Intel is making waves about AMD's split-up

Scali2 said:
I don't see your point.
No matter what the outcome, the actual time and place of death/murder/crime won't change.
Click to expand...

The outcome is the most important thing in the dispute between AMD and Intel because from Intel's point of view, AMD has breached the agreement but from AMD's point of view, the Globalfoundry is just a subsidary. Only the court can rule whether the agreement has been breached or not, not Intel, not you, not me, and not even tons of legal experts on the web.

If the court decides that the agreement was not breached then it means that the agreement is not breached, it is as simple as that. If the court decides that the agreement has been breached then the agreement was breached. Until there is a ruling on this, the agreement would still be valid and what can Intel really do about it?
 
ryan_975 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, I remember the rip-off that was Athlon FX series.
However, there is no denying the simple fact that AMD's cpus have had far better better performance:price ratio, since the 1st Athlon came out in 1999. From time to time AMD was always more

Intel also started the expensive shit, with the coppermine, well before AMD ever released its FX series.

Intel also started outsourcing the manufacturing of their cpu's first, when they didn't even need to. It may have given them more unnecessary profit, but intel gives very little back. AMD beat intel to 2 logical cores on physical CPU AND they were the first to have an IMC; intel's non-pin design sucks too.

Besides, there is no denying that amd comes closer to being a company that has cared about the consumer, while intel has the image of an greedy evil company that only cares about ripping people off.

Face it, if intel paid dell to use their inferior pentium d's, then obviously intel knew they were making the inferior product and is just a company out to make money; further, intel has nothing to gain from this in the long run, so they just have some vendetta against amd just like they do against nvidia as indicated when they came out of nowhere with some bogus lawsuit just trying to hurt a company that doesn't make as much money. Intel's also hypocrites for making it part of the contract that AMD couldn't use their patents if AMD outsourced production, yet AMD never chose to make it part of the contract for intel to not use amd's patents if they outsourced production to another company.

Intel makes sony and the post-90s nintendo look as virtuous as sega was when Tom Kalinske was their CEO. At least nintendo has finally had a lasting successful partnership with ibm since 1999 and ati since they absorbed art-x and at least nintendo can justify the high price of the wii by laws of supply and demand (people that want it more are willing to pay more for it) and nintendo has finally lowered their 3rd party royalties to what their current competitors charge.

I would almost quit bitching about socialism if the Obama admin defended AMD:D
 
Oh god, I hate breaking up posts, but you've got so much nonsense that I can't resist.

no2censorship said:
Yes, I remember the rip-off that was Athlon FX series.
Click to expand...
And what about the high prices of the rest of the Athlon64 single and dual cores? Single cores didn't drop in price until the X2's came around, the X2 didn't drop significantly in price until Core 2 stomp them. They may not have been $1000+ dollars (the X2 4800+ actually was at first), but there weren't bargains by any means. They had the only 64-bit x86 chips and they took advantage of it. Just like Intel did before then.

However, there is no denying the simple fact that AMD's cpus have had far better better performance:price ratio, since the 1st Athlon came out in 1999. From time to time AMD was always more
Click to expand...
Their CPUs were faster and / or cheaper, but they didn't have a decent motherboard to put them in. Super7 more or less belonged to VIA, and god knows the problems we had to endure as we from 4n1 to 4n1. On slot/socket A boards, AMD had the best chipset, but they decided it was in their best interest to discontinue producing them, and we were back with shitty VIA and SiS again. Great performance, if you could keep the BSOD's to a minimum.

Intel also started the expensive shit, with the coppermine, well before AMD ever released its FX series.
Click to expand...
You're argument is "He did it first, so I'm just going ignore it when the other guy does it." They're both out to get your dollar, they both will lie cheat and steal to get it. Neither one "deserves" it, so move on and just get whichever one suits your needs the best. If that's a cheap low power box, AMD fits the bill right now. If you need as more raw processing power you can throw at a project, then Intel is where you need to be right now. Brand loyalty and corporate anthropomorphism is just plain childish.


Intel also started outsourcing the manufacturing of their cpu's first, when they didn't even need to.
Click to expand...
It's their damn product, they have that right. AMD doesn't. (okay, yeah Atom has x86_64, which is AMD's baby, but regardless, Intel probably has the right to manufacture it however they see fit.)

It may have given them more unnecessary profit, but intel gives very little back.
Click to expand...
Unnecessary profit? Are you serious? I tell you what, go ahead and give every single dollar you make above your absolute needs back to your employer and then come back bitching about a for-profit corporation making too much money.

AMD beat intel to 2 logical cores on physical CPU AND they were the first to have an IMC;
Click to expand...
First of all, Pentium 4 was the first with 2 logical cores, and Pentium D was the first to have two physical cores. AMD did have an integrated IMC, but there were problems with it (such as not supporting four double-sided dimms, or four DDR-400 dimms). and it really didn't give it much of an advantage since the P4 HT still beat it in some tasks.

intel's non-pin design sucks too.
Click to expand...
I find it quite ingenious. No more broken pins. And if I remember right, AMD also has a pinless socket design as well.

Besides, there is no denying that amd comes closer to being a company that has cared about the consumer,
Click to expand...
If charging an arm and a leg for their products, killing platforms prematurely, and outright lying to customers about future products is caring about the consumer, I'd rather be left uncared for.

while intel has the image of an greedy evil company that only cares about ripping people off.
Click to expand...
Yeah, ripping people off by having their fastest dual core offering set cheaper than AMD's slowest dual core. Or awesome pricing on the Core 2 Duo when they came out and stomped AMD's ass (remember a $350 product outperformed a product released at $1,000 just a few months earlier). Of course a $160 quad core processor is such a ripoff too.

Face it, if intel paid dell to use their inferior pentium d's, then obviously intel knew they were making the inferior product and is just a company out to make money;
Click to expand...
Oh please, AMD couldn't supply Dell with the number of processor they need in their wettest dreams. Pentium D's were cheaper and more available.

further, intel has nothing to gain from this in the long run, so they just have some vendetta against amd just like they do against nvidia as indicated when they came out of nowhere with some bogus lawsuit just trying to hurt a company that doesn't make as much money.
Click to expand...
They have a legal obligation to protect their agreements and IP. If they don't, their shareholders can sue them. They have a LOT more to lose there than in a few anti-trust cases.

Intel's also hypocrites for making it part of the contract that AMD couldn't use their patents if AMD outsourced production, yet AMD never chose to make it part of the contract for intel to not use amd's patents if they outsourced production to another company.
Click to expand...
AMD signed that contract too. They fully knew what the terms were and what would happen if they breached them before the ink dried.

Intel makes sony and the post-90s nintendo look as virtuous as sega was when Tom Kalinske was their CEO. At least nintendo has finally had a lasting successful partnership with ibm since 1999 and ati since they absorbed art-x and at least nintendo can justify the high price of the wii by laws of supply and demand (people that want it more are willing to pay more for it) and nintendo has finally lowered their 3rd party royalties to what their current competitors charge.

I would almost quit bitching about socialism if the Obama admin defended AMD:D
Click to expand...

If anything, AMD is more like a scaled down version of Sony than Intel is. They just have the luxory of being the "under dog" constantly being kicked by the Big Evil Intel Man.
 
*gets popcorn and candy*

As i said before this is huge legal catfight that amd will win if they do not M.A.D. will basically gut both sides since amd does hold some key patients that can hurt intel's new micro arch
 
maxius said:
*gets popcorn and candy*

As i said before this is huge legal catfight that amd will win if they do not M.A.D. will basically gut both sides since amd does hold some key patients that can hurt intel's new micro arch
Click to expand...
BUT, Intel has not breached any part of the agreement, MEANING they legally KEEP the AMD IP provided under the agreement. AMD is the only one that's potentially up for any form of gutting.
 
What I don't get, is why would AMD have spun-off production, if it could've put them in trouble like this?

If they did it without knowing it breached the contract, then AMD might have a case. Ignorance of the law does not protect you, but ignorance of not knowing what you did is a defense. At least in criminal cases. Suppose the people that signed it aren't there anymore? Suppose it was signed by someone else who is no longer there?

My other question: What will happend to ATI if intel wins? I don't like their vid cards, but it's an interesting thing to ponder.

Keep in mind how bogus Intel's current lawsuit is against nvidia.

Unless the guy at AMD who signed the contract was looking to extend AMD's time by about a year, maybe less, or run off with a lot of money, then I don't think they would've spun-off production.

If AMD survives, though, then their product quality will go down, because the Foundry couldn't possibly do as good of production as AMD did.
 
alg7_munif said:
The outcome is the most important thing in the dispute between AMD and Intel because from Intel's point of view, AMD has breached the agreement but from AMD's point of view, the Globalfoundry is just a subsidary.
Click to expand...

That's exactly the point.
The agreement clearly states that it considers a subsidiary to be a company where AMD owns more than 50%.
Since AMD only owns about 40% of GF, I don't see what rabbit AMD is going to pull out of its hat to try and convince a court that they meet the 50% requirement that is in the agreement.
Tell me how they're going to do that?
That's right, they can't. There's no way AMD can win this in a fair trial.
 
Scali2 said:
That's exactly the point.
The agreement clearly states that it considers a subsidiary to be a company where AMD owns more than 50%.
Since AMD only owns about 40% of GF, I don't see what rabbit AMD is going to pull out of its hat to try and convince a court that they meet the 50% requirement that is in the agreement.
Tell me how they're going to do that?
That's right, they can't. There's no way AMD can win this in a fair trial.
Click to expand...
If AMD pays off the other ~10%, by the time this the verdict is ruled then they have a case, perhaps. If, supposing amd has bought 50% or more of the Foundry, since their initial investment, then they would not have violated the contract, if the contract did not say the time at which AMD had to have a 50% subsidiary by.

One more thing. If AMD knew that they had to pay 50% in a certain time, then why wouldn't they have done it, unless someone at amd was just trying to run off with a lot of money?; Also, like I said, if someone unwittingly commits a crime, then you have a defense; likewise, if AMD didn't know that they were breaching the contract (like when they had to pay 50% or more of their subsidiary), which is quite possible as is indicated by the fact that they certainly would've just bought a little bit more of the Foundry, then they have defense.
For all we know, they could've paid 50% now, and they're refusing to give info to intel so that they'd waste their money on lawyers, without AMD having to make false statements.

Notice this is at a time when the tables have turned; not nearly a 180 degree turn, but intel recently had a bad quarter while amd has been doing much better and intel probably filed this lawsuit because they don't want to lose their position of being completely dominant.
 
no2censorship said:
What I don't get, is why would AMD have spun-off production, if it could've put them in trouble like this?
Click to expand...

Because they didn't have any other choice.
I'm not sure if you're familiar with AMD's financial situation, but in the past 2 years they've been bleeding cash and have been on the verge of bankrupcy. If it wasn't for the investors from Abu Dhabi, they'd be bankrupt by now.
Perhaps AMD thought this was the only way to survive... or perhaps the investors from Abu Dhabi agreed to invest only if they could own the majority of the foundry (for whatever plans they have with it).

no2censorship said:
If they did it without knowing it breached the contract, then AMD might have a case.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. Even people like pxc and myself were saying that the split-up would violate the x86-license, on this very forum. Now if even people like us think the move is suspect, surely AMD, who did not only read the license agreement, but actually signed it, and renewed it once (they've had it since 1991, and renew it every 10 years, next is 2011), surely they would know that what they're doing now isn't right. If not, that's no excuse. They signed the agreement, so they are bound by its terms.
There is no excuse like "the guy that signed it doesn't work here anymore"... they have a copy of the agreement in their archives, and anyone can look at it anytime they want.
Heck, AMD's core business is x86 processors, this license is arguably the single most important contract in the entire company.

no2censorship said:
My other question: What will happend to ATI if intel wins? I don't like their vid cards, but it's an interesting thing to ponder.
Click to expand...

It's all in AMD's hands. Intel can only affect AMD's ability to manufacture x86 processors.
Intel just wants the GlobalFoundries company to have an x86 license aswell.
If Intel wins, AMD can either pay up, or stop producing x86 processors.
It won't affect ATi.

no2censorship said:
If AMD survives, though, then their product quality will go down, because the Foundry couldn't possibly do as good of production as AMD did.
Click to expand...

Why not? The Foundry is basically the same AMD factories, with the same personnel under a different name. Now that they're being run as a separate entity, they might work more efficiently than before, and actually do a better job (that's the reason why AMD wanted to split up in the first place).
 
Thanks, Scali2=]
Perhaps AMD doesn't have a case, but maybe they don't care; as another user pointed out, they could just make a new architecture. From acquiring the Foundry, they now have access to 32nm tech, and even if AMD had to recall and destroy all amd cpu's tomorrow, then they wouldn't have to worry about having an alternative to x86 for quite some time, because they would just make enough from giving their current gpu lineup a ~51% boost to 32nm from 65nm.

I just read about the Foundry deal; with all of the profit=R&D money [IBM's 32 nm tech could be used for GPUs] that it seems like it will yield AMD, I doubt AMD has much to worry about if they lose the x86 license.

AMD wouldn't have breached the contract if they thought there was any possible way it would cause them to go under; the x86 architecture ain't that important.

Keep in mind, they have ATI, who could easily co-op with AMD to make a GPGPU that could compete with the X86 architecture. CPUs as we know them are about to evolve, or I guess one could say GPU's are about to evolve.

I think AMD is eventually going to catch up to intel. They've got a long way to go. We won't ever have a good economy, because we'll never have real money ever again, as is a result of the fact that we'll never have a free banking era again, and intel is obviously having a lot of trouble getting larrabee out, and they always have had trouble with their igp's. Then, they're the type to over-estimate how much money they have. All of that means they won't ever provide more affordable products, so I wouldn't be surprised if 10 years from now, i.e., 2019 the completely socialist govt will be stealing from the tax-payer for an intel bail-out. Intel's attitude reminds me of GM's.
 
no2censorship said:
as another user pointed out, they could just make a new architecture.
Click to expand...

In theory they could. In practice there's no way they could get anywhere near the marketshare they have now with a non-x86 processor.

no2censorship said:
From acquiring the Foundry, they now have access to 32nm tech
Click to expand...

AMD didn't acquire anything, and they don't have 32 nm technology (nobody does, except Intel).
The Foundry is a part of AMD that is now split off, and owned partly by the investors from Abu Dhabi (ATIC, not to be confused with ATi).

no2censorship said:
and even if AMD had to recall and destroy all amd cpu's tomorrow, then they wouldn't have to worry about having an alternative to x86 for quite some time, because they would just make enough from giving their current gpu lineup a ~51% boost to 32nm from 65nm.
Click to expand...

Aside from the fact that AMD doesn't make its own GPUs (mostly done by TSMC, on 40 nm, not 65 nm), and doesn't have 32 nm, the GPU market is far smaller than the CPU market, and AMD would have to downsize considerably if they were to concentrate on GPUs only.

no2censorship said:
AMD wouldn't have breached the contract if they thought there was any possible way it would cause them to go under; the x86 architecture ain't that important.
Click to expand...

Actually it is. x86 is the only surviving desktop processor, and over 90% of all computers run on x86 hardware. The only other big market for processors is mobile/embedded devices (eg phones), which generally use ARM, but AMD doesn't have any ARM architectures, or even anything that could compete with them (unlike Intel with Atom).

no2censorship said:
Keep in mind, they have ATI, who could easily co-op with AMD to make a GPGPU that could compete with the X86 architecture. CPUs as we know them are about to evolve, or I guess one could say GPU's are about to evolve.
Click to expand...

Unless you can run x86 software, you won't be able to get a large market for any CPU/GPGPU. Not anywhere near the marketshare that AMD currently has, anyway. So AMD will have to downsize considerably.

no2censorship said:
I think AMD is eventually going to catch up to intel.
Click to expand...

Never going to happen. Intel is FAR FAR larger, and AMD was only able to get as big as they were by licensing Intel's technology. There's no way to beat Intel with their own technology, the license terms won't allow it.
Aside from that, Intel has basically NEVER turned in a loss over the past few decades, whereas AMD was struggling financially even in the heyday of the Athlon64/X2. Intel is and always was a healthy, well-managed company. AMD has never been healthy.
 
Scali2 said:
In theory they could. In practice there's no way they could get anywhere near the marketshare they have now with a non-x86 processor.

True.

AMD didn't acquire anything, and they don't have 32 nm technology (nobody does, except Intel).

They have an alliance with IBM, but IBM won't have the 32nm tech until the end of the year; however, when IBM has completed the 32nm tech, then I'm sure that ATI will leave TMSC immediately and that would be more money for AMD.

The Foundry is a part of AMD that is now split off, and owned partly by the investors from Abu Dhabi (ATIC, not to be confused with ATi).



Aside from the fact that AMD doesn't make its own GPUs (mostly done by TSMC, on 40 nm, not 65 nm), and doesn't have 32 nm, the GPU market is far smaller than the CPU market, and AMD would have to downsize considerably if they were to concentrate on GPUs only.



Actually it is. x86 is the only surviving desktop processor, and over 90% of all computers run on x86 hardware. The only other big market for processors is mobile/embedded devices (eg phones), which generally use ARM, but AMD doesn't have any ARM architectures, or even anything that could compete with them (unlike Intel with Atom).



Unless you can run x86 software, you won't be able to get a large market for any CPU/GPGPU. Not anywhere near the marketshare that AMD currently has, anyway. So AMD will have to downsize considerably.



Never going to happen. Intel is FAR FAR larger, and AMD was only able to get as big as they were by licensing Intel's technology. There's no way to beat Intel with their own technology, the license terms won't allow it.
Aside from that, Intel has basically NEVER turned in a loss over the past few decades, whereas AMD was struggling financially even in the heyday of the Athlon64/X2. Intel is and always was a healthy, well-managed company. AMD has never been healthy.True; although intel never really had to pay dell and fry's to not sell AMD's products and AMD should've advertised more.
Click to expand...
___
 
Scali2 said:
That's exactly the point.
The agreement clearly states that it considers a subsidiary to be a company where AMD owns more than 50%.
Since AMD only owns about 40% of GF, I don't see what rabbit AMD is going to pull out of its hat to try and convince a court that they meet the 50% requirement that is in the agreement.
Tell me how they're going to do that?
That's right, they can't. There's no way AMD can win this in a fair trial.
Click to expand...

You are not the judge here, why don't you let the judge decide it. It will be a long trial and in the mean time, there is nothing Intel can do about it.
 
alg7_munif said:
You are not the judge here, why don't you let the judge decide it. It will be a long trial and in the mean time, there is nothing Intel can do about it.
Click to expand...

It's not like he's telling AMD what to do is it? This is a forum for discussion. Scali2 is giving his perspective on the situation with the information he has available, and you're just running around telling him "You're not the judge!!! You're not judge!!! SHUT UP!!! SHUT UP!!! SHUT UP!!!"

If you have nothing to add to the discussion, such as some perspective that could suggest that AMD is in fact not breaking their agreement, then just sit back and watch to see how AMD manages to pull themselves out of this mess, if they can.
 
alg7_munif said:
You are not the judge here, why don't you let the judge decide it. It will be a long trial and in the mean time, there is nothing Intel can do about it.
Click to expand...

I'm not the judge, but I'm asking you to give me a reason why the judge wouldn't decide in Intel's favour, given the facts presented.
Since you are reluctant to give any, apparently deep down you don't think AMD can win this either.
In fact, this trial could be a very short one, since it is so clear-cut. This might mean that AMD's production can be halted very soon... And then AMD will have to try and reverse the decision... Now THAT can take a long time, but in the meantime, production is stopped.
I think AMD will do the smart thing and just let GF obtain a license.
 
ryan_975 said:
It's not like he's telling AMD what to do is it? This is a forum for discussion. Scali2 is giving his perspective on the situation with the information he has available, and you're just running around telling him "You're not the judge!!! You're not judge!!! SHUT UP!!! SHUT UP!!! SHUT UP!!!"

If you have nothing to add to the discussion, such as some perspective that could suggest that AMD is in fact not breaking their agreement, then just sit back and watch to see how AMD manages to pull themselves out of this mess, if they can.
Click to expand...

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20090316corp.htm

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. AMD's breach could result in the loss of licenses and rights granted to AMD by Intel under the agreement.
Click to expand...

I guess that Scali2 had access to the confidential portion of that agreement. :rolleyes:
 
ryan_975 said:
I said from the information available. All we have at this point is what intel says. But why go through the act of accusing the licensee and wanting a confidential section of the license agreement publicized to prove it if you're just blowing smoke?
Click to expand...

Exactly. Also, why would AMD refuse to make this part public if it means it would get them off the hook?
And why is AMD trying to bring the focus to the anti-trust case they have against Intel? Which has been going for years without any result?

I think they want to get Intel convicted in the anti-trust case, and as a result have the license declared invalid... even though they know they DID breach it.

But Intel has the upper hand... Namely, if AMD doesn't make the confidential section public, Intel can just take it to court, and AMD still loses. So Intel doesn't have to listen to AMD's demands, and I doubt they will. Not because I think they'd get convicted if they published the information that AMD demands, but because they aren't going to be intimidated by AMD.
 
ryan_975 said:
I said from the information available. All we have at this point is what intel says. But why go through the act of accusing the licensee and wanting a confidential section of the license agreement publicized to prove it if you're just blowing smoke?
Click to expand...

We also have what AMD say:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123721536373742063.html?mod=yahoo_hs&ru=yahoo
Harry Wolin, AMD's general counsel, said the Globalfoundries deal meets the requirements of a subsidiary as laid out in the agreement with Intel: The parent company must contribute at least 50% of any spinoff's assets, retain at least 50% voting control and at least 30% interest in any profits or losses.
Click to expand...

Since I'm not the judge and I don't have access to more information, I won't say whether Intel or AMD is right here. From what I can see, some people would just accept what Intel said but not what AMD said.

As for the confidential portion, why would they want to make it public? If it is not important for them, why make it confidential in the first place?
 
alg7_munif said:
We also have what AMD say:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123721536373742063.html?mod=yahoo_hs&ru=yahoo


Since I'm not the judge and I don't have access to more information, I won't say whether Intel or AMD is right here. From what I can see, some people would just accept what Intel said but not what AMD said.
Click to expand...

Care to post the text? All I get without subscribing is a summary of what we already know.

As far as not being judge and having a discussion goes, what does it matter what you say or don't say? It's not like what is said in this thread is going to affect the trial in any way is it? It's just good hearted fun to talk about. I hope AMD has a rabbit. Competition is key to innovation.
 
The point that I want to say is, this thing will not end soon, at least not in 60 days like Intel said. Intel cannot just terminte the license without losing the rights to AMD's IPs.The only way out is the court must decide that the agreement has been breached. Until there is a ruling, there is nothing that Intel can do to stop AMD unless they are willing to lose the rights to AMD's IPs too. One thing is for sure, if Intel proceed with the court case, it won't be a good thing for their antitrust case.
 
Scali2 said:
Exactly. Also, why would AMD refuse to make this part public if it means it would get them off the hook?
And why is AMD trying to bring the focus to the anti-trust case they have against Intel? Which has been going for years without any result?

I think they want to get Intel convicted in the anti-trust case, and as a result have the license declared invalid... even though they know they DID breach it.

But Intel has the upper hand... Namely, if AMD doesn't make the confidential section public, Intel can just take it to court, and AMD still loses. So Intel doesn't have to listen to AMD's demands, and I doubt they will. Not because I think they'd get convicted if they published the information that AMD demands, but because they aren't going to be intimidated by AMD.
Click to expand...


Well, AMD may be refusing because it doesn't matter what any of the public thinks. Who knows, maybe stir up some fear, pick up more of their stock (after prices fall with imminent failure coming) and then release the ace they are hiding in their sleeve & what do you know they are off the hook. Just one possible of many reasons, who really knows. We're looking at this through a straw.

Also, isn't it true that Intel is claiming AMD broke the terms - thus they are bringing the case to them (So Intel wins & retains all IP, AMD loses all), but AMD also countered that Intel is making a false claim - thus if AMD wins they gain all IP and Intel loses it for making the false claim?

Scali2 - Good possibility that AMD is doing a sort of self-sacrifice to bring light to the Intel anti-trust case as well, because that would override/nullify any decision on the cross-agreement, correct?

Either way, it seems like a ballsy move for AMD - and they are definitely not in the position to be trying to bully anyone, so I'm going to assume there is something substantial here that we don't know about. It is also very plausible that Intel might realize what AMD is doing - and know they may have a legitimate chance at success - but Intel is going to try and hang them up in court and bleed them for cash as long as possible.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out, although in the end I hope competition remains healthy. Otherwise, all of us are screwed.


Scali2, btw, are you from Southern California?
 
usmcz said:
Well, AMD may be refusing because it doesn't matter what any of the public thinks. Who knows, maybe stir up some fear, pick up more of their stock (after prices fall with imminent failure coming) and then release the ace they are hiding in their sleeve & what do you know they are off the hook. Just one possible of many reasons, who really knows. We're looking at this through a straw.

Also, isn't it true that Intel is claiming AMD broke the terms - thus they are bringing the case to them (So Intel wins & retains all IP, AMD loses all), but AMD also countered that Intel is making a false claim - thus if AMD wins they gain all IP and Intel loses it for making the false claim?

Scali2 - Good possibility that AMD is doing a sort of self-sacrifice to bring light to the Intel anti-trust case as well, because that would override/nullify any decision on the cross-agreement, correct?

Either way, it seems like a ballsy move for AMD - and they are definitely not in the position to be trying to bully anyone, so I'm going to assume there is something substantial here that we don't know about. It is also very plausible that Intel might realize what AMD is doing - and know they may have a legitimate chance at success - but Intel is going to try and hang them up in court and bleed them for cash as long as possible.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out, although in the end I hope competition remains healthy. Otherwise, all of us are screwed.


Scali2, btw, are you from Southern California?
Click to expand...

Nice 2nd post, welcome to the forums.
 
alg7_munif said:
The point that I want to say is, this thing will not end soon, at least not in 60 days like Intel said.
Click to expand...

Intel never said it would end after 60 days. What they said was: they think AMD's split-up is in violation of the agreement terms, and per the agreement, they have 30 days to have a meeting with Intel and mediate this dispute.
After the 30 days have past and there is no resolution, per the agreement, Intel has the right to take legal steps against AMD. So Intel is lenient with 60 days.

alg7_munif said:
Intel cannot just terminte the license without losing the rights to AMD's IPs.The only way out is the court must decide that the agreement has been breached.
Click to expand...

Yup, but an initial ruling could be rather quick.

alg7_munif said:
One thing is for sure, if Intel proceed with the court case, it won't be a good thing for their antitrust case.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Just because Intel is larger than AMD doesn't mean that Intel doesn't have the obligation to defend its IP and business contracts.
 
usmcz said:
Also, isn't it true that Intel is claiming AMD broke the terms - thus they are bringing the case to them (So Intel wins & retains all IP, AMD loses all), but AMD also countered that Intel is making a false claim - thus if AMD wins they gain all IP and Intel loses it for making the false claim?
Click to expand...

That's just the thing. Intel initiated it. Now I think it's pretty safe to assume that considering the size of Intel's corporation (and therefore its legal dept), and the fact that Intel is the one that set up the license terms in the first place, Intel wouldn't just go after AMD if they knew there was a chance of losing.
After all, Intel doesn't have a lot to win here. AMD isn't very competitive, and its main function is keeping anti-trust regulations off Intel's back. Intel doesn't have to pay for AMD's IP, and Intel isn't bound by any rules for using AMD's IP.
AMD is the one that has a lot to win, but they didn't initiate it. Obviously they'll try to turn things on Intel and get out of the stranglehold that is the x86 cross-license agreement. But they couldn't have done this if Intel didn't go after them in the first place, which Intel wouldn't have done if they weren't sure of themselves.

usmcz said:
Scali2, btw, are you from Southern California?
Click to expand...

Nope, I'm not even from the USA.
 
Scali2 said:
The agreement doesn't say anything about voting control when you own less than 50%. It just says you have to own more than 50%, which AMD doesn't.
Click to expand...

From my brief perusal of the agreement the subsidiary section actually states this:

1.22. "Subsidiary" shall mean any corporation, partnership, joint venture,
limited liability or other entity, now or hereafter, in which a
party

(a) owns or controls (either directly or indirectly) or originally
contributed (either directly or indirectly) at least fifty
percent (50%) of the tangible and intangible assets of such
entity; and

(b) owns or controls (either directly or indirectly) either of the
following:

(1) if such entity has voting shares or other securities, at
least fifty percent (50%) of the outstanding shares or
securities entitled to vote for the election of
directors or similar managing authority and such entity
is under no obligation (contractual or otherwise) to
directly or indirectly distribute more than seventy
percent (70%) of its profits to a third party, or

(2) if such entity does not have voting shares or other
securities, at least fifty percent (50%) of the
ownership interest that represents the right to make
decisions for such entity and an interest sufficient to
receive at least thirty percent (30%) of the profits
and/or losses of such entity.

(c) An entity shall be deemed to be a Subsidiary under this
Agreement only so long as all requisite conditions of being a
Subsidiary are met.
Click to expand...

They don't have to "own" 50%, rather they just had to contribute >= 50% of the original assets. Given that AMD gave GF all of its fabs I would say that constitutes >= 50%.

Also from the Global Foundries website itself, in relation to article (b) above:

The enterprise value of the manufacturing assets to be contributed by AMD to “The Foundry Company” will be reduced from a multiplier of 1.13x to 0.85x of the net book value of the assets. As a result, AMD will own approximately 34.2 percent and ATIC will own approximately 65.8 percent of “The Foundry Company’s” fully-converted common stock. AMD and ATIC will each have equal voting rights at the close of the transaction.
Click to expand...

Stock != voting shares. GF falls into (b)(2) whereby "AMD and ATIC will each have equal voting rights at the close of the transaction." as noted above. The common stock that AMD does own is still greater than the 30% profit sharing outlined in (b)(2).

I think AMD does have a case, but we'll see what the courts have to say about it. Pass the popcorn over here maxius :D.
 
Scali2 said:
The agreement doesn't say anything about voting control when you own less than 50%. It just says you have to own more than 50%, which AMD doesn't.
Click to expand...

So now you think you know the situation better than AMD's general counsel?

Silent.Sin said:
stuff that makes sense
Click to expand...

I'm glad someone with the patience to do so finally dug up something relevant, I was getting tired of watching Scali argue with nitwits and I'm much too ADD to look these things up myself :p

“Gosh, I’d worry more about a meteor slamming into the Earth,”
Click to expand...

I agree with this. I think this whole thing is posturing on Intel's part.
 
Sabrewulf165 said:
So now you think you know the situation better than AMD's general counsel?
Click to expand...

No, I think AMD knows they're wrong, but are just trying to tell the outside world that they're not.
AMD has a history of lying to its customers anyway. Just look at how they promoted Barcelona/Phenom prior to release. It was going to be the fastest, most power-efficient, most advanced x86 ever!
I'm quite sure AMD knew it was a dud even when making these statements. After all, they had engineering samples.
 
Scali2 said:
No, I think AMD knows they're wrong, but are just trying to tell the outside world that they're not.
AMD has a history of lying to its customers anyway. Just look at how they promoted Barcelona/Phenom prior to release. It was going to be the fastest, most power-efficient, most advanced x86 ever!
I'm quite sure AMD knew it was a dud even when making these statements. After all, they had engineering samples.
Click to expand...

You're entitled to your opinion about AMD's ethics but you do realize that attempting to connect those two things is a logical fallacy, right?

By the way, I ask this in all seriousness - did somebody from AMD piss in your cheerios, or do you just despise them for no rational reason? For as long as I can remember being on this board, you have been absolutely unwavering in your support of Intel and your trashing of AMD any time you get the chance. I would honestly like to know why that is.
 
Silent.Sin said:
From my brief perusal of the agreement the subsidiary section actually states this:
Click to expand...

I think you highlighted the wrong section.
It seems that 1) applies, not 2). If 2) applied, I'd be right by default, because that literally says 50% ownership. Since AMD doesn't have 50% ownership, there needs to be some kind of voting shares construction that gives them 1).

Silent.Sin said:
Stock != voting shares. GF falls into (b)(2) whereby "AMD and ATIC will each have equal voting rights at the close of the transaction." as noted above. The common stock that AMD does own is still greater than the 30% proft sharing outlined in (b)(2).
Click to expand...

If that's literally 'equal voting rights', then they both have 50%, but AMD has to somehow prove that they do.
 
Sabrewulf165 said:
By the way, I ask this in all seriousness - did somebody from AMD piss in your cheerios, or do you just despise them for no rational reason? For as long as I can remember being on this board, you have been absolutely unwavering in your support of Intel and your trashing of AMD any time you get the chance. I would honestly like to know why that is.
Click to expand...

That's the way I see it, and I consider my view to be as objective as possible.
I have nothing against AMD, but they pale in comparison to Intel on many fronts.
 
Scali2 said:
I think you highlighted the wrong section.
It seems that 1) applies, not 2). If 2) applied, I'd be right by default, because that literally says 50% ownership. Since AMD doesn't have 50% ownership, there needs to be some kind of voting shares construction that gives them 1).
Click to expand...

I think you just contradicted yourself. It literally says "ownership interest that represents the right to make decisions for such entity". The agreement provides for a subsidiary without voting shares, as in a board of shareholders in (b)(1), but rather a board of directors that makes decisions not based on shareholders' ownership stakes as in (b)(2). That is exactly what you were getting at here:

Scali2 said:
If that's literally 'equal voting rights', then they both have 50%, but AMD has to somehow prove that they do.
Click to expand...

That should be super easy to prove. They both have the same number of directors on the board which all have an equal say. Done.
 
Ron Dennis owns 15% of McLaren's share, Mumtalakat Holding Company owns 30%, Mercedes owns 40%, and TAG Group (Holdings) SA owns 15%, guess who owns the team here...
 
Silent.Sin said:
I think you just contradicted yourself.
Click to expand...

I don't think I did.
The second part was a response to what you said, and YOU assumed case 2). I think it will be case 1) instead.
But I was responding to your comment on case 2). So I didn't contradict myself, we just don't agree on which case it will be.

What I was getting at, and what you didn't seem to pick up on... how can you have 50% voting rights when you don't own 50% of the company AND the company does not have any construction of voting shares? In other words, how can 2) apply to AMD's case?
You have to have 50% ownership interest, that represents the right to make decisions... since obviously there are no voting shares or other securities to influence the right to make decisions.
AMD doesn't have the 50% ownership interest, period.

So I think 1) applies, which basically means that AMD has to have the right to pick the director/management, which is NOT the same as having 50% say in decisions, which AMD claims they have.

See the problem? There is YOUR/AMD's contradiction, not mine, not Intel's.
 
Scali2 said:
I don't think I did.
Click to expand...

con⋅tra⋅dict
–verb (used with object)
1. to assert the contrary or opposite of; deny directly and categorically.
2. to speak contrary to the assertions of

Scali2 said:
...Since AMD doesn't have 50% ownership, there needs to be some kind of voting shares construction that gives them 1).
Click to expand...
[sic: or 2) since either of those would make GF a valid subsidiary]
Scali2 said:
If that's literally 'equal voting rights', then they both have 50%...
Click to expand...

Those are two contradictory statements.

Also you misconstrued the quote by omitting anything after the word "ownership" in the agreement, which makes the rest of your assertion a fallacy. AMD does not have 50% "ownership" but they do have 50% "ownership interest that represents the right to make decisions for such entity".
 
Scali2 said:
What I was getting at, and what you didn't seem to pick up on... how can you have 50% voting rights when you don't own 50% of the company AND the company does not have any construction of voting shares?
Click to expand...

The agreement itself states that you do not need to have voting shares, which GF indeed does not have. A board of directors, or any other such decision making party, with which AMD retains 50% decision making power is equal in the terms of the agreement, which is why (b)(2) exists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top