Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

[stoppable] AMD to lose its x86 licence in 60 days

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 16, 2009 4:27:09 PM

AMD 8-K:

http://secfilings.nyse.com/filing.php?doc=1&attach=ON&i...

Intel Says GLOBALFOUNDRIES Deal Breaches AMD Cross-Licensing Agreement:

http://www.dailytech.com/Intel+Could+Shut+Down+AMDs+CPU...

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.
March 16, 2009 4:34:47 PM

Then AMD would pull their deal with Intel on 64bit, both would lose out.
March 16, 2009 4:51:25 PM

I think IMO, that Intel isnt getting it here, and is putting the whole 86 licensing scheme in jeopardy by doing this. Just MO, but time will tell
March 16, 2009 5:04:28 PM

djcoolmasterx said:
Then AMD would pull their deal with Intel on 64bit, both would lose out.


But if AMD goes black, who would sue Intel for x86-64?

Besides, the profits of being a total monopoly would probably deal with that.
a b à CPUs
March 16, 2009 5:11:30 PM

Not really, seeing as Denebs were never in the same class as Nehalems (despite the number of people who like to compare them). The real comparison is Q9000 series vs Deneb, and I would bet quite a bit of money that Intel is selling more Core 2 Quads than AMD is selling Denebs, if nothing else due to the fact that Intel is in the vast majority of premade computers.
a b à CPUs
March 16, 2009 5:12:19 PM

Intel has its own implementation for 64-bit, i believe. Besides, they can't be a monopoly, as Via is still hanging around...
a b à CPUs
March 16, 2009 5:23:12 PM

Now that I re-think this over, it makes perfect sense:

1: Screw AMD
2: Give X86 license to NVIDIA
3: Watch NVIDIA screw itself
4: Profit

In all honesty, the X86 instruction set was patented in 1978; thats 30 years ago. Aren't patents supposed to last 20 years? I wonder if theres a chance the instruction set could be delared "open" (NVIDIA would love for that to happen)
a b à CPUs
March 16, 2009 6:00:11 PM

GO INTEL!!! lets see how much more horrible you can make the planet!!! just keep bullying around everyone else and NEVER give them the chance!!! HOORAY! you are so strong with all ur money!!!

Intel's antics are the EXACT reason this world's economy is in such turmoil, stuff like that does not win you favor, people just end up fearing you... but push them around enough, they will start to bite back...

right now the first company that comes out with an Atom/Ion platform will probably get a whole heap of crap for it from Intel, they have done this in the past...

Intel needs to Lighten up, people will respect them more...

I cant wait to go home and game on my Intel CPU...
March 16, 2009 6:18:51 PM

This is old BS stop posting this crap.
March 16, 2009 6:23:30 PM

Heres AMDs response http://idea.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/2488/0001193125...

Im thinking Intel is shooting itself in the foot here. Theyve set a two tier in their current product lineup, and theyre starting to be seen as bullies. This all plays into AMDs hands, at ground level...to a small extent. On the larger scale, its possible by doing what Intel has done here, that AMD is right, and Intel has broken the agreement first actually, which will matter in future determinations on this. Time will tell on all this, but Intels sueing everyone lately, and that overall isnt a good thing, as the bigger they get, the harder it is to "protect" itself.
Like weve seen in the states where the power and tele companies were once a monopoly in set areas, let alone nationwide in some instances, the lessoning of such rights has been seen, as well as on medicines etc. It can be argued that cpu/IT can be construed as being as important, and making such licensing in the future obsolete, and this goes for AMDs 64 as well. Itll be interesting how this is interperted, and how it concludes.
March 16, 2009 6:26:37 PM

Actually it is quite serious. If Intel really does this then there will be one HELL of a legal battle, because it is shaky ground to begin with and Intel can not have a total monopoly which they would without AMD. I can't see this ending well for Intel as I'm sure there would be steps taken to kick Intel's ass for such a blatant power grab.
March 16, 2009 6:44:35 PM

*Grabs a very large bowl of popcorn as the impending mayhem begins.
March 16, 2009 6:54:41 PM

One thing Ive seen come up is, Intel may have tried to talk to AMD about this, which may be true...BUT, it doesnt matter even if AMD said no, because as stipulated within their agreement, it has to go to mediation before anything else, and it seems Intel may have violated that 2 ways, 1 going public with it by 2, instead of mediation, filing
a b à CPUs
March 16, 2009 7:03:44 PM

gamerk316 said:
Intel has its own implementation for 64-bit, i believe. Besides, they can't be a monopoly, as Via is still hanging around...


IA64 is a completely different instruction set. The two are not compatible.



Regarding the Brouhaha: Both companies have a lot to lose. A compromise deal will be reached.
March 16, 2009 7:19:59 PM

Yea, thats what it is, I just question the timing, not whether its worthy coming from Intel, but the greater question, why? The new one will come up next year anyways, so why now? Intel may be going for a money grab here, may be seeking deflection from the various antitrust cases brought on by AMD in various countries, who knows?
March 16, 2009 7:25:11 PM

Whats interesting here is, although letting AMD "get away without having to do a redeal", as I can understand this could compromise Intels chutzpah if they dont act now, maybe all this is alot to do about nothing to begin with, as certainly Intel knows they brofe the agreement by filing anyways, and may just be another way of bringing this thing to a head, and thus an agreement
a b à CPUs
March 16, 2009 7:29:40 PM

Out of curiosity, i'm wondering if there would be some way to bring NVIDIA into this, just to get the entire party in one room together :p 
a c 108 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 16, 2009 7:30:38 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
One thing Ive seen come up is, Intel may have tried to talk to AMD about this, which may be true...BUT, it doesnt matter even if AMD said no, because as stipulated within their agreement, it has to go to mediation before anything else, and it seems Intel may have violated that 2 ways, 1 going public with it by 2, instead of mediation, filing


That, and Intel becomes a sitting duck before the courts in the anti-trust litigation PLUS takes the chance that Intel's use of its IP/license in this manner 'enables unfair competition' providing further evidence of 'monopolistic claims' - - - - - thus opening the door for nVidia to enter the legal action as a third party.

It would be nice if we had a real litigator around here. I think Scott may be right but it seems really odd that Intel would choose this battle over TFC when, in effect (from what I can tell, anyway) AMD has complete control over the seating of directors (but not an equal split of profits).
March 16, 2009 8:17:58 PM

Remember tho, Intel wanted complete transparency on the TFC deal, and this is one way of making it happen. As Intel runs off to TSMC for its dealings with certain designs, you can bet others, a long list, will use TFC as an option, regardless of 86 licensing et al, and this may also concern Intel, which, as much as all the negativity regarding the TFC deal, its limitations , costs etc etc people have all talked about, its possible it may have put a scare into certain companies, Intel certainly not excluded. They could actually be producing nVidia 86 cpus in a few years, as well as all their gpus. Intel wants transparency on the deal, AMD doesnt want to comply, and this may be just another reason as to why this is Intels response
March 16, 2009 8:20:35 PM

This looks good for EU citizens :D 
March 16, 2009 8:30:10 PM

Quote:
Desperate move by Intel who is embarrassed that Denebs are outselling Nehalems.

Yeah but last time i checked intel was still making money while amd wasn't
March 16, 2009 8:33:31 PM

Not to sound fanboy, but it wont if this continues
March 16, 2009 9:20:55 PM

load of bull****. Nothing will happen from this, AMD wont lose the licence because who are the main users of the cpu's??? Governments including the US government.

The US government would never let this happen, all intel are doing is digging a bigger hole for themselves because they could end up loosing the royalties they got from amd like memory controllers etc.
March 16, 2009 10:03:59 PM

Quote:
all intel are doing is digging a bigger hole for themselves because they could end up loosing the royalties they got from amd like memory controllers etc.


Do you think AMD OWN-OWN-OWN "memory controllers"? BTW, since when are they "royalties"?
March 16, 2009 10:05:12 PM

djcoolmasterx said:
T-T-T-T-TRIPLE POST!


Perhaps he owns a Tripple-Cripple. : )
a b à CPUs
March 16, 2009 11:37:06 PM

This could be the beginning of the end for AMD for real this time. Do they have the money to fight Intel ? I doubt it.

This is going to get nasty - fanboys or not AMD could be in serious trouble here, best case scenario would be that Intel re-licences the deal with AMD... but at what cost ?

March 17, 2009 1:15:33 AM

ulysses35 said:
This could be the beginning of the end for AMD for real this time. Do they have the money to fight Intel ? I doubt it.

This is going to get nasty - fanboys or not AMD could be in serious trouble here, best case scenario would be that Intel re-licences the deal with AMD... but at what cost ?



Would be cheaper for AMD to recruit some commandos and pull a coup. Clean up the mess by morning, tell everyone they went to the Cayman Islands with the AIG heads and some of the money launderers at Citibank. The way execs have been behaving lately I'd guess it would be taken as gospel. Call off the lawyers, then be home by noon.
Okay, so it's a little extreme. Maybe I'll pitch this to nVidia first. Speed up their dreams of an x86 licence considerably.
March 17, 2009 3:07:52 AM

Best take that I've see on this issue is that Intel has a cross-license agreement with AMD - NOT Globalfoundries. Intel's fears are that GF may sub-license Intel's X86 instruction set out to whomever, which is not the license deal that Intel has with AMD. That makes sense to me, given that AMD's financial woes are far from over and it may well sell further control of GF to ATIC. Intel is trying to protect its IP.

Frankly I'm amazed that the FTC approved the GF deal in the first place, seeing as the US take on the Cell processor was that it shouldn't be sent to Sony as it was 'capable of being used for nuclear weapons developement'.
March 17, 2009 3:27:21 AM

Whatd really be interesting would be if AMD sold some 86 IP to nVidia, so it wouldnt use Intel cpus that much, or sold even more to nVidia if nVidia didnt use Intel cpus at all....wait, this has a very strange hint of familiarity to it
a b à CPUs
March 17, 2009 3:34:04 AM

Why bring this up now? Are they just hoping to torpedo AMD and the stock market again? I think they should be more concerned with their own business right now or should have stopped this deal months ago. Why did they just now realize it broke the agreement?
March 17, 2009 3:39:08 AM

Supposedly it went like this. They did ask previously as to the entirety of the atic deal and AMD didnt want everything revealed to its main competitor on the planet. Intel again asked, and publicly stated they were concerned about the deal, again, AMD said, take a walk, we arent doing any breeching of the agreement, and again Intel wanted the unpublished private details of the agreement.
Intel waited for the deal to be finalized, which it now is, and has now filed its complaint
a b à CPUs
March 17, 2009 3:45:22 AM

Hmm, I guess that makes sense. I think though still it was bad timing and careless on their part.
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 17, 2009 4:01:50 AM

cjl said:
Not really, seeing as Denebs were never in the same class as Nehalems (despite the number of people who like to compare them). The real comparison is Q9000 series vs Deneb, and I would bet quite a bit of money that Intel is selling more Core 2 Quads than AMD is selling Denebs, if nothing else due to the fact that Intel is in the vast majority of premade computers.



You do know the European Union is about to hit intel with antitrust fines for their "marketing" practices that essentially give kick backs to companies that use their processors exclusively .

The same will happen shortly in the US .

Intel has never played fair , not with its competitors and not usually with its clients .

Consider an e5200 is the exact same bit of silicon as an e8500 and costs exactly the same to make ... is one over priced? Or do they make money on an e5200 gouge fanboys for the cost of an e8500?


Intel needs a distraction . Arguing the AMD production fabs are not subsidiaries of AMD is a bit like saying California isnt a part of the USA because people from Montana dont live there .

This is typical intel spin.
March 17, 2009 4:12:45 AM

I understand a few Intel points. Questioning the deal is appropriate, and protecting your IP is also. But its not as if Intel owns AMD, and has right to full disclosure of the deal. We should see them in a Mediator scenario, where the mediator should have privy to AMDs details on their deal, and all things Intel as well, and go from there. If a agreement cant be set by mediation, then it goes to court, and thatll take years.
If some haters out there think thisll be a quick end to AMD, just look at how long the antitrust case is taking, and thats peanuts compared to this. My guess is, Intel learns nothing, but has a lil more leverage garnering the next agrrement.
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 17, 2009 4:25:36 AM

More competition is good ... for consumers

Intel has held the door closed against potential cpu makers for years .

If it had been a free market with multiple manufacturers then cpu's would be how much cheaper? 50% ? 80% ?
Sounds craxy but a cpu is LESS complicated than a high end gpu ... and you can buy a whole gfx card for less than the cost of a CPU

some one isnt playing fair , and its your money and my money they have a license to take .
If it wasnt for AMD the prices would be way higher .
March 17, 2009 4:42:32 AM

To me, both companies have reached the point of no returns, and by that, I mean, are we really seeing huge improvements anymore? OK, I understand a few people need/use alot of vid encoding , winrar etc, but, if theyre really serious about it, theyre after a 2S anyways, and not messing with a single i7. Whats a few percent? Is anybody having to wait long periods for their apps anymore to finish? People apps struggling to even run? SW hasnt caught up, and were talking octo cores already. For all intents and purposes, the cpu has reached its zenith, why else would Intel be spending a billion at least for LRB? And AMD risking its existence buying ATI? And we have people dissing nVidia ceo for saying the cpu is dead? Gpus arent far from their top end as well, tho theres tons of room for not only improvement, but mainly uses, and thats where alot if not most innovation will come in the future, and having a SoC/fusion design will be paramount, and therell be no room for ONLY a single maker/producer, so no, AMD isnt going away.
This is more for the stock holders than anything I believe, as Intel will certainly get hit hard by the EU, and alot of those profits they made lately will go to the EU, which will then translate to an even higher cost/price of Intel cpus, and give AMD a better playing field for awhile, even if AMD doesnt get a cent from Intel.
Ill just point 1 thing out.When AMD needed help, one of the worlds best investors stepped in. Many questioned it at the time, and many have since learned how good it is. AMD canr go away, and thats a fact
March 17, 2009 4:46:05 AM

If your ox is the one being gored, the other guy isn't playing fair. However, the other guy is the one that let you use an ox in the first place, and now you are trying to sell the ox off-shore? It isn't yours to sell, mate...
March 17, 2009 4:53:42 AM

Except, at the time, the real person who used the oxen needed 2 breeds, as 1 wasnt good enough. And so it shall be
March 17, 2009 5:16:25 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Except, at the time, the real person who used the oxen needed 2 breeds, as 1 wasnt good enough. And so it shall be


Oh... You mean IBM? IBM no longer needs oxen. Now they only do oxen 'servicing'.

However, AMD's and Intel's real money in the CPU world isn't me and thee, its the corporates that buy xeons and opterons. If I were buying opterons, I'd be a bit nervous. The new 5xxx series xeons are starting to look pretty good from a supply point of view, and the opteron line seems to be 'stuck'. In more ways than one. Wouldn't be the first time that AMD had supply issues, or is your mid-term memory a bit vague these days?
March 17, 2009 5:35:19 AM

If your company gets hit with over a billion dollars in fines, which I believe will happen , coming from the EU settlement, whats the cost? When no ones buying anyways? No, not even corporate, whos laying off , not hiring, reducing, not enlarging. Things arent as simple as that. Making up at least a billion dollars isnt either.
If I were buying xeons, I may not wait for the nehalems, I may buy now before the cost increases hit, which is just as good an arguement as you present here. And yes, it may be a opteron as well.
This has more facets than we know. Everyone pooh poohed the idea of AMDs deal. Now, what if they make every nVidia chip? What if they make every ARM chip? What if they make every via etc etc? Down the line, it could happen. Why, just why do you think Intel went to TSMC? Have you asked yourself that? Theres more to this than we see.
March 17, 2009 5:47:01 AM

Heres some AMD perspective, and if found to be true, Im thinking mountains and molehills

"In our conversation with the company, AMD made a strong distinction between a technology license agreement, in which one company furnishes another with a vital ingredient or special sauce necessary to the function of a product, and a patent license agreement, in which two companies agree not to sue each other for intellectual property (IP) infringement. AMD's point here is rather simple: AMD neither needs nor receives any technological help from Intel when designing x86 processors. In the event that the cross-license agreement between the two companies were to be canceled, there's nothing stopping AMD from continuing to build its current products or designing future ones. "
http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2009/03/amd-intel-...

This isnt a emo moment ya know? Its just business. And lately, AMDs business has been better than it was. Having everything on 45nm, and having an extra fab, and having less marketshare than when they couldnt meet production, Id say theyre good to go as far as meeting production now, especially with the slowed sales.
March 17, 2009 5:49:55 AM

'My' company will not be hit with a billion dollars in fines, nor I imagine will Intel.

I do know why Intel went to TSMC, however, and that was just for TSMC's expertise in small-lot mfg of custom chipsets. Intel envisions an Atom in every set-top box (an example) but the box makers will all want customized builds. TSMC excells in this area.

Please don't try to fanboy me again, Jaydee.... My present cpu is an opty 175, before that it was an fx55. My next cpu will be a low end i7. My unix box is a sparcIIi.
March 17, 2009 5:56:13 AM

You didnt get me, it was a question, not as if I was pointing Intel and you as being co conspiators or something. Its like, Take your average Joe, now, Im not accusing you of owning nor enslaving average Joe... get it?
March 17, 2009 6:13:10 AM

Intel is desperate to stop the Antitrust case because they KNOW they are guilty and will lose.
March 17, 2009 6:20:15 AM

The rumor that this is to be a bargaining chip is just a rumor. Intel will most likely lose the EU case, and itll cost them dearly, and it will carry costs , which we, the consumer will make up for long term.
March 17, 2009 6:32:43 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Heres some AMD perspective, and if found to be true, Im thinking mountains and molehills

"In our conversation with the company, AMD made a strong distinction between a technology license agreement, in which one company furnishes another with a vital ingredient or special sauce necessary to the function of a product, and a patent license agreement, in which two companies agree not to sue each other for intellectual property (IP) infringement. AMD's point here is rather simple: AMD neither needs nor receives any technological help from Intel when designing x86 processors. In the event that the cross-license agreement between the two companies were to be canceled, there's nothing stopping AMD from continuing to build its current products or designing future ones. "
http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2009/03/amd-intel-...

This isnt a emo moment ya know? Its just business. And lately, AMDs business has been better than it was. Having everything on 45nm, and having an extra fab, and having less marketshare than when they couldnt meet production, Id say theyre good to go as far as meeting production now, especially with the slowed sales.


From my perspective, the main problem is that AMD is now perceived to have lost the means of production. Hence Intel's perceived concerns... AMD is on-shore, easily reachable by the courts in the US. ATIC is headquartered in Dubai, good luck filing a lawsuit there.... So I'd suppose, as well, that this is a mole-hill, however it will now have to go to mediation. Much litigation in the US seems to be about i's not dotted or t's not crossed.

And don't forget the port debacle that the US put Dubai through...
March 17, 2009 6:50:57 AM

The port debacle was a simple, people like you bombed our buildings, the retarded politicians that allowed this mindset, and the rednecks who believed Dubai may be up to something. Tired of rednecks and politicians playing CYA.

This is one of the things Intel wants, spread FUD, deflect the EU thing, its like the bully whos already established himself, now, youd best NOT look his way. Tired of that too, but still have to respect Intels right for self protection in all this. The larger buyers , it wont matter, the smaller and intermediate buyers, it could, and everyone else? No one will know how AMD is doing til its already done anyways. And Im thinking rather than in Germany, a New York fab is closer to home, and being the newer flagship fab, would have more circumstances if it were to be closed due to litigation
March 17, 2009 7:08:38 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
The port debacle was a simple, people like you bombed our buildings, the retarded politicians that allowed this mindset, and the rednecks who believed Dubai may be up to something. Tired of rednecks and politicians playing CYA.

This is one of the things Intel wants, spread FUD, deflect the EU thing, its like the bully whos already established himself, now, youd best NOT look his way. Tired of that too, but still have to respect Intels right for self protection in all this. The larger buyers , it wont matter, the smaller and intermediate buyers, it could, and everyone else? No one will know how AMD is doing til its already done anyways. And Im thinking rather than in Germany, a New York fab is closer to home, and being the newer flagship fab, would have more circumstances if it were to be closed due to litigation


If I were HP, Sun, IBM or even Dell, I'd be looking anew at my forward contracts with AMD. Those are the big world wide server makers, BTW. I do know that Sun and IBM are a bit nervous about new opteron based servers at the moment, Sun is working hard at making xeon blades compatible with opteron blades. IBM have not sent around any product announcements, but when questioned about three year availability of x86 blades, I am advised to get the new xeons... Or, to switch over to PPC6 based servers.
March 17, 2009 7:18:16 AM

First, lets look at the ongoing litigation time lengths we already have, and as Ive said, thats nothing compared to the potential fallout of this scenario. Cant remember when it was filed, but itll start going into true litigation/court findings next year. say 5+ years? So, people still going to be using those servers 5-7 years from now?
Im going to rip a lil off here, just cause it just may be spot on, and possibly describes the situation:
"AMD believes they can legally continue to produce x86 chips even if the license agreement ends. They just won't have legal access to future x86 related tech that Intel may come up with. That also means that Intel would still be allowed to produce x64 compatible processors, assuming I am understanding things correctly.

Intel is trying as hard as possible to kill of GlobalFoundries by the looks. If they succeed at that, then AMD will be high and dry with no way to produce their processors. I can also imagine Intel being quite concerned that a high tech FAB will be open for business to produce GPU's for desktop, mobile, ultra mobile etc. which are markets Intel is keen to get more involved with. Intel is "x86 everywhere and in everything" driven, as long as they are supplying the hardware. GlobalFoundries potentially gives many companies a way to FAB their non-x86 creations using a leading edge FAB, something that does not exist currently.

The more the evidence comes out, the more it is becoming clear what Intel's objectives are. They don't care about using procedure, and they don't care about the possibility of losing litigation. If it gets to the point where Intel thinks they are going to lose, they will just withdraw the litigation. It still accomplished what they wanted, to seed FUD into the market place, and also to distract from the ongoing anti-trust fiasco that is dogging Intel."
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=22...

the main reason Im doing this is because it describes alot of what youre saying, and if its so, its truly dispicable
!