backtop


Print 122 comment(s) - last by Viditor.. on Mar 22 at 9:22 PM

Intel says GlobalFoundries deal breaches AMD cross-licensing agreement

Intel Corporation has sent notice to its chief competitor Advanced Micro Devices that it believes AMD has breached a patent cross-licensing agreement that the two reached in 2001. The agreement covered royalty payments by AMD in regards to aspects of the x86 instruction set used in CPUs, as well as foundry and production rights.

AMD recently spun off its fabs in a multi-billion dollar deal involving Advanced Technology Investment Company (ATIC) and Mubadala Development, both solely owned by the Emirate of Abu Dhabi. The deal funnelled badly needed cash and debt relief into AMD, which has been struggling for several years to compete against Intel's CPUs. It also led to the creation of GlobalFoundries, an integrated circuit foundry which will compete against the likes of TSMC and Chartered Semiconductor for business. AMD would continue to be GlobalFoundries' primary customer.

However, Intel believes that GlobalFoundries is not a subsidiary under the terms of the agreement, and is therefore not licensed to produce CPUs that use key technologies licensed under the 2001 patent cross-license agreement.

Intel also said that the structure of the deal between AMD and ATIC breaches a confidential portion of that agreement, and it has asked AMD to make the relevant portion of the agreement public, but so far AMD has declined to do so. AMD's breach could result in the loss of licenses and rights granted to AMD by Intel under the agreement.

If GlobalFoundries is not recognized as a subsidary of AMD, it will have to negotiate with Intel to secure patents that would allow it to continue to produce AMD's CPUs at its fabs in Dresden. Intel has the option of securing a court injunction to halt production until the dispute is settled. Negotiation of a patent licensing agreement could take months, if not years.

"Intellectual property is a cornerstone of Intel's technology leadership and for more than 30 years, the company has believed in the strategic importance of licensing intellectual property in exchange for fair value. However AMD cannot unilaterally extend Intel's licensing rights to a third party without Intel's consent," said Bruce Sewell, Senior Vice President and General Counsel for Intel.

"We have attempted to address our concerns with AMD without success since October. We are willing to find a resolution but at the same time we have an obligation to our stockholders to protect the billions of dollars we've invested in intellectual property".

In a filling with the Securities and Exchange Commission, AMD stated Intel "purports to terminate the Company's rights and licenses under the Cross License in 60 days if the alleged breach has not been corrected".

Intel claims that in response to the material breach notification it sent out, AMD claimed Intel breached the agreement by notifying AMD of its breach.

AMD defended itself, with Harry Wolin, AMD's Senior Vice President and General Counsel, stating that Intel's unilateral "purported attempt to terminate the Company’s rights and licenses under the Cross License itself constitutes a material breach of the Cross License by Intel".

Under the terms of the license agreement, the notification to AMD means the two parties will attempt to resolve the dispute through third party mediation.

 



Comments     Threshold


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

AMD64
By GoodBytes on 3/16/2009 1:43:10 PM , Rating: 5
Hang on.. so Intel owns the right of x86. But AMD owns the rights for 64-bit CPU's. So that means...
If both pulls out.... AMD won't make CPU's other than True 64-bit CPU's and Intel will return back to the Pentium 4.
So in reality... AMD wins, consumers and Intel loses big time.

Interesting!




RE: AMD64
By psychobriggsy on 3/16/2009 1:59:49 PM , Rating: 4
AMD have already said that Intel is now in breach of the cross-licensing agreement - in particular for x86-64. In much the same way as the overly sensation pro-Intel headline this story has (par for the course for DailyTech and its AnandTech roots) you could say "Intel forced to drop 64-bit support in 2 months". Enjoy your 3GB Windows 32-bit world!


RE: AMD64
By DigitalFreak on 3/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: AMD64
By erikejw on 3/19/2009 6:35:00 PM , Rating: 1
Wouldn't that mean that Intel can't outsource it's ATOM production to TSMC that they have huge plans for.

Is it really imporant who produces the chips?
AMD owns the desing in any case, not the chipplant owner.

All this seems really weird.


RE: AMD64
By Viditor on 3/22/2009 9:22:39 PM , Rating: 3
Here's a few of the documents...

First, the cross-license agreement:
http://contracts.corporate.findlaw.com/agreements/...

Next, the GF agreement with AMD:
http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/Downl...

Last, the list of AMD's 8000+ patents:
http://www.patentstorm.us/search/advanced.html?ptn...

Looking through those documents yields the following:

1. AMD and Intel are limited in their outsourcing. They can only outsource a certain number of chips (though the exact amount is confidential, it's believed to be around 20%). Section 3.1(c) and 3.2(c) of the agreement...

2. Subsidiaries of either company are not considered outsourcing and hence are not limited. A subsidiary is defined as a company which is owned or controlled by either company, and control means 50% of the voting shares (as AMD has with GF).
Section 1.22 of the AMD/Intel agreement...
Page 36 of the AMD/GF agreement...

3. Ending the agreement would do as much harm to Intel as it would to AMD. Without AMD's 8000+ patents, Intel couldn't even produce a single memory cell (the timing circuit for memory is an AMD patent). If the agreement stopped, both companies would be out of business...

4. The agreement expires at the end of next year. Last time the cross-license was being re-negotiated, Intel became drastically litigous as well...and don't forget that the Anti-trust suit is coming up as well. Intel needs as many arrows for negotiating as they can get right now!


RE: AMD64
By afkrotch on 3/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: AMD64
By icanhascpu on 3/16/2009 6:06:22 PM , Rating: 5
You're an e-idiot.


RE: AMD64
By xsilver on 3/17/2009 7:28:47 AM , Rating: 1
more like a bit of an idiot...

pun intended


RE: AMD64
By filbay on 3/17/2009 12:59:54 AM , Rating: 2
e-penis? Tell that to company I work for, where all servers are 64-bit (Intel Xeon quadcores). Those are running Databases on 32GB/64GB RAMs. Try running Databases on 4GB of RAM.

quote:
Also wouldn't be hard for Intel to put out their own x86-64 anyways.


Intel doesn't have x86-64. They have IA64.
oh! we also have a few Intel Itaniums (IA64) running Windows 2003 IA64, which are total garbage. Takes 1 hour to boot-up, and are very slow.


RE: AMD64
By Marty007 on 3/20/2009 6:28:05 AM , Rating: 1
lol, you have absolutely no idea what 64 bits can do right....
you do realize that allmost every part of internet is running on 64 bits servers right, with the exceptions of perhaps home users who have a ddns linked :)


RE: AMD64
By quiksilvr on 3/16/2009 11:03:33 PM , Rating: 2
HEY!...its 3.5 GB not 3!


RE: AMD64
By mikeyD95125 on 3/17/2009 2:40:57 AM , Rating: 4
3.2GB :p


RE: AMD64
By CrazyBernie on 3/17/2009 8:58:57 PM , Rating: 2
More like YMMV. ^_^


RE: AMD64
By CrazyBernie on 3/17/2009 8:58:57 PM , Rating: 2
More like YMMV. ^_^


RE: AMD64
By CrazyBernie on 3/17/2009 8:59:50 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm... pretty sure I only clicked once... *sigh*


RE: AMD64
By Marty007 on 3/20/2009 6:33:49 AM , Rating: 2
actually, its more or less :)
depends on your configuration,
the x86 architecture can adress up to 4096MB memory,
however, this is your TOTAL memory,
lately even the soundcards have their own memory onboard,
take this off the total..
you have a videocard? take this off the total,
etc..
every single thing in your comp that has memory has to be taken off the total..
the end result is the variable usable ammount you see in your windows when you are booted


RE: AMD64
By TA152H on 3/16/09, Rating: 0
RE: AMD64
By omnicronx on 3/16/2009 2:17:02 PM , Rating: 5
Couldn't you have just summed up your entire post by saying.

Intel owns the x86 instruction set.

Amd owns the x86-64 instruction superset.

X64 is a superset of the x86 instruction set..

But.. Intel does without a doubt license x86-64 from AMD, so the OP is in the right, although he came to his conclusions incorrectly.


RE: AMD64
By MikeMurphy on 3/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: AMD64
By Varun on 3/17/09, Rating: -1
RE: AMD64
By omnicronx on 3/16/2009 2:20:33 PM , Rating: 3
P.S AMD's x64 license is non transferable. If IBM/Nvidia/whoever bought them out, they probably would not be able to make x86 chips.

This is why AMD going out of business would be terrible for the consumer. It would essentially give Intel a complete monopoly, leaving on Via with partial x86 licensing.


RE: AMD64
By cheetah2k on 3/16/2009 10:04:00 PM , Rating: 3
Its all just "smoke & mirrors" :-D

Theres no 1 clear winner out of this whole situation (except for the lawyers), so the likelyhood is that this argument will stretch on for a long, long time.


RE: AMD64
By rohith10 on 3/16/2009 11:58:33 PM , Rating: 2
You meant x86.

AMD's x86 license is non transferable...

x64 is AMD's. (IIRC)


RE: AMD64
By poundsmack on 3/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: AMD64
By sdsdv10 on 3/16/2009 5:42:27 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
It would be like trying to put out a file with a shirt gun.


Sorry to point this out, but it made me laugh.

OMG, he's pointing a shirt gun at me... and it loaded with flannel!!!


RE: AMD64
By Natfly on 3/17/2009 2:15:47 PM , Rating: 3
a few corrections of your corrections post

The p4 did not suffer from a "narrow pipeline," but rather a very deep pipeline. This allows for faster clock speeds, however when a branch prediction is incorrect the pipeline is cleared and thus you have a fairly large processing penalty.

This is why non-branchy code like media processing ran faster on P4s but branch heavy code like video games ran faster on Athlon 64s.

Intel's IA-64 was a complete new instruction set whereas AMD's X86-64 was an extension on X86. Already existing X86 code can run on X86-64, but not on IA-64. MS did not choose X86-64, there are versions of Windows out there for both.


RE: AMD64
By JediJeb on 3/16/2009 2:33:39 PM , Rating: 2
It was a long time ago, but I believe AMD was the one who bought ALPHA, because the original Athlons used the ALPHA sockets. Either way though, I doubt if it was split up so that Intel was stuck with the Itanium and AMD got the x86-64 the people would be happy. Imagine trying to make a gaming machine from an Itanium.

Honestly there is enough of Intel's technology in AMD chips and AMD's technology in Intel's chips that the regulators should just tell them both to consider each others tech from the past to be common and stop clogging the legal systems with their bickering.

Of course if in the past Microsoft has said just develope your processors independantly and we will port to both, then we would have seen good diversity and had a choice which tech we wanted to use.


RE: AMD64
By z3R0C00L on 3/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: AMD64
By omnicronx on 3/16/2009 4:58:57 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Intel owns Hypertransport
Intel does not even use HT.. It was under the impression this was a transmeta/AMD invention. In fact, Intel is not even part of the HyperTransport Consortium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperTransport_Consor...

Furthermore x86-64 is not merely a 64bit edition of x86 registers with the additional advantages of moving to 64bit (larger address spaces etc). There are definitely addition registers (i think they moved from 8 to 16). This is what you call innovation, so I am not too sure what you are talking about. In fact without AMDs innovations, we may still be using 32bit, as Intel's attempt 64 bit architecture was laughable at best.(and was essentially rejected by Microsoft)


RE: AMD64
By z3R0C00L on 3/16/2009 5:14:14 PM , Rating: 2
Hypertransport is but a derivative of the Alpha EV7 bus which Intel owns.


RE: AMD64
By omnicronx on 3/16/2009 5:35:14 PM , Rating: 2
Its a derivative yes, but Hypertransport as we know it today is not owned by Intel. The technology was licensed directly from Compaq, before its acquisition by Intel in 2001.

Intel cannot use HT3 without a license. In fact Intel has nothing to do with the development of HT at all, they have opted to use Quickpath based on CSI (CSI was suppose to replace the FSB implementation years ago).


RE: AMD64
By psychobriggsy on 3/16/2009 6:33:40 PM , Rating: 3
No.

The Athlon (not 64) used the Alpha EV6 bus (or a variant thereof, but certainly the Alpha could use AMD chipsets and products did appear).

AMD invented Lightning Data Transport, later renamed HyperTransport. It has nothing to do with classical Alpha buses.


RE: AMD64
By z3R0C00L on 3/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: AMD64
By z3R0C00L on 3/16/2009 5:21:30 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
AMD's Hypertransport, which is derived from the Alpha EV7 bus, has been an extremely successful technology for AMD, allowing it to have much better scaling multi-processor systems as well as higher performing single processor systems as in conjunction with the on-board memory controller it allowed for far greater total bandwidth for information flowing into and out of a processor.

http://www.neoseeker.com/news/5536-amd-hypertransp...

quote:
This memory bus, called HyperTransport by AMD, is derived from licensed Compaq technology and similar to that employed in Compaq's EV7 processors (see the HP/Compaq Alpha EV7). It allows for "glueless" connection of several processors to form multi-processor systems with very low memory latencies.

http://www.arcade-eu.org/overview/2005/opteron.htm...


RE: AMD64
By z3R0C00L on 3/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: AMD64
By z3R0C00L on 3/16/09, Rating: 0
RE: AMD64
By William Gaatjes on 3/16/09, Rating: 0
RE: AMD64
By omnicronx on 3/16/2009 5:42:03 PM , Rating: 3
Read my other post, your time lines are wrong. AMD/consortium license of the technology pre-dates the Intel acquisition.

HT as we know it today is not the same as the EV7 HT implementation, it was merely derived from the technology.

Thus Intel may own the patents to the existing EV7 tech, but they are not making money off of it, nor can they force the consortium to abide by their rules.


RE: AMD64
By z3R0C00L on 3/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: AMD64
By iamted on 3/17/2009 10:30:03 AM , Rating: 1
so essentially what your saying here is this, that since coke cola was the first to make cola, then they own the patent on cola, but since pepsi came out with a cola, then coke could pull the plug on pepsi, because they came out with a better cola, but since its a cola they have the right to it? best analagy i could think of, i dont think that you can say that intel who owns a veriaty of ev7, or whatever is the ones that own ht, since they dont use it and amd has a derivative, not using intels patent, but something along the same lines just made improvements and made it their own technology.

i met a guy one time that searched toy booklets from companies, and would take a jeep that didnt have a spare tire on the back, would make the same jeep but with the spare tire, and then patent that "new" toy and make money off of the "new" toy. while one company may own an idea, if someone comes along and improves on the idea, they cannot claim they stole the idea, since they in reality didnt steal they improved.

so did amd take the technology or did they improve it? if it is an improvement then its not stealing but simply saying we can make it better, and if intel has improved on amd's way of doing this, then amd cant say that intel stole but made simple improvements.


RE: AMD64
By z3R0C00L on 3/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: AMD64
By jemix on 3/16/2009 4:58:49 PM , Rating: 2
Two years before that, Intel bought the plant that made the Alpha processor from Digital Equipment Corp.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/1...

(Digital should have got a much better deal)


RE: AMD64
By yxalitis on 3/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: AMD64
By Devilboy1313 on 3/17/2009 2:36:45 AM , Rating: 1
Actually Intel also had the i860 as it's 1st 64 bit system, though it was RISC and not X86. And yes DEC had the Alpha, Mips had R4000 (+), HP had the PA chips, Intel the Itanics, IBM their Power stuff and Sun their UltraSparcs. Actually X86 seems to be nearly the last to go 64 bit. I think ARM's the last major ISA left at 32 bit, and with good reason.

Last time I checked IBM still has a 486 licence and they could develop a i7 class X86 CPU if there was enough money in it. Go with the atom approach (less than 10 million transistors per core) and tweak the 486 to P2 speeds (at least in flops) and drop 32/48/64 (+) cores in a package.

Why does Larrabee & Tera-scale come to mind?

Naaaa, wouldn't work as they are too busy with Cell and Power 6/7.


RE: AMD64
By Belard on 3/17/2009 7:15:04 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
I'd be REALLY curious how this processor would perform on Intel 45nm process. Since the problem with the P4 was heat, and power use, since this limited the performance due to clock speed restrictions,


er... no. The P4/Pentium D (netburst design) was always flawed. It was designed for high clock rates more than performance. Hence, the 1.6Ghz was really NO faster than a 900Mhz P3. It allowed Intel to claim "first to 2ghz and 3ghz", but anyone who knew about computer tech didn't care.

Back when Intel sold the pentium extreme Edition 3.6ghz ($1000) the AMD-64 3200 @ 2.0ghz ($200) was roughly just as fast (give or take) for desktop apps and games. The ONLY area in which the P4 design was easily faster was in rendering or encoding data. Large singular data computations. The long-branch design (which allowed high clocks rates) was not good for normal computing (multi-tasking, games). So the P4 didn't become a "good" chip until it reached near 3Ghz. But still the cheaper AMDs were faster.

Back when Core2Duo (based off of Centrino which is based off of P3/AMD type design - not saying copy), was released - the P4 was at its end. The 4Ghz Pentium D/EE was discontinued just before mass-production. It's been about 2 years since then and the small manufacturing process, in order for the P4 to be "fast" in a competitive way, it'd have to be at least 5Ghz back then to compete against a 3Ghz AMD. The returns were getting smaller as the clock rates go up. The chips were getting hotter and hotter and the wattage requirements would have gone up too. Even at 3.4~3.8Ghz the P4s were generating a lot of heat waste. And as P4s get too hot, they shut down parts of the chip (making it Slooower) which again is counter productive.

Netburst was a bad to begin with, design by marketing - not for good engineering. It was smart for Intel to kill Netburst... All desktop/notebook CPUs of today, even those called "Pentium Duo Core" are Core2 or i7 type designs.

quote:
. I always thought it ironic that the P4 was killed right before the process that would have given it a big boost was introduced, but I'm sure Intel knew what they were doing. Still, I'm very curious what type of clock speeds they would have reached, and with some performance tweaks to improve IPC, if it could be competitive. Surely, they wouldn't have too much trouble with AMD,


The costs and technical problems with going to 5~6Ghz would be near impossible or expensive. Notice how people overclock their Core2's to 5+Ghz? They're using liquid nitrogen to keep them cool... and that is with todays tech and experince. Who'd want a nuke-reactor in their PC case?

P4 was alwasy a crappy design, period. It is SAD that AMD wasn't able to gain more market share with the superior chip and intel's illegal business to keep AMD out of DELL did a lot of damage to AMD (the extra $$$ would have made AMD's R&D better and more competitive against Intel - NOTE: Dell has been sued by its own share-holders for not sellig AMD CPUs earlier) The orginal bottom-END Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 at 2130Mhz was easily faster the Pentium EE 965 3.7Ghz ($1000)... who'd buy a P4/D when the Core2 was cheaper starting at $250? The PentiumD would have to hit 4.2~4.4Ghz to equal that performance of that Core2 and even the $450 AMD 2.8Ghz CPU. P4 had no future.

Just before Core2 hit the market, if you had walked into Office supply stores like Staples or Best Buy - Out of 10 PCs models, 8 of them were AMD type systems.

In response to the rest of your post. Yes, Intel is in their right to protect their IP. But Intel also waited until now to do this? The spin-off of AMD's manufacturing is old news, its been planned for about 6 months. Being sold off to the UAE is not a good thing in my book. But AMD is NEEDED. Their CPUs are competive with Core2, finally. Without AMD, the cost of our CPUs would go through the roof. Look at MS, $100~400 for an OS. Intel was always expensive until AMD got their act together in 2000.


RE: AMD64
By MrPoletski on 3/17/2009 11:17:12 AM , Rating: 2
I humbly object to the accusation that the P4 was a 'cr4ppy deisgn'.

It was really quite an innovative idea that ran into hurdles that perhaps Intel *should* have forseen but did not.

The whole cache structure and x86 decoding system for netburst was different. A very large amount of work is done inside an X86 processor to decode the x86 instructions into something executable by the core execution units. (reducing CISC instructions down to RISC).

Before, in the P3 and now the core2, the instructions have L1,2 and perhaps L3 cache. When the processor executes its next instruction it reads it from whatever cache memory it's in and then decodes it into micro-ops and then executes them.

The P4 caches these micro-ops instead of caching the un-decoded code (what a lovely term that is). That means that when, inevitably, the processor comes to execute the same instructions (but with different data) it no longer needs to decode the x86 instructions and there is far less latency involved and the instructions can be executed far quicker and more efficiently.

This will mean that you can ramp up clock speeds and not have to worry about a number of factors that previously limited your ability to do so.

So that's a nice innovatio there, but... it doesn't remove *all* of the limitations that prevent you from reaching higher clock speeds.

Firstly, there is the heat, transistors will need more power to be able to switch faster. More power = more heat. hence thermal throttling and power saving C states and whatnot start popping up.

Second there is the issue of routing an extremely high frequency clock pulse around copper tracks and into the processor (hence LGA 775 was born).

These were not overlooked, but they hit Intel and the P4 a lot harder than I think they expected.

Another factor was that being as high clock speeds are being targetted, in order for it to cope the pipeline length was increased. Now increasing the pipeline length is fine in and of itself but you need to do something about the extra caveats that produces and this is where I think Intel and the P4 failed miserably.

A branch misprediction on the P4 was massively expensive, IMHO Intel didn't do anything like enough to negate this. yes they improved their branch prediction logic a bit but just not enough. IMHO, flushing out the pipeline you have been forced to significantly elongate just isn't an option and ultimately I think it cost the P4 its performance potential.

Having said that though, getting closer to 100% execution unit utilisation is only going to make heat problems worse.

But, the best thing of all about the pentium 4? the core 2.

Core 2 didn't need a chip package, silicon manufacturing process and custom logic unit design geared towards maximum clock speeds way beyond what it would ever be sold at.. but it inherited it.

Core 2 didn't need tonnes of power saving features that reduced idle and load power requirements, didn't need a damn good heat spreader design and heatsink base, but it inherited them.

Core 2 didn't need many of the technologies it inherited that were design to overcome the shortcomings of the P4, but it sure as hell benefitted from them.

In fact, I'd venture as far as saying that if P4 had never existed and P3 had just been life-extended up until core2's release... I don't think core 2 would have ben half the processor it is now. Certainly nothing like as overclockable.

... and now we have atom and i7 using hyperthreading again.


RE: AMD64
By cfaalm on 3/18/2009 7:32:30 AM , Rating: 2
IBM isn't going to buy AMD anytime soon. They're looking into buying Sun right now. I don't think they'll take in AMD along with it.


RE: AMD64
By vignyan on 3/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: AMD64
By RubberJohnny on 3/16/2009 11:45:56 PM , Rating: 2
It's amazing what YOU think in this world...
quote:
The x86-64 specification was designed by Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), who have since renamed it AMD64. The first family of processors to support this architecture, which AMD calls AMD64, was the AMD K8 family of processors. This was the first time any company other than Intel made significant additions to the IA-32 architecture. Intel was forced to follow suit, introducing modified NetBurst family processors, initially referred to as "IA-32e" or "EM64T" and now called Intel 64 and almost identical to AMD64...
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64

Pretty funny that intel changed it just enough so they could call it Intel 64, i wonder if AMD still holds the licence since the name change?


RE: AMD64
By RubberJohnny on 3/17/2009 12:10:05 AM , Rating: 2
I should have kept reading :) from the same article...
quote:
these rival companies now rely on each other for 64-bit processor development. This has led to a case of mutually assured destruction should either company revoke its respective license. Should such a scenario take place, AMD would no longer be authorized to produce any x86 processors, and Intel would no longer be authorized to produce x86-64 processors...


RE: AMD64
By Pryde on 3/17/2009 12:27:17 AM , Rating: 2
Hardly destruction for Intel, yeah AMD x86-64 gone so what?

AMD can no longer produce ANY x86 CPUs

Intel can still produce 32bit x86 CPUs

If Intel looses AMD x86-64 they will simply go to their own IA-64 ( well I hope a updated version ) and it will take a long time for software to catch up.


RE: AMD64
By FredEx on 3/17/2009 7:53:21 AM , Rating: 1
I don't work in the server field, just repaired the beasts, but many friends do. IA-64 according to them sucks. If Intel lost the ability to use the mutually tweaked x86-64 which was AMD's baby, Intel would crash in the server market. There ain't a "...long time for software to catch up" in a server market scenario.

Try running massive servers on 3.2 Gig of usable memory per processor.


RE: AMD64
By defter on 3/17/2009 5:20:23 AM , Rating: 3
The agreement says that party violating the agreement will lose their rights, but other party will retain their rights.

If AMD violates the agreement, then it can't make any CPUs but Intel still can.
If Intel violates the agreement, then it can't make any CPUs but AMD still can.


RE: AMD64
By SiliconDoc on 3/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: AMD64
By SiliconDoc on 3/18/09, Rating: -1
Won't happen
By ajfink on 3/16/2009 1:37:54 PM , Rating: 1
Anti-trust injunction, followed by a more long-term agreement that may even open up x86 to more companies. Intel shouldn't be playing this game.




RE: Won't happen
By aegisofrime on 3/16/2009 1:42:29 PM , Rating: 4
I would like to see that happen. The more competition, the better. Bring it on Intel!


RE: Won't happen
By AntiM on 3/16/2009 2:23:23 PM , Rating: 1
I think we all already know how impotent the US Justice Dept is when it comes to enforcing antitrust laws. The EU seems to have much bigger balls when it comes to antitrust. (at least as big as a grasshopper's balls)

I don't think the prospect of an antitrust suit will worry Intel one bit.

This whole thing might be a big nothing. It might just be a matter of redoing the agreement to Intel's liking without costing AMD a penny.


RE: Won't happen
By rudolphna on 3/17/2009 12:16:50 PM , Rating: 2
while it would be nice to think so, I dont think anyone really beleives this is something other than Intel trying to crush AMD out, and leave it the sole X86 processor manufacturer. Profits tend to be quite good when you are the only option....


RE: Won't happen
By sviola on 3/16/2009 2:26:32 PM , Rating: 2
You might have an interesting point there...


RE: Won't happen
By Spivonious on 3/16/2009 3:11:12 PM , Rating: 4
If AMD truly is violating their license agreement with Intel, then this has nothing to do with anti-trust regulations.

I'm all for fair competition, but a deal is a deal.


RE: Won't happen
By Zoomer on 3/16/2009 7:05:45 PM , Rating: 2
As someone else mentioned, intel would lose the use of the AMD64 extensions. So, future Intel CPUs would have no 64 bit support.

And in response to the last comment, the new AMD64 instructions would not allow a computer to load the BIOS and POST, because these are probably still real mode assembly programs.

Intel probably just wants to beat up AMD some more, maybe extract some small amount of money, delay their product launches, create FUD, etc.


RE: Won't happen
By JKflipflop98 on 3/16/2009 8:22:20 PM , Rating: 2
Do you REALLY think Intel can't come up with a 64-bit wide register on it's own? Puhleeease.


RE: Won't happen
By rohith10 on 3/17/2009 12:21:10 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe, maybe not, but so much time and money has been invested in x86-64, and CPUs sporting it have become ubiquitous. Who knows? Maybe at the time of conclusion of the trial (if there is any), Intel might be forced to compromise just so that it can keep using x86-64.


RE: Won't happen
By Pryde on 3/17/2009 12:34:45 AM , Rating: 2
Intel already have their own 64bit, its called IA-64. Sure it isn't anything like x86-64 but development there could be moved to x86 saving Intel time and money.

I highly doubt that Intel doesn't have a backup plan if they lose x86-64 but it is more likely that Intel is looking to renegotiate the x86 deal to favor them more.


RE: Won't happen
By Viditor on 3/22/2009 5:36:58 PM , Rating: 2
So many people focus on something as trivial as 64bit extensions...
It would be absolutely impossible for Intel (or anyone else) to produce so much as a modern memory cell (let alone a whole CPU) without AMD IP. AMD currently has over 8000 patents that all chip makers rely on for their manufacturing.
If the nuclear option was put in play (in other words, Intel actually ended the agreement), then both AMD and Intel would be unable to produce any chips at all.

This is a negotiating tactic by Intel...that cross-license agreement expires at the end of next year, and it needs to be renogtiated. For those that are old enough, remember that Intel pulled similar shenanigans prior to the last cross-license negotiations.


List of x86 Licenses
By Radnor on 3/16/2009 5:13:15 PM , Rating: 2
Blue Chip/Designers for X86:

List of former IA32 compatible microprocessor vendors:

* Centaur Technology - originally subsidiary of IDT, later acquired by VIA Technologies, still producing compatible low-end devices for Via
* Chromatic Research - mediaprocessor with x86 instruction set compatibility never completed
* Cyrix - acquired by National Semiconductor, later acquired by VIA Technologies, eventually shut down
* Chips and Technologies - left market after failed 386 compatible chip failed to boot the Windows operating system
* Exponential Technology - BiCMOS compatible microprocessor never completed
* IBM - Cyrix licensee and developer of Blue Lightning 486 line of processors, eventually left compatible chip market
* IDT - original funder of Centaur, later sold off that subsidiary to VIA, no longer in compatible market.
* IIT Corp - 486 compatible project never completed
* Harris Corporation - sold rad-hard versions of 8086 and 80286; product line discontinued.
* MemoryLogix - Multi-threaded CPU core and SOC for PCs never completed
* Metaflow Technologies - project never completed
* Montalvo Systems - Asymmetric multiprocessor never completed
* National Semiconductor - low-end 486 (designed in-house) never widely sold; first acquirer of Cyrix, later keeping only low-end IA32 devices targeted for consumer System-on-a-chips, finally selling them to AMD
* NEC - sold early Intel architecture compatibles such as NEC V20 and NEC V30; product line transitioned to NEC internal architecture
* NexGen - bought by AMD to help develop the successful K6 device
* Rise Technology - after 5 years of working on the slow mP6 chip (released in 1998), the company closed a year later
* Texas Instruments and SGS-Thomson -licensees of Cyrix designs, eventually left compatible chip market
* Transmeta - transitioned to an intellectual property company in 2005.
* United Microelectronics Corporation and Meridian Semiconductor - got out of market after slow 486 compatible missed market window
* ULSI System Technology - never completed x86 SOC; company shut down after one of their employees was convicted for stealing Intel Floating-point x87 design documents

More info over the wiki:

x86-processors for both regular PCs and embedded designs:

* Intel
* AMD
* VIA
* Transmeta (discontinued its x86 line)
* Rise Technology (acquired by SiS)
* IDT (Centaur Technology x86 division acquired by VIA)
* National Semiconductor (sold the x86 PC designs to VIA and later the x86 embedded designs to AMD)
* Cyrix (acquired by National Semiconductor)
* NexGen (acquired by AMD)
* Chips and Technologies (acquired by Intel)
* IBM (discontinued its own x86 line)
* UMC (discontinued its x86 line)
* NEC (discontinued its x86 line)

[edit] x86-processors for embedded designs only:

* Zet IA-32 (Zet is a GPL open source FPGA implementation targeting the Xilinx ML-403)
* ZF Micro (ZFx86 - Cx486DX SoC)
* Nvidia (M6117C - 386SX)
* ALi (x86 products went to Nvidia through the ULi sale)
* SiS (discontinued its Vortex86 line)
* DMP Electronics (Vortex86SX and Vortex86DX, compatible with Intel 486SX and 486DX respectively)
* RDC Semiconducters (R8610 an R8620)

[edit] Manufacturing-only of x86-processors designed by others:

* IBM (manufactures processors for ZF Micro and VIA; discontinued production for NexGen and Transmeta)
* TSMC (manufactures processors for VIA; discontinued production for Transmeta)
* UMC (manufactures processors for Nvidia; discontinued production for Rise, SiS, ALi and ULi)
* Fujitsu (manufactured processors for Transmeta; discontinued x86 production)
* National Semiconductor (manufactured processors for ZF Micro; discontinued x86 production)

[edit] Manufacturing and selling under its own name of x86-processors designed by others:

* IBM (designs by Cyrix; now this line is discontinued)
* SGS-Thomson (designs by Cyrix; discontinued x86 production)
* Texas Instruments (designs by Cyrix; discontinued x86 production)

In my personal opinion if intel wants "just" to protect its IP, they shouldn't go on a all out attack on this.

Of course none of us has access to the fineprint.




RE: List of x86 Licenses
By rudy on 3/16/2009 10:36:06 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is not the license it is the cross license they probably made a deal like hey look we both need each other so lets just not charge each other anything. But they cant shut down something this important the government would step in. The problem is now they just cant agree or intel feels being in the power position now they want a little more.

Also intel may feel that the foundry could abuse it's license and make other people like cyrix chips under that license which is probably a better deal or free compared to what cyrix pays now.


RE: List of x86 Licenses
By TA152H on 3/17/2009 2:23:59 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, the Blue Lightning from IBM was not a 486, but was more like a 386. The original was actually called a 386, and was not a pipelined CPU like the 486, but did have a cache. They released one they called the 486, but it was very similar to the 386 except it added the few new instructions for the 486. In reality, the chips were faster than the 386, but never as fast as the 486. In terms of architecture, inasmuch as it was not pipelined, it was more of a 386.

Incidentally, these inferior chips being called "486" were the main reasons behind Intel using a word for their next processor, since you can't copyright numbers.


RE: List of x86 Licenses
By OCedHrt on 3/17/2009 3:04:23 AM , Rating: 2
What if GlobalFoundries started manufacturing nVidia x86 cpus?


RE: List of x86 Licenses
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 3/17/2009 7:30:04 AM , Rating: 2
nVidia does not have an X86 license. Intel sure wouldn't give them one and AMD does not have the power to grant one without Intel's say so.


RE: List of x86 Licenses
By rudolphna on 3/17/2009 1:45:56 PM , Rating: 2
no, but GLOBALFOUNDRIES could build CPUs FOR NVIDIA,thus no need for more x86 liscences.


RE: List of x86 Licenses
By Penti on 3/19/2009 3:57:25 AM , Rating: 2
They can't as all the design people sit at AMD. Neither does they have a license. Chartered has fab'd AMD64's for years anyways.


RE: List of x86 Licenses
By Penti on 3/19/2009 4:00:57 AM , Rating: 2
And Chartered Semi has fab'd AMD64's since 2006. They even use the same tools to control the process / line AMD's APM.


x86 license for Global Foundry's
By nafhan on 3/16/2009 1:28:56 PM , Rating: 5
So if Global Foundry's can build x86 CPU's, does that mean they could build x86 CPU's for anyone (i.e. Nvidia) or just AMD? I wonder if that's what Intel is really worried about here.




RE: x86 license for Global Foundry's
By BSMonitor on 3/16/2009 5:54:59 PM , Rating: 3
It means Global Foundry has no crosslicense agreement with Intel to manufacturer x86 chips that contain circuit designs Intel considers its own IP.

It would be like McD's and Burger King coming to agreement on the fastest burger making tech. The tech totally owned by McD's. BK pays McD's to use this tech. Now BK has its Burger making spun off into a seperate entity Burger Queen. Now at BK you are buying the Whopper by Burger Queen. Burger Queen is continuing to make burgers with McD's tech. Burger Queen has no obligations legally to McD's. Maybe Wendy's stops by Burger Queen's shop one day and starts having chats about burger making technology. Rally's, White Castle... Etc... stop by too.. Now Rally's, White Castle, Wendy's all have McD's technology without paying for it.

AMD did not do its homework on this one... Or they just didn't care. Either way, Intel is right in this case.


RE: x86 license for Global Foundry's
By Penti on 3/17/2009 12:16:07 AM , Rating: 2
It's like McD and BK sourcing the meat from the same supplier.

Of course they can manufacture AMDs products they are licensed and are already manufactured at Chartered in Singapore. They still own the VHDL, Verilog, Schematics, RTL or GDSII and whatever else the EDA software produces and that are protected by it's own laws not by copyright or patent laws. That's not transferred to GLOBALFOUNDRIES.


By RagingDragon on 3/17/2009 1:11:25 AM , Rating: 2
Have you read the agreement? Including the confidential parts? If not there's no way you could know whether who is right and who is wrong in this.


I'm wondering...
By 1078feba on 3/16/2009 2:46:40 PM , Rating: 2
where does IBM fit into all this? IIRC, much of Intel's IP is based upon IBM IP, nicht wahr?

Or is the IP in question far enough down the evolutionary trail that IBM doesn't figure into this particular equation?




RE: I'm wondering...
By Spivonious on 3/16/2009 3:29:52 PM , Rating: 2
Why would it be? Aside from Intel CPUs being used in the IBM-PC, I couldn't find any connections between the two companies.


RE: I'm wondering...
By justjc on 3/16/2009 6:41:37 PM , Rating: 2
According to AMD the ties that link IBM, Intel and themselves together was:

1982 "IBM selects an Intel microprocessor for its PC but only on the condition that there is a reliable second source supplier for its PC processor needs. As a result, AMD renews a comprehensive cross-license agreement with Intel and becomes IBM’s second-source manufacturer of the 8086 and 8088 microprocessors."

and later

"In October 1991, Intel commenced a federal court action for copyright infringement. An arbitrator subsequently awarded AMD full rights to make and sell the Am386. The Supreme Court of California upheld this decision in 1994."
It can be read at http://www.amd.com/us-en/Weblets/0,,7832_12670_126... Intel fails to mention AMD at their history pages...


RE: I'm wondering...
By hcahwk19 on 3/16/2009 8:14:54 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. The arbitration panel also granted AMD a perpetual, royalty-free license to the x86 architecture, and the ability to reverse engineer to develop and manufacture chips based on any other x86 technology available at the time (which Intel was trying to withhold). I am taking an Arbitration class in law school and we just covered this case a couple of weeks ago. AMD got an extremely good deal out of the arbitration. They each had cross-licensing agreements with each other and Intel violated them first in the 80s. AMD took them to arbitration and won. AMD has the freedom to manufacture any x86 chip they want, without paying royalties to Intel.


RE: I'm wondering...
By RagingDragon on 3/17/2009 1:17:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
AMD has the freedom to manufacture any x86 chip they want, without paying royalties to Intel.


Indeed, AMD is allowd to manufacture x86 chips, but the question is: does the agreement with AMD also cover chips made for AMD by GLOBALFOUNDRIES?


RE: I'm wondering...
By Viditor on 3/22/2009 7:14:53 PM , Rating: 2
Some points here...

1. AMD does pay small royalties for x86 (though this is probably going to stop at the end of next year).
2. The agreement covers any subsidiary of AMD...a subsidiary is defined as any entity that AMD owns or controls at least 50% of. AMD only owns 30% of GF, but their expanded voting shares means they control 50% of GF


Just making sure others do not follow.
By William Gaatjes on 3/16/2009 1:39:11 PM , Rating: 5
I think Intel just want's to make sure there are no loopholes that would give other semiconductor companies idea's.

Personally i believe the x86 instruction set itself should be free of patents. But how you build a cpu, Intel's secret recipe is Intel's IP as is AMD's IP from AMD and VIA IP is from VIA.

I think everything(software and hardware) should be seen as a black box. There is an input and an output. The function of the black box should be free to copy , but the particular solution chosen by the originator that is present inside the black box not. This means you have to come up with your own solution to get a black box with the same function.

That means, you cannot copy the solution found by another unless you have shown that you have found a similair way through your own research. The same should apply to win32. Because win32 and x86 for example, are both omnipresent, this approach is good for the free market and consumers, and allows new players on the market while protecting the hard work done by the originators.




RE: Just making sure others do not follow.
By drycrust on 3/16/2009 2:38:30 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, shouldn't this be covered by copyright law, not patent law? To me the instruction set of a CPU is the same as software code, which is mostly covered by copyright law. Because there is a precise meaning to each particular command code, and AMD would want to replicate that meaning, then it is the same as doing a performance to an opera or sing a song in public, you have to get a licence. A patent would cover the idea of software commands producing different actions within a CPU, not the actual commands.


By William Gaatjes on 3/16/2009 3:38:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because there is a precise meaning to each particular command code, and AMD would want to replicate that meaning, then it is the same as doing a performance to an opera or sing a song in public, you have to get a licence.


Well , my opninion is that you don't need a license to copy the function. You can copy the command codes and their functions. You can just not do it the way Intel does it or AMD or VIA. If you want to do it for example the Intel way, you have to negotiate a license. Because Intel did the research with respect to Intels cpu designs and should have the chance to get the fruits of their labour. This way the market is open for competitors but are the originators hard work protected from experts in cloning. I feel this should be the case for every omnipresent hardware or software.

On a side note :
And in the case of companies patenting human genes found in nature. I think that is total nonsense. Everything in nature can and should not be patented. I do think their should be a discovery license that grants the discoverer the possibility to be the only one with the right to use the discovery or license the discovery for a reasonable x amount years to a third party. This to earn back the efforts and money put into the research. And to make profit as well too to pay for new research and a happy life. But when you have made a discovery, you have to license it, to third parties who are interested. No matter if you use or not use your discovery. This way the new found knowledge can be used in the free market and to aid people.


By NullSubroutine on 3/16/2009 7:10:22 PM , Rating: 2
Intel is just doing this so AMD drops their monopoly suit against them.


Not a chance this will ever be passed...
By Amiga500 on 3/16/09, Rating: 0
RE: Not a chance this will ever be passed...
By TA152H on 3/16/2009 2:19:03 PM , Rating: 5
Not that it changes much, but the 8086 isn't the basis for 32-bit mode, the 386 is. That came out in 1986, and while backward compatible with the 8086/8088, added two new modes (the 286 added Protected mode as well) compared to the 286, Virtual 86 and Protected 386 ("Protected" for the 286 became known as "Protected 286").

I agree though, it seems like this patent is lasting a very long time. I'm curious when, or if, Intel loses exclusive rights to the instruction set.

It's kind of ironic that such a horrible instruction set is so valuable. I HATED coding for it. The 6809 and 68K family were so much more elegant. It must be God's joke to technology; one of the worst instruction sets ever made is by far the most valuable. Life is so unpredictable, for better or worse.


By William Gaatjes on 3/16/2009 2:34:18 PM , Rating: 2
I think this a good example of true evolution. Not the best possible solution wins, but the one at the right moment and at the right place. And doesn't have to be the best. I agree with you tho.


loop hole?
By mm2587 on 3/16/2009 2:26:08 PM , Rating: 2
I feel, as someone else mentioned, that Intel may be very afraid that AMD is opening a loop hole by creating the foundry spinoff.

An independent foundry with rights to produce x86 cpu's could open a new world for the likes of nvidia, or really any firm who thought they could design a better x86 chip. Instead of only via and amd being allowed to produce chips anyone could.




RE: loop hole?
By Tsunami982 on 3/16/2009 4:53:54 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. This was basically a power play originally by AMD and now by Intel. Neither is crazy enough to totally pull IP from the other. Intel just wants to renegotiate/tighten up the wording of the agreement. In the end, both will compromise because they need each others' IP.


RE: loop hole?
By nixoofta on 3/16/2009 9:54:17 PM , Rating: 2
Way ahead of ya',....I'm melting sand on the stove as we speak.


catch 22?
By menace on 3/16/2009 5:48:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Intel claims that in response to the material breach notification it sent out, AMD claimed Intel breached the agreement by notifying AMD of its breach.

Is this for real or did the author mess up? The act of informing AMD they breached an agreement breeches the same agreement?




RE: catch 22?
By menace on 3/16/2009 6:04:13 PM , Rating: 2
The Ars article clears this up.

Says AMD would move to declare Intel in breach should Intel's filing be dismissed as being "in bad faith".

Very poor composition on the author's part.


RE: catch 22?
By Pakman333 on 3/16/2009 8:23:11 PM , Rating: 2
"Under terms of the license agreement the notification to AMD means the parties will attempt to resolve the dispute through mediation. In response to the notification AMD claimed Intel breached the agreement by notifying AMD of its breach. Intel believes that position is inconsistent with the dispute resolution process outlined in the original agreement."

This is from the Intel press release that was sent out this afternoon. Obviously Intel is trying to blame AMD and confuse the issue, which the author has skillfully pointed out doesn't make sense.


ok so if i understand this
By bru on 3/16/2009 3:17:04 PM , Rating: 2
Im sure ill get rated down for this but here goes anyway.
as far as i can tell amd want to slpit up thier company to help issolate the massive debts from aquireing ATI. so the part that manufactures cpu's is a seperate compnay as are the motherboard and gpu parts.

now intel are saying that if its aseperate company then it dosnt have the right to manufacture x86 stuff without talking to intel and sorting out a licensing agreement.

amd are saying no this is still the same company so theres no need.
intel ask to see the details of the company breakup to see if its the same company or not and amd say no.

now yes i know that intel is the big bad monopoly and all that but what are they actually doing wrong here as i fail to see it.




RE: ok so if i understand this
By fatedtodie on 3/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: ok so if i understand this
By rudolphna on 3/17/2009 1:47:56 PM , Rating: 2
strange, I knew exactly what he was saying.


RE: ok so if i understand this
By Viditor on 3/22/2009 5:45:15 PM , Rating: 2
According to the agreement, AMD can produce through a subsidiary company as long as they control 50% of that company. The deal for GF states that while AMD only own 30% of the company, they have voting rights equal to 50%...in other words they control 50% of the company and therefore are not in breach.

AMD is advising Intel that by Intel threatening this action, they are themselves in breach of the agreement...


By HammerStrike on 3/16/2009 1:29:35 PM , Rating: 3
It seems like losing AMD as a viable competitior would be a bit of a Pyrrhic victory for Intel; whatever short term market share gain they would get would likely be lost in long term anti-trust suits brough by EU/US regulators as Intel would have an indisputable monopoly on the desktop CPU market.




RE: Is shutting down AMD really in Intels best interest?
By TomZ on 3/16/09, Rating: -1
By Alpha4 on 3/16/2009 5:14:06 PM , Rating: 2
Emphasis on properly in this case. "Properly" could mean "With acceptable fee adjustment" for licensing. As well, they would want to amend the license wording to prevent any loop holes from allowing the license to be re-transferred.


By Radnor on 3/16/2009 1:57:04 PM , Rating: 1
I seriously doubt they want peace. Or more money, or shutdown AMD entirely.

Anyway, i seriously doubt AMD/Global Foundries job, they disregarded the small print.


Truth behind
By finalfan on 3/16/2009 2:34:19 PM , Rating: 2
The truth behind is Intel is trying to make sure no company can gain by reselling its IP. Why does ATIC want to provide tens of billions dollars to AMD just to get those inferior AMD fabs in the first place? It's pretty simple, it wants to access all those IPs that licensed to AMD automatically. AMD is reselling the right to IPs that it doesn't own to gain fast cash. Intel is defending it's own properties and making sure no other will follow AMD. I don't see there is anything wrong with that.




RE: Truth behind
By shin0bi272 on 3/16/2009 3:36:49 PM , Rating: 2
Im with you man. If I was forced by the government to sell my IP to people Id make damned sure they were the only ones who used that IP to avoid anyone else making money off of my R&D and years of experience. If AMD fails it will be a bad thing for competition but theyve been selling their cpus at such a low cost Ive been asking how long they could stay in business for almost 10 years now. But in the end if you have a poor business model that doesnt have a high enough profit margin and you are essentially sucking off of other people's hard work then its your fault for going under not the people who you licensed the tech from in the first place. Hell Intel was forced to sell its IP to other people and they are still the biggest cpu maker... people just love Intel.


Legal Opinion?
By iregulate on 3/16/2009 3:20:08 PM , Rating: 1
There is a huge difference between potentially violating a contract and being "shut down" completely in two months.

The author should refrain from giving legal opinions on matters which he clearly does not understand (underscored by his selection of the Predator icon for his story).




RE: Legal Opinion?
By TomZ on 3/16/2009 3:36:38 PM , Rating: 3
Well, obviously Intel would seek an injunction against AMD/GlobalFoundry forcing them to stop production if they continue to violate the terms of the contract in Intel's view. At a minimum, that is what they would threat to do, and who knows if they would follow through or not.

So I really don't understand your criticism of the author in this case.


Bait
By xmdxtremek on 3/17/2009 12:15:01 AM , Rating: 2
You know this just doesn't seem right. I can't think of one good reason intel is doing this . That has any sound logic to it. We already know that Intel is moving towards Sandy Bridge. @ 32nm. Sandy is a strange beast. It rather confuounded me infact.

Intel went to a new processor formate with AVX on sandy . Were x86 is ported to sandy via intel compiler. What hit me was this isn't the natural evolution of x86 this is something else.

The problem I am having is AMDs Bulldoozer will do FMA. Amd has said only certain Risk processors will do FMA. So This allows Intel to 2x anything that can be vectored.

So Sandy forces AMD to Come up with FMA for X86 + Engineer that very special X86 risk backend. So Intel is in fact moving away from X86 to Vector computing with X86 ported.

So this lawsuite to me looks like Intel wants to open the X86 market to all. Taken AMD to court might allow this. In the mean time AMD has to come up with FMA for X86 . Which intel can use. When Intel loses in court. All X86 will become public domain. Bring in More competion to drive the Market. All the While Intel sets with its new vectoring processor thats their IP. Able to use everthing everone comes up with and still have a priority cpu with AVX. Than Add in FMA and intel is set to roll.

Its Intels best interest to allow all to make x86 cpus now. The more the better.

This is what intel is really after. AMD going to have it all. Problem is . So well everone else. Intel is clever. This time around. A fox they are but which type of fox.




RE: Bait
By ShangoY on 3/18/2009 11:59:51 AM , Rating: 2
The fact that you spell RISC risk means you have no idea what you are talking about. Do you always post such unintelligable remarks?

Intel is doing this because they got screwed in arbitration years back. So any chance they get to screw AMD, they will. People can hold grudges for a LONG time.


Let's examine this without the fanboy emotional BS.
By DeadON on 3/17/2009 12:50:31 AM , Rating: 2
If you would read and research this subject you would see that Intel is NOT telling AMD they cannot make x86 architechture CPUs per existing agreements.

They are telling AMD that they are in breach of the existing agreements if they use GlobalFoundries to manufacture their chips, as GlobalFoundaries is a separate entity (not a subsidiary of AMD as defined by the agreement, because AMD only owns about 35% of GlobalFoundries (per FTC filings by AMD) vs the required 50%) that has not licensed Intel's x86 IP, and as such is not authorized to manufacture AMD's chips. While the specific amount is redacted in the available copy of the agreement, AMD is also contractually limited to the amount of chips they can outsource to a third party foundry (which, in this case, no matter how you look at it, I'm sure 100% excedes the redacted number. If this clause weren't in the contract, AMD would be free to continue producing their chips at a foundry that had licensed Intel's IP, just not at GlobalFoundries.

Regarding AMD claims that Intel is in breach of other agreements with reference to x64, et al, I find it rather childish on their part..."You can't say that I did something wrong!...Well, you're wrong for saying I'm wrong!...Just because you said I'm wrong, the deal we had before doesn't exist anymore!". Please.

Unless the publicly available information is incredibly inaccurate, the only way I can see this being resolved, is either GlobalFoundries negotiates a licensing deal with Intel (in which case AMD would still need to renegotiate with regards to outsourced production percentages) or AMD needs to dump some more capital into GlobalFoundries (and not have it funneled back by the Emirate of Abu Dhabi) so that they meet the spirit and intent of the existing agreement as pertains to subsidiaries.

Intel is obligated to their shareholders to protect their IP. That is where the value of the corporation is derived. Do not be fooled by fanboy emotion in either direction. These companies are not here to be "fair" or promote "good sportsmanship" or "friendly competiton" or "the betterment of mankind" or any other feel goodedness. They are here like any other company, to maximize profit for the owners of that company (shareholders).




By iamted on 3/17/2009 11:40:16 AM , Rating: 2
from what i have read on other sites, is this that amd owns 50% of foundry right now, and has voting in 50% of foundry issues, but at a later time foundry could enact shares that are at this time worthless, meaning that amd would then own 35%. intel doesnt like that, but amd did their homework, and set up the foundry with the agreement in mind. since there is the clause in the forming of the foundry that the foundry could one day, own more then amd, intel is saying that it is not a subsidiary, splitting hairs imo. it depends on how you look at it, wether you look at it as the fact that in the future they could be seperate companies which wouldnt happen till after the current agreement expires, or they are a subsidary now since they dont actually have majority in the spin off.


Message to Intel
By Yaron on 3/16/2009 6:36:54 PM , Rating: 2
I don't like what you are doing with nVidia and AMD.
STOP IT.

Good luck with the new i7 core CPUs.




The day..
By kayronjm on 3/16/2009 7:44:40 PM , Rating: 2
The day AMD shuts down is the day I stop buying CPU and graphics card upgrades..




Huh?
By Penti on 3/16/2009 11:38:18 PM , Rating: 2
As far as I know AMD has already fabbed AMD64 processors at CSM.

I don't see what the problem is. They had fab 36 and 38 plus Chartered before, they have the units AMD Fab 36 and Fab 38 which already was their own german companies cut out and renamed Fab 1, module 1 and Fab 1, module 2, plus still has the possibility to fab at Chartered. Without the money to invest in fab 38 they would simply had disappeared fast. The planned build of a plant in NY seems to be moving along too.




Dirk Meyer was heard yelling...
By Zshazz on 3/16/09, Rating: 0
Guess what Intel
By Regs on 3/16/09, Rating: -1
Not a snowball chance in Hell
By Beenthere on 3/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: Not a snowball chance in Hell
By Viditor on 3/22/2009 5:47:58 PM , Rating: 1
There actually is a great deal of truth there.

By the time this actually got to court, the cross-license agreement would have expired anyway (end of next year).


"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki