bad for everyone with nobody winning (except the lawyers). Assuming Intel's objection to spinning the Fabs off is also dropped, this is a good deal for everyone.


By weskurtz0081 on 11/12/2009 2:20:18 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, all current and pending legal battles between the two companies were dropped.


NY case
By uibo on 11/12/2009 10:15:29 AM , Rating: 2
What will happen to this NY case? Is it a completely separate case (to me it seems), so they could lose millions from there also? Can other states still sue Intel?

Seeing how the Arabs "support" AMD I don't think AMD was the one in a hurry. The evidence against Intel was probably solid enough.

Though 1.25 billion for the "world settlement" seems little compared to how much the EC (~1.45 billion $ if they paid back then 1.6 if now)got from this. I guess Intel's claims and licenses held some weight too.




RE: NY case
By just4U on 11/12/2009 11:28:40 AM , Rating: 2
Their License agreement is probably worth more then the money... plus who knows perhaps Intel made some concessions there they wouldn't normally make.


RE: NY case
By Targon on 11/12/2009 11:53:56 AM , Rating: 2
Lawsuits made my government against Intel will still go on, because the anti-trust suits are intended to punish bad behavior by corporations, not to gain awards for those who were punished. Basically, if AMD went to court and won, they would get money. If NY State goes to court and wins, THEY get money, and in no case will the general public stand to gain.

Even here in New York State, if the government wins, and gets money, it won't do anything to reduce taxes, and will just end up going to friends of the politicians.


RE: NY case
By C'DaleRider on 11/12/2009 5:44:56 PM , Rating: 2
As the other articles about this state, AMD will no longer be cooperating with any gov't. entity in their lawsuits brought against Intel, so while the gov't. suits may go forward, it'll be without the help and assistance of AMD.

AMD's lack of help may go so far as to make NY, et al, subpoena them for any and all documentation to help make any case against Intel.

In the end, while the gov't cases may proceed, they'll be much more difficult to prove now, given AMD's new stance of "Everything's OK...just a gun malfunction. No problems down here. How's everything up there?"


RE: NY case
By molgenit on 11/13/2009 8:24:10 AM , Rating: 3
The case only exists as a political platform for the AG to bid for his daddy’s ex- job. He could care less and when he jumps ship to run for governor it will probably die.


Screw the layers
By armagedon on 11/12/2009 9:58:15 AM , Rating: 2
That's a good news. I prefer that all that cash go in AMD pocket then to all those layers .....eh probably you still need them to ratify the details of the agreement though.




RE: Screw the layers
By Vengor on 11/12/2009 10:05:52 AM , Rating: 2
maybe now they can refine the 5800 series.


RE: Screw the layers
By LRonaldHubbs on 11/12/2009 3:54:14 PM , Rating: 3
Please explain.


RE: Screw the layers
By mmatis on 11/12/2009 11:43:45 AM , Rating: 1
Watch out about bad-mouthing them layers, or they'll sic their lawyers on you!


RE: Screw the layers
By johnsonx on 11/12/2009 12:52:48 PM , Rating: 2
I was going to explain the difference between layers and lawyers, how one whores themselves out for money doing the bidding of others, and the other whores themselves out.... wait, now I'm confused too...


Now we're just one big happy family.
By bupkus on 11/12/2009 10:06:04 AM , Rating: 6
It's like to fighters in the ring; AMD is bloodied with a closed eye and Intel is found with a horseshoe in his glove. Intel says nothing but shruggs admitting he's found out, AMD's just glad the beatings stopped.

Now we're just one big happy family.

Intel: Wanna go for a beer?
AMD: Yah, but you're paying.
Intel smiles as AMD staggers ahead of him.




By armagedon on 11/12/2009 10:19:27 AM , Rating: 2
you're a funny man bupkus ... nicely done.


Bye, bye...
By murray13 on 11/12/2009 10:18:50 AM , Rating: 2
Do you think this agreement will mean the end of native SLI support? I think it will.

Intel - gets native Crossfire for nothing

AMD - gets future SSE code

I see it as a win for everyone except Nvidia...




RE: Bye, bye...
By RjBass on 11/12/2009 11:10:00 AM , Rating: 2
I don't see or maybe I don't understand what if anything the GPU market has to do with this.

The lawsuit was for Intels bad business practices in the x86 cpu market.


RE: Bye, bye...
By MrFord on 11/12/2009 11:39:54 AM , Rating: 2
Intel HAVE Crossfire support already. It's been supported since the 975X I believe.

Intel SSE4 code for AMD will be a very nice plus, and close the gap in some multimedia-specific benchmarks like video encoding and rendering.


Woot
By camylarde on 11/12/2009 10:06:26 AM , Rating: 3
Christmas comes early at Meyer's this year ;-) But seriously, I was expecting much more to be squeezed out of Intel. I feel that the antitcompetitve actions hurt AMD much more. Losing fabs, borrowing money everywhere, this won;t even cover the loans. And they are surely at least partially the result of Intel's behemoth actions.




RE: Woot
By kroker on 11/12/2009 10:53:07 AM , Rating: 2
Don't blame all of AMD's problems on Intel. Yes, they probably were partly caused by Intel's anti-competitive behavior, but also because AMD made a lot of bad decisions (overpaying for ATI, abandoning users with socket 939 just in time for them to jump on the new and better Intel Conroe, wasting resources on stubbornly trying to make a native quad-core etc.), and Intel made a lot of good ones (abandoning Netburst in favor of a better architecture, integrating a memory controller like AMD did etc).

I think the agreement is fair.


EU expansion
By Aloonatic on 11/12/2009 11:56:57 AM , Rating: 2
So, I woke up in the UK to find out that I'll be told (yes, be told) who my newly created EU president will be in the next few weeks.

However, at least I now see that the EU has expanded into New York, which must be true, as only the EU does this sort of thing?




RE: EU expansion
By weskurtz0081 on 11/12/2009 12:17:04 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I think it's just that the EU does it selectively it seems only to companies that will render a large payout.


Got off cheap
By CommodoreVic20 on 11/12/2009 12:09:40 PM , Rating: 4
Lets assume they pay the 1.25B plus another 1.5b to the EU and round it up to 3B.

Now lets assume they profited 6B through their illegal practices ( Probably a whole lot more than 6B ).

6 - 3 = 100% profit return

Although some people may think this is a consumer/AMD win, one can the argue the exact opposite. This deal can be considered an incentive to not only continue the illegal practices but to up the ante on them.




Intel is the winner again
By crystal clear on 11/12/2009 11:33:12 AM , Rating: 3
AMD has NO choice but to pay up its huge debts,so settled for cheap.

Read this-

AMD's debt rose to roughly $3.9 billion last year, but dropped to $3.2 billion as of the end of the third quarter, according to Thomson Reuters I/B/E/S.

UBS said in a recent note that AMD has $1.9 billion coming due in 2012.

Chief Financial Officer Thomas Seifert told analysts gathered at the company's headquarters that the debt issue is "as high on our list of priorities as it can be."



http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNews/idUSN11...

And third, GLOBALFOUNDRIES has agreed to terms that
allow them the freedom to operate as an independent
world-class leading-edge foundry company, going forward,
without being a subsidiary of AMD.

http://www.amd.com/us/Documents/Dirk_Meyer_Transcr...




YES
By srp49ers on 11/12/2009 4:05:11 PM , Rating: 1
Looks like Anandtech is getting a pay cut




RE: YES
By C'DaleRider on 11/12/2009 5:47:00 PM , Rating: 2
Troll. Go back to AMDZone from whence you slithered.


Good News
By Trisagion on 11/12/2009 10:05:59 AM , Rating: 2
Under the new agreement, they have signed a new cross-licensing agreement for the next 5 years. The $1.25B will certainly help AMD's books and an end to litigation means both companies can focus better on their upcoming products and roadmap.

Hopefully, this sounds like a win-win deal for the consumer.




Make up or break up
By snikt on 11/12/2009 11:11:17 AM , Rating: 2
Business is not might forte but I would imagine that almost anything that Intel is forced to "help" out AMD would benefit Intel, even something as large as a 1.25 billion dollar settlement. If AMD were to go under, and Intel were to remain the lone, giant CPU manufacturer, wouldn't the government hit them with a monopoly suit and force Intel to break up into separate companies as the government did to Ma Bell in the 80s?




By vailr on 11/12/2009 11:17:48 AM , Rating: 2
Curious: how far does this new "agreement" go? Could AMD now decide to back-engineer, design and produce Intel i5/i7 or Socket 775 compatible CPU's? Like it was in the days of the interchangeable Intel Pentium vs. AMD K6 CPU's.




Intel Wins!
By misbfa1 on 11/17/2009 1:36:44 PM , Rating: 2
This is an extremely good business deal for Intel. It was/still is a very good business strategy. It goes like this:

Late 90s/Early 2000's: Make MANY billions blocking your competition from selling its products, allowing you to gain a market share/technology/cash advantage.

Late 00's: Get slap on the wrist for previous actions in the form of paying a now severely crippled competitor a fraction of the money made earlier, that is worth less than it was when you made it.

Rinse/Repeat

They probably made more than $1.25B on just the interest from the profits they stole over the years.




Should be $500 BILLION...
By Beenthere on 11/12/2009 11:33:54 AM , Rating: 1
I'm sure Intel has done all it could to disrupt AMD's business via piles of legal filings. I'm sure AMD would like to move on, but a $1.25 Billion settlement is just a slap on the wrist for violating law -- for profit. There is no doubt that Intel generated hundreds of BILLIONS in profits from their illegal opps to prevent AMD's growth and market share gains.

Intel should be punished for same. $1.25 Billion is not punishment at all and it would be completely naive to think Intel will change their operating philosophy regardless of any agreement they sign. Intel has been convicted around the globe and I'm confident they will continue their crimes for profit. I can only hope that the EU and other authorities up the fines to have some real impact. That starts at $500 Billion.




All I gotta say is...
By bradmshannon on 11/12/09, Rating: -1
RE: All I gotta say is...
By kiwik on 11/12/2009 9:48:44 AM , Rating: 3
AMD is gonna turn profitable for a quarter?


RE: All I gotta say is...
By Sulphademus on 11/12/2009 9:49:39 AM , Rating: 1
Or pay down their debts. Here's to AMD in the black in the near future! *cheers*


RE: All I gotta say is...
By bupkus on 11/12/2009 9:52:53 AM , Rating: 2
You think the consumer can take a breath if Intel takes its stranglehold off our throats?


RE: All I gotta say is...
By Lord 666 on 11/12/2009 10:17:01 AM , Rating: 2
Nah, they will have to quickly give it back to pay the fines of Hector's insider trading.


RE: All I gotta say is...
By Mitch101 on 11/12/2009 10:23:36 AM , Rating: 2
Now you have to find the Inside people at Intel who knew they were going to settle the lawsuit.


RE: All I gotta say is...
By Mitch101 on 11/12/2009 10:25:50 AM , Rating: 2
Oh and Hector cant give himself a big bonus on the settled lawsuit.


RE: All I gotta say is...
By weskurtz0081 on 11/12/2009 10:26:55 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think the corporation will have to pay anything for the actions of Hector Ruiz in regards to the insider trading. He is the one that will get in trouble, not AMD.


"Death Is Very Likely The Single Best Invention Of Life" -- Steve Jobs

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki