Intel is making waves about AMD's split-up

Scali2 said:
There is no reason to stop Intel, since regardless of whether AMD violated the license terms or not, Intels rights to the IP are not in any danger (again, see the part I quoted from Arstechnica).
Click to expand...
This is wrong. Intel's rights are in danger if they breach the agreement. The agreement is between the parties involved. It does not say, If and only AMD violates the agreement. It says if either party.

Intel licenses critical x64 IP from AMD, and yes if they violate the agreement and are found guilty, they lose the rights to use it. Just as AMD would lose the rights to use x86 if they are found guilty. It works both ways, equally.
 
§kynet;1033857681 said:
You mean what Intel did with Atom and TSMC?
Click to expand...

Intel owns x86, and can do whatever they want. The license isn't 'symmetrical'.
You think Intel also has to pay royalties to AMD for every CPU shipped?
Who's the comedian here? :)

§kynet;1033857681 said:
Both are bound by the same terms, equally.
Click to expand...

No they aren't.
 
§kynet;1033857690 said:
This is wrong. Intel's rights are in danger if they breach the agreement. The agreement is between the parties involved. It does not say, If and only AMD violates the agreement. It says if either party.
Click to expand...

No, but it does say that if ONE party violates the agreement, the OTHER party maintains its rights to the IP.
AMD happens to be the party that is accused of violating the agreement in this case. So AMD's rights are in danger, Intel's are not.

§kynet;1033857690 said:
Intel licenses critical x64 IP from AMD, and yes if they violate the agreement and are found guilty, they lose the rights to use it. Just as AMD would lose the rights to use x86 if they are found guilty. It works both ways, equally.
Click to expand...

If Intel were to violate the agreement yes. But Intel didn't violate the agreement. And as said above, whether or not AMD violated the agreement, Intel won't lose the rights to use AMD's IP.
 
Scali2 said:
Intel owns x86, and can do whatever they want.
Click to expand...
Intel does not own x86-64 AMD does. So if Intel wants to play a giant game of chicken and forces AMD to drop x86 by voiding the contract, they lose x64. Goodbye server chips, despite the incredibly silly notion that they can get by in the server space with a 32 bit CPU.

Intel wants AMD the cross-license agreement to become public. AMD said fine, we'll do that. And to be fair, Intel you go ahead and make public the evidence in the U.S. antitrust case. Sounds fair.
 
Scali2 said:
But Intel didn't violate the agreement.
Click to expand...
According to who.

Those tons of legal experts you talked about? Apparently you don't believe in contracts or due process. Your only real argument here is because Intel made the accusations, they must be true. If AMD makes the same accusations, the standard is different.
 
§kynet;1033857736 said:
Intel does not own x86-64 AMD does.
Click to expand...

But Intel doesn't pay AMD any licensing or royalties for its usage.

§kynet;1033857736 said:
So if Intel wants to play a giant game of chicken and forces AMD to drop x86 by voiding the contract, they lose x64.
Click to expand...

Doesn't work that way. If AMD in any way drops the contract, Intel maintains the rights to AMD's IP. Just like it would be the other way around.
So AMD has no option to 'drop out'. The only way is to let the current agreement expire and not renew it. Which obviously isn't an option for AMD, because without x86 they're dead.

§kynet;1033857736 said:
Goodbye server chips, despite the incredibly silly notion that they can get by in the server space with a 32 bit CPU.
Click to expand...

Hello Itanium.
 
§kynet;1033857745 said:
According to who.

Those tons of legal experts you talked about? Apparently you don't believe in contracts or due process. Your only real argument here is because Intel made the accusations, they must be true. If AMD makes the same accusations, the standard is different.
Click to expand...

You claim Intel violated the agreement. How exactly did they violate the agreement?
I can't think of anything that Intel did that would in any way violate the agreement.
 
I seem to remember reading a long time ago that Intel reverse-engineered AMD64 technology in order to avoid having to license it from AMD. Is that true?
 
Scali2 said:
Bottom line is that x86 is a complete ISA, where x86-64 is an extension of an ISA.
You can make x86 CPUs without x86-64, but you can't make x86-64 CPUs without x86.
If push comes to shove, Intel can simply disable the 64-bit mode on their CPUs and continue business as usual. Since most people are still stuck in 32-bit land anyway, it's not going to make much of a difference. Then Intel can just develop an alternative 64-bit implementation, or promote their Itanium, or just buy the rights to AMD's x86-64.
AMD will have to stop producing CPUs altogether. And AMD is not large enough to make a different CPU architecture a success.
Click to expand...

from everything i have read on this if push comes to shove amd is following a old cold war strategy of M.A.D..Both sides hold cpu patents both sides cross license those patents to each other. Intel can not stop amd from making chips and shipping. it is their major product there is no way for intel to put amd's x86 ginie back in the bottle. all they can do is prevent global foundries from decideing it holds the licence and it can make its own chips.
 
Scali2 said:
But Intel doesn't pay AMD any licensing or royalties for its usage.
Click to expand...
That is not relevant here.
So AMD has no option to 'drop out'. The only way is to let the current agreement expire and not renew it. Which obviously isn't an option for AMD, because without x86 they're dead.
Click to expand...
Without x64, Intel is in a bad position. It is blatantly obvious that if the agreement is not in place, it will hurt both. How much each will be hurt is up for debate.
Hello Itanium.
Click to expand...
Goodbye massive software base. Goodbye hardware install base. Goodbye market.
Scali2 said:
You claim Intel violated the agreement. How exactly did they violate the agreement?
I can't think of anything that Intel did that would in any way violate the agreement.
Click to expand...
I don't claim anything. I am not AMD or Intel. AMD claims Intel violated the contract by not following the specific dispute guidelines. Intel claims AMD is outsourcing x86 production because GlobalFoundries does not meet the contractual standards.

To be clear, AMD did not accuse Intel of anything, and had no intentions of doing so, until Intel decided to go after AMD. AMD's lawyers are doing what they do, fighting back.
 
maxius said:
from everything i have read on this if push comes to shove amd is following a old cold war strategy of M.A.D..Both sides hold cpu patents both sides cross license those patents to each other. Intel can not stop amd from making chips and shipping. it is their major product there is no way for intel to put amd's x86 ginie back in the bottle. all they can do is prevent global foundries from decideing it holds the licence and it can make its own chips.
Click to expand...
Sigh... Intel will still retain AMD's IP, since AMD is the only company of the two to breach the agreement. AMD's strategy is crying for help and making unrelated noise.
 
§kynet;1033857804 said:
That is not relevant here.
Click to expand...

It is, because it shows that the license terms aren't the same for both parties.

§kynet;1033857804 said:
Without x64, Intel is in a bad position. It is blatantly obvious that if the agreement is not in place, it will hurt both. How much each will be hurt is up for debate.
Click to expand...

AMD will have no CPUs at all anymore.

§kynet;1033857804 said:
Goodbye massive software base. Goodbye hardware install base. Goodbye market.
Click to expand...

Not really. Itaniums can run Windows and all Windows applications, either x86 or native IA64. Many server software comes in native IA64 variation.
Aside from that, obviously there's also various *nix flavours and opensource software that works on IA64.
This means that transitioning to IA64 in the server market will be very smooth.

§kynet;1033857804 said:
I don't claim anything. I am not AMD or Intel. AMD claims Intel violated the contract by not following the specific dispute guidelines.
Click to expand...

AMD's claim is circumstantial. Intel is following the guidelines, it's just that AMD argues that there is no dispute.
Now only if AMD can prove that they don't violate the agreement, only then can they argue that Intel was out of line in escalating the dispute.
If Intel wins the dispute, AMD will have no case by default.

§kynet;1033857804 said:
Intel claims AMD is outsourcing x86 production because GlobalFoundries does not meet the contractual standards.
Click to expand...

Which seems very plausible, since AMD doesn't own the majority of GlobalFoundries, and GF doesn't own an x86 license itself. All this is covered in the agreement terms.

What Intel wants, seems to be that GF also gets an x86 license, and Intel will get royalties twice, once from AMD, once from GF, for every x86 processor produced.

§kynet;1033857804 said:
To be clear, AMD did not accuse Intel of anything, and had no intentions of doing so, until Intel decided to go after AMD. AMD's lawyers are doing what they do, fighting back.
Click to expand...

As I say, that doesn't necessarily mean they have a case.
 
No Disrupts in Shipments of AMD Processors Because of Legal Dispute with Intel Expected.

Industry experts do not expect any disrupts with further shipments or development of microprocessors by Advanced Micro Devices after Intel initiated legal dispute against its smaller rival claiming that its manufacturing joint venture infringes patents of the chip giant.

“Gosh, I’d worry more about a meteor slamming into the Earth,” said Nathan Brookwood, an analyst at Insight64, noting that very few patent lawsuits in Silicon Valley result in either party being forced to halt production, reports ComputerWorld web-site.
Click to expand...


http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...use_of_Legal_Dispute_with_Intel_Expected.html
 
Scali2 said:
Not really. Itaniums can run Windows and all Windows applications, either x86 or native IA64. Many server software comes in native IA64 variation.

This means that transitioning to IA64 in the server market will be very smooth.
Click to expand...
You just lost all shred of credibility. It would take many years for the market to transition to IA64, if it is even possible. And even it if happened, it would create incredible expense and chaos. Not to mention all existing x86 software and games would run incredibly slow. Never mind that you would need an entirely new driver base for everything.

There is so much wrong with your statement it boggles the mind.
AMD's claim is circumstantial. Intel is following the guidelines
Click to expand...
You honestly think you are the judge in this case don't you.
Which seems very plausible...
Click to expand...
Again, that is up to a court to decide, if it goes that far.
 
§kynet;1033857890 said:
You just lost all shred of credibility. It would take many years for the market to transition to IA64, if it is even possible. And even it if happened, it would create incredible expense and chaos. Not to mention all existing x86 software and games would run incredibly slow. Never mind that you would need an entirely new driver base for everything.

There is so much wrong with your statement it boggles the mind.
Click to expand...

Actually no. I've actually used Itanium systems with both Windows and *nix flavours.
It's nowhere near as disastrous as you think. Then again, you don't know what you're talking about. You've probably never even seen an Itanium up close.

§kynet;1033857890 said:
Again, that is up to a court to decide, if it goes that far.
Click to expand...

No, it's not up to the court to decide whether or not it's plausible. It *is* plausible:
"Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible"
The court has the final word in whether it is accepted as truth or not.
 
alg7_munif said:
Who will decide whether the agreement has been breached by whom? What will happen until it has been decided? How long will it take until a decision is made?
Click to expand...

We already went over this. Stop repeating yourself. Obviously every court case is unique, and what happens and how long it will take depends on the proceedings.
You cannot possibly expect an actual answer on these questions. The fact that you keep throwing up these questions is very annoying and disrespectful.
 
§kynet;1033857926 said:
According to Scali2, Intel decides.
Click to expand...

In a way, yes. Intel was pretty clear in the license agreement terms that the license was non-transferable, and a company only counts as a subsidiary if AMD owns more than 50%, which they don't.
This was decided way back when Intel and AMD signed the agreement.

AMD has to prove that despite not owning more than 50%, and the foundry not having an x86-license, that they still don't breach these license terms... Seems impossible to me, but oh well, AMD seems to think that Intel's allegedly illegal business practices means that AMD can break license terms.
 
Unless it has been decided by the court, the agreement has not been breached by any party, both parties can accuse the other party of wrong doing but it is up for the court to decide it.
 
alg7_munif said:
Unless it has been decided by the court, the agreement has not been breached by any party, both parties can accuse the other party of wrong doing but it is up for the court to decide it.
Click to expand...

That's not true actually.
Just like when you murder someone. It's not like the murder didn't happen until you get convicted. The crime already happened, even if you might get away with it.
If Intel is right, then AMD has already breached the agreement the moment the split-up was final.

The court will just decide whether or not Intel is right in their assessment of the terms, after the fact.

In such cases it's not uncommon to get monetary compensation for the duration of the breach of the agreement to the final ruling.
 
Scali2 said:
That's not true actually.
Just like when you murder someone. It's not like the murder didn't happen until you get convicted. The crime already happened, even if you might get away with it.
Click to expand...
If no one sees the crime, did it happen? Maybe, maybe not. That is what a trial is for, to have evidence presented on both sides, then a verdict is reached. You are have very strange, idealistic idea (some would say warped and biased) of how legal matters are handled. :p
 
Scali2 said:
The court will just decide whether or not Intel is right in their assessment of the terms, after the fact.
Click to expand...
Please stop already, this is getting absurd. Read the agreement on how the escalating process is handled. That is what both AMD and Intel adhere to. Not any demand Intel tosses out there, forcing AMD to go to court in the hopes of reversing things "after the fact"

If what you are trying to say is true, then Intel would have sent letters long ago and AMD would not be making processors anymore, or at the very least would have been in court many times attempting to get back their x86 license. Get a clue.
 
§kynet;1033858589 said:
Please stop already, this is getting absurd. Read the agreement on how the escalating process is handled. That is what both AMD and Intel adhere to. Not any demand Intel tosses out there, forcing AMD to go to court in the hopes of reversing things "after the fact"

If what you are trying to say is true, then Intel would have sent letters long ago and AMD would not be making processors anymore, or at the very least would have been in court many times attempting to get back their x86 license. Get a clue.
Click to expand...

Intel never had any reason to escalate, because AMD never did anything to violate the license terms, until now.
Intel already publicly spoke out their doubts regarding the legality of AMD's split-up before it was final.
And the moment the split-up was final, Intel contacted AMD, exactly as the agreement prescribes.

AMD isn't planning to mediate the issue with Intel... in which case, according to the agreement, they'll be in court within 30 days.

You just don't seem to understand any of this, other than that it is somehow bad for AMD, and cognitive dissonance takes over.
 
Scali2 said:
Intel never had any reason to escalate, because AMD never did anything to violate the license terms, until now.
Click to expand...
Translation, Intel feels threatened by the FAB spin-off, and pulled their legals sharks out of the cellar.
Intel already publicly spoke out their doubts regarding the legality of AMD's split-up before it was final.
Click to expand...
Of course the did, no doubt out of concern for the greater good. Not. If you honestly think Intel has any concern for the law, you are incredibly gullible. They are going after AMD because the last thing they want is a leading edge FAB open for business where companies can get GPU's and non x86 parts minted. It is no coincidence that Intel has brokered a deal with TSMC.
You just don't seem to understand any of this.
Click to expand...
I understand perfectly fine. I also understand that you are either a raving fan***, an Intel employee, or both. No one with any sense believes what Intel is doing has any purpose except to drive AMD out of the market.

Not that you care, you want the market to consist of $2500 Itanium's running x86 emulated games. ;)
 
§kynet;1033858843 said:
Translation, Intel feels threatened by the FAB spin-off, and pulled their legals sharks out of the cellar.
Click to expand...

I don't think you get it...
Intel knew from day 1 that outsourced production would be a threat, and as such has put in all these clauses in the agreement. AMD was fully aware of these clauses when they signed it. These clauses have been in there since 1991. It's not something Intel just thought of last week. That's what you seem to think.

Since these terms are in the agreement, Intel has an obligation to defend them, that's the law. I don't think Intel is actually anywhere near as bothered about the actual effects on the market today as they were back in 1991, because Intel has a much better grip on the market today.

§kynet;1033858843 said:
Of course the did, no doubt out of concern for the greater good. Not. If you honestly think Intel has any concern for the law, you are incredibly gullible. They are going after AMD because the last thing they want is a leading edge FAB open for business where companies can get GPU's and non x86 parts minted. It is no coincidence that Intel has brokered a deal with TSMC.
Click to expand...

I have absolutely no idea where you're getting that from. This concerns ONLY the use of x86 IP. Intel has no control over what other things AMD decides to fab. In fact, one could argue that if AMD stops making x86 processors, they'd only have MORE capacity to build GPUs and non-x86 parts.

Also, if you think that ANY commercial company ever does anything "for the greater good", you're the gullible one.

Again, Intel has a legal obligation to defend the agreement, and its IP. Intel's shareholders expect this of Intel.
 
Scali2 said:
That's not true actually.
Just like when you murder someone. It's not like the murder didn't happen until you get convicted. The crime already happened, even if you might get away with it.
If Intel is right, then AMD has already breached the agreement the moment the split-up was final.

The court will just decide whether or not Intel is right in their assessment of the terms, after the fact.

In such cases it's not uncommon to get monetary compensation for the duration of the breach of the agreement to the final ruling.
Click to expand...

Someone stabbed himself in front of you, you tried to save him by pulling out the knife from his wound. He bleeds out to death. While you were pulling out the knife, a prosecutor passed by with his friend and saw you. For him, it looks like you killed the guy and he got himself an eyewitness and the evidence was also there. It seemed to be an easy murder case for him.

Luckily for you, there is a surveillance camera that recorded everything from the beginning so it seemed like an easy defense for you. The prosecutor never considered the recording since he thought that he already have a strong case.

Who will decide here whether it is murder or not? Who will decide here whether you are guilty or not. You could still be charged because if you didn't remove the knife, the man could still be alive when help came.
 
alg7_munif said:
Someone stabbed himself in front of you, you tried to save him by pulling out the knife from his wound. He bleeds out to death. While you were pulling out the knife, a prosecutor passed by with his friend and saw you. For him, it looks like you killed the guy and he got himself an eye witness and the evidence was also there. It seemed to be an easy murder case for him.

Luckily for you, there is a surveillance camera that recorded everything from the beginning so it seemed like an easy defense for you. The prosecutor never considered the camera since he thought that he already have a strong case.

Who will decide here whether it is murder or not? Who will decide here whether you are guilty or not. You could still be charged because if you didn't remove the knife, the man could still be alive when help came.
Click to expand...

I don't see your point.
No matter what the outcome, the actual time and place of death/murder/crime won't change.
 
I don't understand how you guys are comparing state imposed laws vs contracts / agreements

#1 is a law imposed by the state or fed government that is absolute

#2 is an AGREEMENT made by 2 parties

if AMD did what intel is accusing them of or not, they wont be put in jail till their trail starts for starters, so far NO CRIME has been committed only a claim has been filed

once the court reviews the claim, and passes judgment either way, then you can say if a crime had been committed or not.


why the hell are you guys even arguing about this in the first place 0.0 ?
 
sdlvx said:
AMD did break the contract, but it's not like Intel can really do anything. What are they gonna do?

Take away AMD's x86 license? Then Intel will have no major competition, and in case you didn't notice, the congress and the president are all Dems. They aren't going to stand for a monopoly like that.



Sounds like pure FUD to me. How long has AMD owned ATI? TWO TO THREE YEARS! And now all of a sudden Intel decides to give a shit about ATI+AMD? You don't wait years and not do anything, and then come back when someone else is ready to make a power move and hold shit over their head like that.
Click to expand...

What do you mean they won't have competition. VIA is still making C7 processors and those use the x86 instruction set. There will be competition, just not good competition.
I hate to make this political, but if the current administration backs AMd in breaking their contract and violating patents and such, How are you ever going to uphold any patents in the United States? That's going to be a slippery slope.
 
Some of you guys gotta understand something about the court system. You are innocent until proven guilty. I see some people saying the exact opposite. I bet you the contract will be tore up and x86 instructions will become public domain. If intel lost the rights to create x86-64 cpus it would be devastating for them just as much as if amd lost x86. You can't live without x64 now in days. Both companys will take a hit. I don't think anyone will stop production especially in this economic crisis. Once the courts are settled things will happen.
 
Conker said:
You can't live without x64 now in days.
Click to expand...

You think? I bet that even on an enthusiast forum like this, the majority still runs a 32-bit OS.
The majority of PCs sold today are also still 32-bit.
In fact, today I got a new PC at work... Guess what OS was installed? XP 32-bit. And yes, the machine came with 4 GB.

And yes, that's a software development machine. I'm ashamed of my company... We still don't support Vista officially, and don't even get started on 64-bit.
Despite the fact that we use relatively large datasets (offshore survey), and 64-bit could actually work to our advantage.
 
Scali2 said:
You think? I bet that even on an enthusiast forum like this, the majority still runs a 32-bit OS.
The majority of PCs sold today are also still 32-bit.
In fact, today I got a new PC at work... Guess what OS was installed? XP 32-bit. And yes, the machine came with 4 GB.

And yes, that's a software development machine. I'm ashamed of my company... We still don't support Vista officially, and don't even get started on 64-bit.
Despite the fact that we use relatively large datasets (offshore survey), and 64-bit could actually work to our advantage.
Click to expand...

cost cutting :p
but how many servers do you see shipped out with 32bit OSs installed ?f

either way this is off topic
 
I guess if it's definite that AMD is going to fold, then I'd better buy 3 x4 940s and 3 more Asus M4A79 Deluxe mb's and another 8 GB of high-end 1.8-1.95V 667 or 800 MHz 4-4-4 DDR2 to last my lifetime, since I will be no more likely than I ever was before to buy anything that has the intel logo on it.

The only reason intel is going to be the ultimate victor is because AMD simply let intel win.

And now it's too late for AMD to start fighting back, unfortunately.

Does anyone know what will happen to ATI? Not that I would ever buy another one of their video cards, but still interested to know.
 
no2censorship said:
I guess if it's definite that AMD is going to fold, then I'd better buy 3 x4 940s and 3 more Asus M4A79 Deluxe mb's and another 8 GB of high-end 1.8-1.95V 667 or 800 MHz 4-4-4 DDR2 to last my lifetime, since I will be no more likely than I ever was before to buy anything that has the intel logo on it.

The only reason intel is going to be the ultimate victor is because AMD simply let intel win.

And now it's too late for AMD to start fighting back, unfortunately.

Does anyone know what will happen to ATI? Not that I would ever buy another one of their video cards, but still interested to know.
Click to expand...

What did AMD ever have that beat out Intel hands down all across the board? And don't even say Athlon 64 because it simply trades blows with P4 HT. And even when their X2's came out and dominated the market, AMD did the exact same fucking thing you accuse Intel of doing... Anyone else remember $300 X2 3800+, $500 X2 4200+, $700 X2 4800+ and $1000 FX-60's?

AMD sat on their asses after K8 was released. Then when Core2 comes out and stomps the shit out them they try to pass of a worked over K8 design as the new hotness in chips design.. oooh native quad core. The damn thing couldn't even compete with Conroe, much less Penryn that was out by the time they works all the issue out. Then they sit there shove this triple core crap on us as if it were some great thing for the market when in fact it was just to cover up that native quad cores were killing their pitiful yeilds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top