1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Intel to Call on AMD, to Discuss Possible License Violations

Discussion in 'News' started by btarunr, Jan 23, 2009.

  1. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    27,678 (11.60/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,418
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    Silicon giant Intel flexed its IPR muscle by reportedly calling rival AMD to discussions on possible violations of past license agreements. AMD and Intel share license agreements dating back to 1976, which eventually transformed into the agreement of letting AMD use Intel's x86 micro-architecture in making its own products. Later in 2001, the two companies met again to share x86-related technologies. Such agreements bind licensees of the x86 architecture to confining their technologies to themselves as the license is non-transferable.

    The two companies are expected to meet to discuss on how the past two major events in the recent history of AMD: the acquisition of ATI Technologies, and the spin-off of the manufacturing division to The Foundry Company respect the terms of the agreements. Earlier, AMD stated that the ATI acquisition does not violate any of its cross-agreements with Intel, while the company sounds optimistic about getting The Foundry Company to existence smoothly through one of its big hurdles: a clean-chit from Intel, after having crossed bigger hurdles such as government approvals and support from the various countries it holds its facilities in.

    Source: TechConnect Magazine
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2009
  2. FordGT90Concept

    FordGT90Concept "I go fast!1!11!1!"

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    12,988 (6.44/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,092
    Location:
    IA, USA
    I can't see Intel getting anywhere in regards to x86 with the acquisition of ATI but Intel definitely has something on AMD's creating The Foundry Company. The rights to x86 aren't transferable yet AMD has transferred them. I'd say it's a definitive violation of the license agreement so AMD best be prepared to pony up for a second license in addition to penalties for violating the license. It doesn't bode well for AMD at all.
    3870x2 says thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  3. Error 404

    Error 404 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Messages:
    1,777 (0.81/day)
    Thanks Received:
    169
    Location:
    South Australia
    I really hope they can come to an agreement, this would be a big break for AMD.
  4. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    27,678 (11.60/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,418
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    AMD's contention is that its processors will be designed by it, while merely being manufactured by TFC, as with any fabless company. For example: VIA/Cyrix/Centaur have/had been making x86 chips for years while being fabless, using foundry-partners.

    Intel's contention is that tomorrow TFC can use loopholes in AMD's agreement (since AMD remains a stakeholder in TFC), to form a new CPU maker, brandishing the license the "AMD part" of the company holds.
  5. Laurijan New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,228 (0.85/day)
    Thanks Received:
    343
    Location:
    Oulu, Finland
    Another law-suit.. i am getting sick of them..
  6. WarEagleAU

    WarEagleAU Bird of Prey

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2006
    Messages:
    10,796 (3.80/day)
    Thanks Received:
    545
    Location:
    Gurley, AL
    Then AMD can take their 64 bit arch from Intel, not like it would hurt them anyways. What it seems to me is that Intel just wants AMD gone. I hope that doesnt happen but who knows.
  7. Beertintedgoggles

    Beertintedgoggles

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Messages:
    718 (0.23/day)
    Thanks Received:
    191
    How is this a news story when the original source (TechConnect Magazine) doesn't even state their source (in fact it looks just like a user post that doesn't understand it)?? I could see Intel discussing possible future license violations if TFC had a spinoff that started to use the x86 arch to design but as mentioned by bt, so far AMD is going the same route as VIA.... design the processor and use a foundry to fabricate. This just sounds more like Intel is meeting to tell them "Don't go down that route!"
  8. Marineborn

    Marineborn New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2009
    Messages:
    2,144 (1.12/day)
    Thanks Received:
    312
    in my opinion intels just crying and trying to get publicity by stiring up crap
  9. Darkrealms

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    849 (0.33/day)
    Thanks Received:
    23
    Location:
    USA
    Read btarunr's above post. I'm inclined to agree with him on that. Intel is probably making sure nothing can be done by TFC (itself) as it is partially owned by AMD. Intel may also be reminding AMD that AMD can use x86 but ATI can not. Intel can't do anything to Nvidia for its CUDA but they can make sure ATI isn't getting any help with the x86 instruction set.
  10. TheMailMan78

    TheMailMan78 Banstick Dummy

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    20,635 (8.21/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7,244
    I'm not so sure I agree with Intel on this one. Possible violation of license agreements? I'm a share holder in AMD and the whole foundry movement from what Iv been told is to cheapen the margin of manufacturing. The public will not see a major price difference but the CPU will bring better profit. I think Intel is just pissed off at some better competition coming down the line.

    After all AMD never transfered the licenses. They are just expanding their manufacturing base which is a good sign! Honestly I think this is a scare tactic to AMD shareholders. If that is the case Intel can go to hell.
    Roph says thanks.
  11. Mega-Japan

    Mega-Japan New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2009
    Messages:
    308 (0.16/day)
    Thanks Received:
    27
    Location:
    New York, NY
    lol, this is fun fun fun, let's just let them kill each other.
  12. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    27,678 (11.60/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,418
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    Intel can survive without x86-64, to which it already made enough modifications to call it its own (Intel64), but AMD can't survive without x86. AMD64 is a subset of x86. It's not a microarchitecture on its own.
  13. mdm-adph

    mdm-adph New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,478 (0.96/day)
    Thanks Received:
    340
    Location:
    Your house.
    Intel starts to lose major money and lay people off, so they bring out the lawsuit stick.

    Figures.
  14. 3870x2

    3870x2

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,875 (2.17/day)
    Thanks Received:
    689
    Location:
    Joplin, Mo
    Being that they were transferred to private child companies, it is a gray area.
  15. FordGT90Concept

    FordGT90Concept "I go fast!1!11!1!"

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    12,988 (6.44/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,092
    Location:
    IA, USA
    Read what you said...

    "...they were transferred...."

    It doesn't matter who is involved, the license is non-transferable. AMD is going to have to bribe Intel in order not to get sued.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  16. DanTheBanjoman Señor Moderator

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,553 (2.91/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,383
    How so? How does Intel violate the License? Intel doesn't want AMD gone, they're their only competition. Killing them = even more lawsuits. Surely they wish to control them, but that's just how business is. If Intel wanted AMD gone, and legally could, AMD wouldn't be here today.
  17. FordGT90Concept

    FordGT90Concept "I go fast!1!11!1!"

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    12,988 (6.44/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,092
    Location:
    IA, USA
    Yeah, like Intel has a right to entirely revoke the x86 license from AMD but if they did, the government would come down on them with lots of anti-competition lawsuits that would beat Intel to a very smooth pulp.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  18. KBD New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2007
    Messages:
    2,477 (0.95/day)
    Thanks Received:
    279
    Location:
    The Rotten Big Apple
    Yea, i think you have point there. If Intel were to kill off AMD the govt would come down hard on them, especially since this new administration is not as corporate-friendly as the previous one. But then again, the govt did let a few other monopolies get away with it for years, Microsoft is one example. Even though they were sued many times and restrictions were imposed on them they are still a monopoly.
  19. FordGT90Concept

    FordGT90Concept "I go fast!1!11!1!"

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    12,988 (6.44/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,092
    Location:
    IA, USA
    There's nothing illegal about a monopoly. What is illegal is when company A has a monopoly and does something to make sure company B can't compete. An example of something illegal is buying up competitors or paying favors to company C to make sure they don't offer company B's products (I think Intel was found guilty there in the case of Dell but I don't recall how that ended).

    Microsoft just makes a damn good product. You can't consider being the best anti-competitive (aka antitrust) unless there was actually some illegal endeavours going on to make it, or keep it that way.
    Roph says thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  20. KBD New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2007
    Messages:
    2,477 (0.95/day)
    Thanks Received:
    279
    Location:
    The Rotten Big Apple

    i thought that being a monopoly was illegal. I remember some companies were even broken up becausde of that. But they may have committed violations like the ones you mentioned so that may have been the reason, i dont remember all the details. I think that even if its not illegal now, it should be made illegal in the US, some countries do have laws like that and it is beneficial to the consumers.
  21. FordGT90Concept

    FordGT90Concept "I go fast!1!11!1!"

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    12,988 (6.44/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,092
    Location:
    IA, USA
    Most of the companies that were broken up (like Standard Oil) had next to no competition because they either chased them out of the country or bought them. That leads to price inflation and other things of that sort. At which case, the only way to really create competition again is to slice and dice the company into many parts (in the case of Standard Oil, that was Exxon, Mobile, Cheveron, Amoco, Conoco, Pennzoil, and others). The size of Standard Oil back in the 1900s dwarfs what Microsoft is today (most modern corporations, in fact).

    Microsoft holds a strong majority on a lot of software markets but there is a problem with breaking it up: you won't be creating two competing entities. In the case of Standard Oil, they broke it up by location so that the varying locations would still compete with each other. How would you break up, say Microsoft's Windows division? The only way to break up Microsoft is by product where Windows ends up as one company, Office ends up as another, etc. In the end, that doesn't promote competition at all because they aren't producing the same products. All you'd do is eliminate the overhead.

    Wal-Mart, for instance, could be broken up by an antitrust lawsuit because just like Standard Oil, they deal with one product: retail.


    That's the best I think I can explain it...
    Roph says thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  22. 3870x2

    3870x2

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,875 (2.17/day)
    Thanks Received:
    689
    Location:
    Joplin, Mo
    Agreed. I believe that Intel would love to have AMD out and have a monopoly on the market, but it's not legally possible, and also, within their previous agreements, AMD has certain rights with intel's x86 property, and intel is starting not to like that.
  23. imperialreign

    imperialreign New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    7,043 (2.85/day)
    Thanks Received:
    909
    Location:
    Sector ZZ₉ Plural Z Alpha
    so, wait . . . are Intel and AMD going into duscussions of their own free will? Meaning - no law suits or otherwise?

    Actually, if such is the case, I'd say that would be great for both sides - neither is accusing the other of violations worthy enough to go to court for, but instead want to focus on possibly looking at how things are being handled . . . meaning we could see some changes for both, that would benefit both, and lead to a healthier CPU market.
  24. FordGT90Concept

    FordGT90Concept "I go fast!1!11!1!"

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    12,988 (6.44/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,092
    Location:
    IA, USA
    That's the way I understand it (a meeting to discuss the standing of the licenses). Intel's lawyers are going to present what they see as problems and try to settle it out of court. If Intel's lawyers walk away unhappy, I'm certain it will end up in court sooner or later.

    I'm sure AMD's lawyers have a few outstanding license issues they'd like to discuss too. The lawsuits aren't happening yet but I think it is inevitable.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  25. PCpraiser100 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,062 (0.50/day)
    Thanks Received:
    68
    I'm getting the feeling that Intel is sueing because they wanna take down AMD for all kinds of things.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page