Intel responds to AMD lawsuit

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Intel filed it's response to AMD lawsuit finally today. The pissing
match is truly entertaining already.

Here's the original Intel PDF press release:
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20050901corpamdanswer.pdf

Here's something interesting from that PDF. In section #18 & #19, Intel
denies having copied AMD64.

Here's another bunch of articles about it:

InformationWeek > Intel and AMD > Intel Says AMD Is To Blame For Its
Own Problems > September 1, 2005
http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=170102804

Update 1: Intel Denies Wrongdoing in AMD Response - Forbes.com
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2005/09/01/ap2203151.html

Intel in total denial over AMD antitrust claim
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25877

Updated: Intel fires back at AMD suit - addict3d.org
http://addict3d.org/index.php?page=viewarticle&type=news&ID=9948

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On 1 Sep 2005 21:20:27 -0700, "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:

>Intel filed it's response to AMD lawsuit finally today. The pissing
>match is truly entertaining already.

Yes but I don't know how much more of this I want to read. Both AMD's and
now Intel's documents seem awfully informal for formal legal submissions -
it comes across more like neighborhood bickering than a serious legal case.
IMO while AMD's complaint seems oddly gossipy, Intel's reply is picayune
and churlish.

>Here's the original Intel PDF press release:
>http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20050901corpamdanswer.pdf
>
>Here's something interesting from that PDF. In section #18 & #19, Intel
>denies having copied AMD64.

Nobody really knows the terms of the cross-license agreement of Jan 2001 -
you can get a copy here
http://contracts.corporate.findlaw.com/industries/technology/semiconductors.html
but there are so many sections eliminated that it's hard to figure what
really happened, other than that AMD pays a royalty to Intel for every CPU
sold and there is some sharing of x86 IP.

As I'm sure you remember, for AMD64, AMD had defined a completely new
register file and instructions for FP and around the time of this
agreement, they switched to SSE2 as the basis for the AMD64 FPU definition.
This agreement would also give Intel access to the AMD64 integer/address
unit definition, which they obviously took up... eventually, after
vehemently denying the existence of Yamhill for 2 years or so.

I don't have all the tech docs and would not want to analyze the details,
for possible AMD compromises/changes on the integer/address unit
definition, even if I had but I guess it's possible that Intel could claim
that, since the CPU spec contains original inventions of both corps,
AMD64/EM64T is the result of a joint collaboration. IOW they didn't copy
it but helped define it.<shrug>

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Here's something interesting and kind of funny. Intel is responding
point-by-point to the AMD allegations of course. If you read them
side-by-side, in section #11, which is basically just some background
info about the history of the microprocessor, Intel is agreeing with
and then denying the history of the microprocessor!

Here's the relevant passages in the two PDF's:

AMD:
"11. The brain of every computer is a general-purpose microprocessor,
an integrated circuit capable of executing a menu of instructions and
performing requested mathematical computations at very high speeds.
Microprocessors are defined by their instruction set -- the repertoire
of machine language instructions that a computer can follow. So, too,
are computer operating systems -- software programs that perform the
instructions in the set allowing the computer to perform meaningful
tasks. The first generation of microprocessors, which were capable of
handling 4 bits and later 8 bits of data simultaneously, evolved to
provide the 16 bit (the original DOS processors), then sometime later a
32-bit capability (allowing the use of advanced graphical interfaces
such as later versions of Windows), and now 64-bit capability."

Intel:
"11. Intel admits that a general-purpose microprocessor is the brain of
every computer and that the microprocessor is an integrated circuit
capable of executing instructions and performing mathematical
computations at very high speeds. Intel admits that different
microprocessors may support different instruction sets, which represent
the machine language insturctions that each microprocessor understands.
Intel admits that early microprocessors processes 4 bits and 8 bits at
a time and that later microprocessors were capable of handling 16, 32,
and 64 bits of data at a time, respectively. Intel admits that 32-bit
microprocessors were capable of operating with Windows. Except as
otherwise expressly admitted, Intel denies the allegations of paragraph
11."

So Intel pretty much agrees with the history of the microprocessor that
AMD presented, but then it denies everything else about that passage.
So really about the only differences that I can figure out, is that
it's denying that DOS ever ran on x86 microprocessors, since AMD
mentioned it, but Intel didn't explicitly agree with it. Also it must
be denying that Linux runs on x86, since it wasn't mentioned by either
party. If Intel doesn't explicitly agree with it, then it must be
denying it.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On 6 Sep 2005 10:48:42 -0700, "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:

>Here's something interesting and kind of funny. Intel is responding
>point-by-point to the AMD allegations of course. If you read them
>side-by-side, in section #11, which is basically just some background
>info about the history of the microprocessor, Intel is agreeing with
>and then denying the history of the microprocessor!
>
>Here's the relevant passages in the two PDF's:
>
>AMD:
>"11. The brain of every computer is a general-purpose microprocessor,
>an integrated circuit capable of executing a menu of instructions and
>performing requested mathematical computations at very high speeds.
>Microprocessors are defined by their instruction set -- the repertoire
>of machine language instructions that a computer can follow. So, too,
>are computer operating systems -- software programs that perform the
>instructions in the set allowing the computer to perform meaningful
>tasks. The first generation of microprocessors, which were capable of
>handling 4 bits and later 8 bits of data simultaneously, evolved to
>provide the 16 bit (the original DOS processors), then sometime later a
>32-bit capability (allowing the use of advanced graphical interfaces
>such as later versions of Windows), and now 64-bit capability."
>
>Intel:
>"11. Intel admits that a general-purpose microprocessor is the brain of
>every computer and that the microprocessor is an integrated circuit
>capable of executing instructions and performing mathematical
>computations at very high speeds. Intel admits that different
>microprocessors may support different instruction sets, which represent
>the machine language insturctions that each microprocessor understands.
>Intel admits that early microprocessors processes 4 bits and 8 bits at
>a time and that later microprocessors were capable of handling 16, 32,
>and 64 bits of data at a time, respectively. Intel admits that 32-bit
>microprocessors were capable of operating with Windows. Except as
>otherwise expressly admitted, Intel denies the allegations of paragraph
>11."
>
>So Intel pretty much agrees with the history of the microprocessor that
>AMD presented, but then it denies everything else about that passage.
>So really about the only differences that I can figure out, is that
>it's denying that DOS ever ran on x86 microprocessors, since AMD
>mentioned it, but Intel didn't explicitly agree with it. Also it must
>be denying that Linux runs on x86, since it wasn't mentioned by either
>party. If Intel doesn't explicitly agree with it, then it must be
>denying it.

Hmm, that one is funny: reads like some intern-lawyer or para-legal was
given a chinese menu of responses, with a standard final sentence for each
paragraph of "........ Intel denies .........." - absolutely hilarious.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

 

[keith]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 15:26:14 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:

> On 6 Sep 2005 10:48:42 -0700, "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Here's something interesting and kind of funny. Intel is responding
>>point-by-point to the AMD allegations of course. If you read them
>>side-by-side, in section #11, which is basically just some background
>>info about the history of the microprocessor, Intel is agreeing with
>>and then denying the history of the microprocessor!
>>
>>Here's the relevant passages in the two PDF's:
>>
>>AMD:
>>"11. The brain of every computer is a general-purpose microprocessor,
>>an integrated circuit capable of executing a menu of instructions and
>>performing requested mathematical computations at very high speeds.
>>Microprocessors are defined by their instruction set -- the repertoire
>>of machine language instructions that a computer can follow. So, too,
>>are computer operating systems -- software programs that perform the
>>instructions in the set allowing the computer to perform meaningful
>>tasks. The first generation of microprocessors, which were capable of
>>handling 4 bits and later 8 bits of data simultaneously, evolved to
>>provide the 16 bit (the original DOS processors), then sometime later a
>>32-bit capability (allowing the use of advanced graphical interfaces
>>such as later versions of Windows), and now 64-bit capability."
>>
>>Intel:
>>"11. Intel admits that a general-purpose microprocessor is the brain of
>>every computer and that the microprocessor is an integrated circuit
>>capable of executing instructions and performing mathematical
>>computations at very high speeds. Intel admits that different
>>microprocessors may support different instruction sets, which represent
>>the machine language insturctions that each microprocessor understands.
>>Intel admits that early microprocessors processes 4 bits and 8 bits at
>>a time and that later microprocessors were capable of handling 16, 32,
>>and 64 bits of data at a time, respectively. Intel admits that 32-bit
>>microprocessors were capable of operating with Windows. Except as
>>otherwise expressly admitted, Intel denies the allegations of paragraph
>>11."
>>
>>So Intel pretty much agrees with the history of the microprocessor that
>>AMD presented, but then it denies everything else about that passage.
>>So really about the only differences that I can figure out, is that
>>it's denying that DOS ever ran on x86 microprocessors, since AMD
>>mentioned it, but Intel didn't explicitly agree with it. Also it must
>>be denying that Linux runs on x86, since it wasn't mentioned by either
>>party. If Intel doesn't explicitly agree with it, then it must be
>>denying it.
>
> Hmm, that one is funny: reads like some intern-lawyer or para-legal was
> given a chinese menu of responses, with a standard final sentence for each
> paragraph of "........ Intel denies .........." - absolutely hilarious.

I'ts pretty standard leagalese boilerplate; "I agree with everything,
except what I don't." It *is* funny though.

--
Keith