tried this already and failed move along people!

X86 cpu

I have to agree with Steevo. 2 weeks ago when all of the chaos over AMD/Nvidia/Intel and the x86 license, I assumed this is how Nvidia was going to get their hands on a x86 license. That is why I think Intel filed suit against AMD and the foundry. They are trying to set precedent that a subsidiary of a "licensed" company cannot use the license, so that VIA cannot allow Nvidia to acquire the rights to their license.

Just my two cents. I personally think Nvidia and VIA could be an awesome combination, not just for PC users, but I think VIA could greatly benefit from some Nvidia IP. Competition is always great for the consumer. :toast:

I remember when nvidia bought out ULi and I guess shut them down????? :shadedshu since then I havent seen a single driver update for ULi chips since they were bought by nvidia.

Hence I will never buy anything nvidia EVER again.

mechtechI remember when nvidia bought out ULi and I guess shut them down????? :shadedshu since then I havent seen a single driver update for ULi chips since they were bought by nvidia.

Hence I will never buy anything nvidia EVER again.

And that happened when? Yeah.;)

SteevoAnd that happened when? Yeah.;)

end of 2005

www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_uli_interview/

I have an asus A8R32-MVP Deluxe with a Uli SB and no updated drivers, nice support Nvidia, you suk.

SteevoX86 cpu

+1. When I read the subject of the news, this was my first thought.
Hopefully NV doesn't kill VIA totally, then there won't any fight against the 'Atom'.

mechtechend of 2005

www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_uli_interview/

I have an asus A8R32-MVP Deluxe with a Uli SB and no updated drivers, nice support Nvidia, you suk.

Unfortunately that happens :o, and i back you up in these cause i liked ULi also. But i believe they kept ULi's pretty good R&D cause they have the know-how about reverse engineering. Your mobo is the proof why they kill em.

On the other hand neither is ATi better. They announced for much younger myriad of their products that doesn't use their dx10 technology, that they simply won't support them no more just two years after ATi's commercial launch of their first dx10 gpu. When it came up to support they all sucks and that's why they more than glad to adopt OpenGL/CL/AL(whatever) so that some end user could provide them some voluntary work on their crappy money making machine.

Nvidia is plain stupid if they don't realise that they're probably going to lose that x86 liscense if they buy VIA. I can tell they'll:

1. Shut VIA down
2. Try to make x86 cpus but fail because of liscensing infringements

Guys all the decisions really aren't in Nvidia's own interests, but the Shareholders.

This can't end well ...

vagxtrUnfortunately that happens :o, and i back you up in these cause i liked ULi also. But i believe they kept ULi's pretty good R&D cause they have the know-how about reverse engineering. Your mobo is the proof why they kill em.

On the other hand neither is ATI better. They announced for much younger myriad of their products that doesn't do not use their dx10 technology, that they simply won't support them no any more, just two years after ATi's commercial launch of their first dx10 gpu. When it came up to support they all sucks and that's why they more than glad are happy to adopt OpenGL/CL/AL(whatever) so that some end user could provide them some voluntary work on their crappy money making machine.

Then don't buy, and never realise the only thing that doesn't change is things changing. Your ability to communicate is poor.

ATI stopped supporting the 9XXX, and X1K series GPU, that came out more than two years ago. Please get it correct or don't bother posting such drivel.

www.techpowerup.com/index.php?87181

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radeon_R520

Eventual takeover and/or buyout of VIA by nVidia? I can see it happening. The whole x86 licensing thing is probably a non-starter since Intel would tie up nVidia in courts for the next decade or two. People forget that VIA sits on a decent (albeit shrinking) market share in I/O IC arena. VIA is worth more than just some x86 license, for now at least. They've been just about pushed out of the chipset/CPU market on the desktop (mini-ITX market excluded) and the only time you can run into a VIA product on a modern desktop is when it comes to their little USB/Firewire chips or similar. However, just about every motherboard, no matter what format or CPU architecture is, has at least one VIA IC, and some have two or three. That's a lot of VIA product out there.

Just what NV needs. As it will give them rights to make CPU's right ?..

No, the rights are non transferable. They will ahve the technacial capability to merge the Nvidia line INTO the VIA CPU however, and make a system on a chip, the X86 being the last part they have been missing. However I don't know what VIA has done in the X64 market if anything, and with the prices of DRAM coming down quickly and the density going up it seems by the time they have a X86 ready to go in the next couple years it will be obsolete.


However they are probably aiming at the integrated market with this as a "absorbtion rate" investment for the future.

When it comes to nVidia, isn't it all about profit?

So NV is investing in VIA to make them CPU's... not the kind that goes head to head with AMD's and Intel's... but enough to give them the, lets say, independence of AMD or Intel in the portable and ultra-portable x86 market. Last time I heard, that was the main target of NV in this area.

I doubt NV will swallow VIA... by now, they probably know that the x86 license is non-transferable so other tactics are required.

TreadRWhen it comes to nVidia, isn't it all about profit?

isn't about profit for all companies?

TreadRI doubt NV will swallow VIA... by now, they probably know that the x86 license is non-transferable so other tactics are required.

SteevoNo, the rights are non transferable.

Then how did VIA acquire their x86 license from Cyrix?:confused:

Just making sure I understand this. Hypothetically, lets say NV merges with VIA to become "VIA NV". When a merger takes place, isn't VIA still VIA, they just acquired new assets and changed their name??

This was also inevitable, again, because NVIDIA feels very threatened. The only way SLI/nForce won't die is if NVIDIA makes their own processor/platform to keep it around. The alternative (sell licenses at a reasonable price) is much cheaper but NVIDIA leadership is too stubborn for that.

Part of me says NVIDIA doesn't have the resources to be reaching out and trying to expand into many sectors of the market they really have no experience in. Another part of me says if NVIDIA stays with GPUs only, they'll get driven out of town by AMD/Intel adding integrated solutions to their platforms. I think the first part is the better route to go because they are damned either way. At least if they try to expand to compete with AMD and Intel, they'll die fighting and even have a chance at long term survival. This will make (already has) a lot of people angry.


Merger means the assets of two separate entities combine to form a new entity. It is a buyout where one entity buys up all another entity's assets, liabilities, and capital. Under a buyout, the purchasing entity decides what stays and goes of the purchased entity.

this isn't about merge nvidia with via.

if nvidia can buy 50.0000000000000000000000000001 % of via share then nvidia decide at via so nvidia will be able to produce cpu's under via name and intel can't do nothing till via licence is valid.

the only thing what nvidia must do is to leave via as it is now; i don't think intel licence forbid nvidia to give via designs and brain...

It's simple. Intel owns the licanse, and they have contracts with AMD and VIA currently to allow the single companys to make X86 CPU's. If the terms of the contract or agreement is/are broken Intel has the right to revoke the licanse, thus VIA/NV could no longer legally make a X86 CPU using any of the Intel proprietary archatecture.


Back it the day, AMD was making CPU's for Intel, and thus the acquired a licanse. I'm not sure how Cryix originally got thiers and or how it was passed on to VIA, but it is still licansed from Intel, and it clearly states the licanse is not transferable. This is why Intel filed a lawsuit for disclosure against AMD/ATI when they were bought/merged. To make sure the proprietary IP is protected and not used in a manner disallowed by the licanse.


Here is the injunction that Intel filed against AMD.

Quoted from AMD Game Forums.


""The ongoing dispute between AMD and Intel over AMD's manufacturing spinoff now known as Global Foundries has just gone to the next level. In an 8-K filing sent to the United States Securities and Exchange Commision, AMD says Intel sent them a notice saying they have "committed a material breach" of the 2001 cross license agreement that allows AMD to produce x86 processors. Intel feels the Global Foundries deal is in violation of the 2001 agreement and has threatened to terminate AMD's license effective May 4th, 2009. AMD feels that Intel's latest actions are in violation of the cross license agreement and has sent us a copy of the 8-K filing along with the following statement:

"Intel's action is an attempt to distract the world from the global antitrust scrutiny it faces. Should this matter proceed to litigation, we will prove not only that Intel is wrong, but also that Intel fabricated this claim to interfere with our commercial relationships and thus has violated the cross-license."

Here is a copy of the 8-K filing:

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (the "Company") has received correspondence from Intel Corporation ("Intel") related to the 2001 Patent Cross License Agreement between the Company and Intel (the "Cross License"). In this correspondence, Intel (i) alleges that the Company has committed a material breach of the Cross License through the creation of the Company's GLOBALFOUNDRIES joint venture and (ii) purports to terminate the Company's rights and licenses under the Cross License in 60 days if the alleged breach has not been corrected.

The Company strongly believes that (i) the Company has not breached the terms of the Cross-License and (ii) Intel has no right to terminate the Company's rights and licenses under the Cross License. Under the terms of the Cross License, there is an escalating procedure for resolving disputes, and the Company has commenced the application of that procedure with respect to Intel's purported attempt to terminate the Company's rights and licenses under the Cross License. In addition, the Company has informed Intel that the Company maintains that Intel's 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 which gives the Company the right to terminate Intel's rights and licenses under the Cross License Agreement while retaining the Company's rights and licenses under the Cross License Agreement.

Intel obviously sees things in a different light: "Intel believes that Global Foundries is not a subsidiary under terms of the agreement and is therefore not licensed under the 2001 patent cross-license agreement. Intel also said the structure of the deal between AMD and ATIC breaches a confidential portion of that agreement. Intel has asked AMD to make the relevant portion of the agreement public, but so far AMD has declined to do so."

The company went on to say: "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."



So in short, NV cannot get a X86 licanse just by buying the company that owns one. They CAN use the controlling interest in the company to further thier own platform development and integration.

Wow Steevo. Great reply. :toast:

There is one line thatleapt off the page at me though:
"Intel believes that Global Foundries is not a subsidiary under terms of the agreement and is therefore not licensed under the 2001 patent cross-license agreement."

I thought the entire arguement was whether Global Foundries was a "subsidiary" of AMD or not. I was under the impression if they were a "subsidiary" they were allowed to use the license under AMD's rights, but Intel believes they are a seperate entity entirely, and therefore do not have access to Intel IP, licensed to AMD. But with these companies and the patent courts, who knows what they mean anymore. (or will interpret it to mean):banghead:

On a side note, I have been looking into NV since yesterday (I am an AMD/ATI fanboy :D) and they seem to be in pretty bad financial shape. IDK if this would be the time to look into new acquisitions.:confused:

laszloisn't about profit for all companies?

As far as I know, it's not! If it would, we wouldn't have a good competition, only fixed prices and a slow technological progress. Take RV770 for example... a lot of analysts said it was priced to cheap for its potential. Did they had profit in mind?... No. All they wanted at that time was market penetration... did it push NV to make better products? Yes, it did.

JATownesThen how did VIA acquire their x86 license from Cyrix?:confused

Probably that condition wasn't stipulated at that time and was introduced later.
That's not the point. VIA isn't a threat to Intel... compared to NV which could be one in the future if it gets its license.

JATownesJust making sure I understand this. Hypothetically, lets say NV merges with VIA to become "VIA NV". When a merger takes place, isn't VIA still VIA, they just acquired new assets and changed their name??

If Intel would see it that way, than yes, that's the case... but I doubt it would. I'm sure their sharks would find a way not to!

laszlothis isn't about merge nvidia with via.
if nvidia can buy 50.0000000000000000000000000001 % of via share then nvidia decide at via

Exactly.

SteevoSo in short, NV cannot get a X86 licanse just by buying the company that owns one. They CAN use the controlling interest in the company to further thier own platform development and integration.

you don't get the point

nvidia don't need x86 license ,is enough to buy 51% via shares;if they leave via as it is the licence remains at via but nviadia can force via to produce whatever they want... including cpu's ..

laszlonviadia

Great new name for NV/VIA :roll:

JATownesGreat new name for NV/VIA :roll:

:laugh::laugh:

just a mistake..i didn't see it