woo, more patent/ip drama :rolleyes:

I'm interested in what exactly those patents were for.

same here.. i want to see what the fuss is about... AMD will lose either way

theJesuswoo, more patent/ip drama :rolleyes:

I'm interested in what exactly those patents were for.

I'm willing to bet most of it hinges on x86 instructions.

Yeah, I was thinking that cuz I remember reading about how AMD has to pay royalties for that or something.

Wow... Never knew Intel liked sustaining their monopoly...

Intel wants to destroy amd and here is your proof ;)
given the fact that amd can create a new factory in new york state says something
www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9853&Itemid=1

here is that license intel talks about i think
contracts.corporate.findlaw.com/agreements/amd/intel.license.2001.01.01.html

btw: i like competition and wants AMD, no AMD=No freaking fast CPU :toast:
no AMD Athlon 64 = no Core 1/2 and Nehalem;P

I don't really see the problem as long as there is only one chip design company. Via makes x86 CPUs, and does so under the same license, however it outsources its fab work also - basically I think Intel fear that AMD will become a dual-house chip design company, which is highly unlikely given the economic fortunes of AMD of late.

v-zeroI don't really see the problem as long as there is only one chip design company. Via makes x86 CPUs, and does so under the same license, however it outsources its fab work also - basically I think Intel fear that AMD will become a dual-house chip design company, which is highly unlikely given the economic fortunes of AMD of late.

Heard of a monopoly? If intel has their way basically we'll be using CPUs which perform the same for the next century or something.

theJesuswoo, more patent/ip drama :rolleyes:

I'm interested in what exactly those patents were for.

Yeah me too... prolly x86 since the lawyer said the license and not a license.

How long does this F*$&% patent last? I thought you could only get protection for 15 - 20 years... and the first x86 came out in 1978. WTF? Its seriously time for uncle sam to step in and open up the market.

It's about the cross-licensing agreement between Intel and AMD, which includes the x86 license.

A financial analyst guesses Intel will use this to make AMD drop the antitrust suits:

“AMD, in our view, is likely violating the Intel x86 cross-license, but we suspect Intel may look the other way as it benefits Intel to have an AMD that will over time have increasing variable costs (good for ASPs),” Mosesmann wrote in an Oct. 7 research note. “Intel may choose to entice AMD to drop the anti-trust suits against Intel in return for this altruistic gesture (true realpolitik policy at play here).”

www.eweek.com/c/a/Desktops-and-Notebooks/AMD-Says-Manufacturing-Deal-Does-Not-Violate-Intel-Processor-Patents/

yeh i expect something but not from intel , when amd begin make company in abu dubi , money is talking

v-zeroI don't really see the problem as long as there is only one chip design company. Via makes x86 CPUs, and does so under the same license, however it outsources its fab work also - basically I think Intel fear that AMD will become a dual-house chip design company, which is highly unlikely given the economic fortunes of AMD of late.

the only cpu's that aren't intel monopolized are ibm powerpc/cell processors and sun sparc.

all via and amd processors have to be licensed from intel to use the x86 instructions thats required by windows/linux/mac, etc.
if intel wanted, they could not renew the license, and cause either company to have to drop all of their x86 cpus or have huge law suits.

panchomanthe only cpu's that aren't intel monopolized are ibm powerpc/cell processors and sun sparc.

all via and amd processors have to be licensed from intel to use the x86 instructions thats required by windows/linux/mac, etc.
if intel wanted, they could not renew the license, and cause either company to have to drop all of their x86 cpus or have huge law suits.

true story

Intel is beginning to make some nasty noises about the deal, but don't take them all too seriously. l'm sure this will give their retained lawyers and lobbyists something to do, and they're going to want something to "let" this deal go through. However, when your antitrust defense teams are present in almost as many countries as your products, and the European Commission is figuring out how much to fine you, seriously trying to knock AMD out of the CPU market based on a minor clause in a contract isn't neither politically astute nor likely.

To make what will be a long story short, there will be all kinds of legal theater and dire threats, but in the end, a new patent swap agreement will be negotiated that will eliminate these pesky ownership clauses in return for something Intel wants, perhaps an out-of-court settlement on this antitrust suit.

I read this here and I agree with it.

tkpenaltyHeard of a monopoly? If intel has their way basically we'll be using CPUs which perform the same for the next century or something.

I hate to break it to you, but gaining monopoly status is what every business wants, including AMD. There isn't a company in existance today that doesn't want all its competition eliminated.

panchomanthe only cpu's that aren't intel monopolized are ibm powerpc/cell processors and sun sparc.

all via and amd processors have to be licensed from intel to use the x86 instructions thats required by windows/linux/mac, etc.
if intel wanted, they could not renew the license, and cause either company to have to drop all of their x86 cpus or have huge law suits.

I think you should look up what a monopoly is, Intel isn't a Monopoly.

Also, Intel can't just up and decide to not renew the x86 licence, it doesn't work like that. AMD has the licence until they violate part of it, making it void, Intel doesn't have the power to stop it. And Intel has got some pretty good things via that licence also, the x64 instruction set being one of them.

panchomanthe only cpu's that aren't intel monopolized are ibm powerpc/cell processors and sun sparc.

all via and amd processors have to be licensed from intel to use the x86 instructions thats required by windows/linux/mac, etc.
if intel wanted, they could not renew the license, and cause either company to have to drop all of their x86 cpus or have huge law suits.

The problem that I see isn't just Intel flexing their muscle, it's the fact that AMD hasn't been able to get away from using these licensing agreements with Intel. Does AMD plan on being tied with Intel forever or do they actually have some real R&D going to change their place in the industry?

wiakhere is that license intel talks about i think
contracts.corporate.findlaw.com/agreements/amd/intel.license.2001.01.01.html

LOL, I love the technical jargon mixed with legal jargon

1.4. "AMD Interface" shall mean *****.

1.5. "AMD Licensed Products" shall mean *****.

1.6. "AMD Processor" shall mean *****.

1.7. "AMD Processor Bus" shall mean *****.

1.8. "AMD Proprietary Product" shall mean *****.

1.9. "Information System Product" shall mean *****.

I wonder what they censored out of those, sh*t , fsh*t :D:D

1.20. "Processor" shall mean any Integrated Circuit or combination of
Integrated Circuits capable of processing digital data, such as a
microprocessor or coprocessor (including, without limitation, a math
coprocessor, graphics coprocessor, or digital signal processor) that
is capable of executing a substantial portion of the instruction set
of an AMD Processor or an Intel Processor.

And nowhere he mentions that it shall be the Central Processing Unit

1.21. "Royalty-Bearing Units" shall mean *****.

again he censored his language

Coming up with a non x86 compatible architecture has serious take up problems with both consumers and developers, backwards compatibility...

The design would have to be so fast it could run old x86/x64 code in software emulation mode and still compete with Intel's offering, in its native mode it would have to be significantly faster to even get developers to consider coding specifically for the new architecture, if they were to get IBM involved then they may stand more of a chance to break away from the x86 architecture.

AMD should start developing and introducing next generation architecture, before Intel does and makes theirs the industry standard, you can't compete forever with the ageing x86 architecture when your rival takes a cut of every chip you sell.

insiderThe design would have to be so fast it could run old x86/x64 code in software emulation mode and still compete with Intel's offering, in its native mode it would have to be significantly faster to even get developers to consider coding specifically for the new architecture, if they were to get IBM involved then they may stand more of a chance to break away from the x86 architecture.

Youre right... and you just hit the nail on the head... its the "industry standard" and has been for almost the last 20 years, no developers are going to switch. How is a patent that is the "industry standard" allowed to be renewed? The whole point of patents expiring is to keep this fom happening no?

newtekie1I hate to break it to you, but gaining monopoly status is what every business wants, including AMD. There isn't a company in existance today that doesn't want all its competition eliminated.

Nobody was saying that about AMD -- the poster was stating that consumers don't want Intel to be a monopoly. I'm sure would agree with this.

newtekie1I think you should look up what a monopoly is, Intel isn't a Monopoly.

Monopoly: exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. [source]

You wouldn't say that Intel has the ability to manipulate the prices of CPU's in the market? :confused:

I think I have to agree with the one news poster about Intel using this as leverage against AMD in their Antitrust lawsuit. Seems like a smart play by Intel.

Intel just determined to somehow kill AMD. Nothing AMD has patented (Other than How to Loose a Company after having a succesful product)? Bastards.

AMD's Fusion core is what Intel is probably worried about, we all know GPUs totaly annihilate any CPU in terms of parallel processing, a hybrid is deadly with Intel having nothing coming even remotely close to compete against.

newtekie1And Intel has got some pretty good things via that licence also, the x64 instruction set being one of them.

So if i understand you correctly Intel gives AMD the x86 license and AMD gives Intel the x64 license, right? If thats the case cant AMD just use only their x64 license and not use x86 if Intel takes it away from them? Or am i missing something here?

mdm-adphNobody was saying that about AMD -- the poster was stating that consumers don't want Intel to be a monopoly. I'm sure would agree with this.

I agree entirely that Monopolies are a bad thing, especially for the consumer. However, his statement seems to be a negative one towards Intel, implying that they are they are some evil company because they want there to be no competition, when the fact is that every company wants the same thing.

mdm-adphMonopoly: exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. [source]

You wouldn't say that Intel has the ability to manipulate the prices of CPU's in the market? :confused:

No, Intel does not have the ability to manipulate prices of CPU's. If they did have the ability to manipulate the prices of CPU's then we would see outragous prices on them. They can't just pick their prices, they currently have to stay within reasonable competive price ranges with AMD's offerings. They can push the prices lower if they wanted, but so can AMD if they wanted also, that is the nature of competition.