Intel Will Defend Patent Rights Against AMD

[newtekie1]

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.

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.

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?

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.

 

[Darkrealms]

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?

The x64 is a sub architecture of the x86 instruction set. Without the x86 the x64 wouldn't work, it is an expansion of it (so to speak) not a complete instruction set.
How I understand it.

 

[KBD]

The x64 is a sub architecture of the x86 instruction set. Without the x86 the x64 wouldn't work, it is an expansion of it (so to speak) not a complete instruction set.
How I understand it.

thnx for clearng that up. i always thought x64 was a set in its own right independent of but based on the x86 instruction set. One learns something new every day.

 

[mdm-adph]

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.

I didn't infer that from his statement at all. He seemed to state only that if Intel "got their way" (which is to be the only company -- a belief that you said that all companies have), we would be paying the same prices for a long time for very little improvement in performance, which is more than likely true.

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.

The manipulation of prices happens other ways, too -- take this scenario:

1) Intel forces a manufacturer to buy only their chips because they threaten to not sell to a vendor at all, knowing that other companies (like AMD) couldn't possibly meet the vendor's demand.

2) The vendor has no choice but to buy only Intel's chips, even though they could freely buy from both.

3) Intel can now charge whatever they want to this vendor.

Intel has been charged with this before, in Japan. [Source]

It's not AMD's fault that they can't produce the same volume of chips as Intel -- they don't need to. They'll sell what they can, and Intel will pick up the rest of the business.

However, this isn't enough for Intel, and they seek to put AMD out of business, when in reality both companies could free coexist.

 

[lemonadesoda]

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?

The x86 license basically allows a CPU manufacturer to do this:

http://download.intel.com/design/PentiumII/manuals/24319102.PDF

(warning, big download, this is the x86 instruction set as published by Intel)

Think about what the computer stores in memory in machine code:

0000100h (location) 10 FF FF (data)

Just illustrative, the opcode 10 might mean "Load the register A with the value... FF FF" (made up example).

Well, without the x86 license, you couldnt use the "10" to mean "load the register A with the value..."

Can you imagine that? Every CPU would use its own instruction code and require a complete recompile. Software would NOT be compatible between CPUs. eek

 

[largon]

Too bad such things as "proprietary standards" do exist. And that makes no sense, imo.

 

[imperialreign]

The x64 is a sub architecture of the x86 instruction set. Without the x86 the x64 wouldn't work, it is an expansion of it (so to speak) not a complete instruction set.
How I understand it.

that's right.

but, that's not to say that AMD could come out of the woodworks and develop an instruction set that is compatible with x64 (meaning also compatible with x86) that would be more flexible, perform better, and be more efficient as well. Technically, other companies have done similar before - like 3DFX with their Glide API, extremelly fast and 100% compatible with OpenGL.

AMD designed the x64 extension, and they had a big hand in getting processors to execute x86 faster as well. For all we know, AMD might be up to something like this right now, they've been moving into quite a few key markets since the beginning of the year. If they could develop something new that was compatible, it could push for a change in "industry standard" and the x86/64 license agreement with Intel would be worthless.


Sure, Intel might be using this whol mess to levarge the anti-trust suits, but it won't stop the investigations that are being spearheaded by independent 3rd parties and government organizations - if anything, getting AMD to drop their suits would just soften the blow.

 

[Swansen]

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.

I was under the same impression. However, i think it also depends on the patent in question, but i think 30 years is a LONG time for a patent to be upheld.