AMD Lawyer: Intel Would 'Like Us Dead'

Lol, so ignoring the typical Intel vs. AMD, and ACTUALLY reading the article - can anyone elaborate on this point:

Intel says AMD needs to "own" the subsidiary
AMD says they need only contribute 50% (or more) assets.

Who is in the right here?
 
TeeJay88 said:
Im an intel fanboy, but without real competition, whose to say intel wouldnt get lazy and jack up prices, and get really lazy
Click to expand...

exactly! competition is needed
Take Microsoft and InternetExplorer for instance, if it wasn't for FF getting popular and eating into the browser marketshare would MS have started improving IE when they did?

Competition is good! and competition is needed and that is why there are anti-trust laws.

Intel cannot destroy AMD, Intel need AMD around to ensure that they don't get EU or US anti-trust investigator eye's (VIA doesn't count either ;) completly different x86 market a market that intel still isn't beating with their ATOM, nice 1st try tho).

AMD knows this plus they know the licencing agreement, if they didn't think they could spin off their foundries and get away with it they wouldn't. Whether it means an increase licence for or Intel's patent gets looked at who know

this is just sabre rattling, this aint like SCO vs Novell
 
Mav451 said:
Lol, so ignoring the typical Intel vs. AMD, and ACTUALLY reading the article - can anyone elaborate on this point:

Intel says AMD needs to "own" the subsidiary
AMD says they need only contribute 50% (or more) assets.

Who is in the right here?
Click to expand...

legal technicalities, both are right but it will take a magistrate to say who is right
 
Zellio2009 said:
I'd like AMD dead too, because they make crap cpus.
Click to expand...

ok so what do you think would happen if intel was the only cpu for microsoft based pcs? think about it real carefully. if you dont like amd thats your choice but think about the question i asked above. the alternative isent any better.
 
Mav451 said:
Lol, so ignoring the typical Intel vs. AMD, and ACTUALLY reading the article - can anyone elaborate on this point:

Intel says AMD needs to "own" the subsidiary
AMD says they need only contribute 50% (or more) assets.

Who is in the right here?
Click to expand...
As far as I know the agreement has not been made public. So we can't know what is actually in the agreement. Everyone is running around based on what the media is reporting.

Intel proposed to make their agreement Public, and AMD has put other stipulations they want before making it public.
http://www.infoworld.com/article/09...lets_make_the_crosslicense_deal_public_1.html
 
eeyrjmr said:
exactly! competition is needed
Take Microsoft and InternetExplorer for instance, if it wasn't for FF getting popular and eating into the browser marketshare would MS have started improving IE when they did?

Competition is good! and competition is needed and that is why there are anti-trust laws.

Intel cannot destroy AMD, Intel need AMD around to ensure that they don't get EU or US anti-trust investigator eye's (VIA doesn't count either ;) completly different x86 market a market that intel still isn't beating with their ATOM, nice 1st try tho).

AMD knows this plus they know the licencing agreement, if they didn't think they could spin off their foundries and get away with it they wouldn't. Whether it means an increase licence for or Intel's patent gets looked at who know

this is just sabre rattling, this aint like SCO vs Novell
Click to expand...
Even in the wake of AMD's shortcomings and spinning off of fabrication (even the economy), Intel has invested billions in 32nm production nodes. I don't believe Intel is getting lazy at all.
 
Love how AMD was on top of the world back when they had a good product, but are running to mommy and crying now that Intel is competitive again.

(By the way, Intel doesn't want AMD dead because AMD keeps the FTC off Intel's back.They're just beating AMD back into submission after AMD was so hot-headed and loud-mouthed during the X2 era. ;))
 
Anyone who denies the P4 absolutely blew chunks is lying to themselves and being a fool on the forums. I ran two boxes through their paces, similar setups. P4 1.6ghz running 800mhz Rambus memory (yeah, remember those? Screw you Rambus) and a P3 1.13Ghz running PC133 Ram.

The P4 succeeds in: Overheating, dragging itself to a crawl at random (miss/hit on the cache, the insanely long pipeline, it's actually noticeable when it needs to do something over)...

Now, for those who want to call me an AMD fanboy.... My current laptop is a C2D Asus G1, the one next to it is a P4 1.6ghz Dell, the one sitting on the shelf near my bed is an Aspire One with Atom. The two boxes by my feet currently 'operating' as two stands for a makeshift shelf are a P3 1.13Ghz and P4 1.6ghz Dellboxes. I do have one other box behind me. An Athlon XP 2000+. That runs as my fileserver.

I'm not a fanboy, but I do know what's better for the job and the P4's are pretty much unusable. I'd use a much slower clocked P3 before I'd touch a P4. The Athlon runs quieter and the motherboard is more modern. The laptop I had before the G1 was a Compaq with an AMD64 3800+. I built an AMD64 X2 AM2 box for my roommate, the other roommate has an XP 2600+ (former mediacenter) as his box.

AMD had Intel by the balls for a long while. From the Thunderbird to the AMD64's... Once Intel finally got the C2D out, it was pretty much the end of that. I'm glad to see AMD back in the fight with the Phenom II, but the i7 looks like it's the next C2D in terms of performance capabilities compared to the competition's offerings. I have no preference over AMD versus Intel... I'll use whatever is the best that I can afford or have access to at the time. However, I certainly don't want to see AMD out of the game. Intel are smug bastards with a massive bully complex if they don't have someone keeping them in check.
 
Intel's marketing dept. deserves the thanks for Netburst, engineering obviously for Core2. What's fucked up is that engineering should ALWAYS be responsible for CPU successes, but Intel is big enough to survive (or in their case, delude) the public into buying it's crappy designs.

And technically, AMD was never on top. Intel controlled the market enough that AMD never really got good penetration, and simply maxed out around the 1/5 to 1/4 (at best). That's hardly what I would consider being "on top". For knowledgeable, [H] enthusiasts? Sure, but we don't represent the actually industry marketshare or public buying habits that well.
 
Well, I've always overclocked AMD stuff, because they would let you! What also changed for
Intel was the ability to start overclocking their chips properly. (Remember how much Intel HATED
people overclocking their chips?) Now that Intel has pretty much embraced overclocking, they
don't seem to be the stodgy, corporate entity that they once appeared to be.

Funny how AMD had the integrated memory controller first, now Intel has taken it
and ran away with it.
 
All these threads turn into a fanboy turf war, which I try to avoid for a while now. But I do have something to add.

(Quotes taken from: http://techreport.com/discussions.x/16585)

Intel said this:

Intel said:
Intel believes that Global Foundries is not a subsidiary under terms of the agreement and is therefore not licensed under the 2001 patent cross-license agreement. 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.
Click to expand...

And AMD said this:

AMD said:
Intel's action is an attempt to distract the world from the global antitrust scrutiny it faces. Should this matter proceed to litigation, we will prove not only that Intel is wrong, but also that Intel fabricated this claim to interfere with our commercial relationships and thus has violated the cross-license.
Click to expand...

As is fairly obvious by their remarks, AMD avoided the question of why don't they make the portion of the agreement that Intel wants see, public, and just started to point fingers at why Intel is doing what they're doing...

Why don't they just show the agreement, prove Intel wrong and be done with it ? If the GlobalFoundry agreement covers the license agreement AMD has with Intel, 100%, why all this ? No one hides something, when they have nothing to hide...The fact that AMD throws their x86-64 license into the mix, certainly indicates that they want to use it as leverage to not go to court, which again, implies that they have something to hide and the GlobalFoundry agreement definitely violates the x86 license.
 
Silus said:
All these threads turn into a fanboy turf war, which I try to avoid for a while now. But I do have something to add.

(Quotes taken from: http://techreport.com/discussions.x/16585)

Intel said this:



And AMD said this:



As is fairly obvious by their remarks, AMD avoided the question of why don't they make the portion of the agreement that Intel wants see, public, and just started to point fingers at why Intel is doing what they're doing...

Why don't they just show the agreement, prove Intel wrong and be done with it ? If the GlobalFoundry agreement covers the license agreement AMD has with Intel, 100%, why all this ? No one hides something, when they have nothing to hide...The fact that AMD throws their x86-64 license into the mix, certainly indicates that they want to use it as leverage to not go to court, which again, implies that they have something to hide and the GlobalFoundry agreement definitely violates the x86 license.
Click to expand...

Lol wut?

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...
The reason why they don't want to make the portion public is the same reason why it was considered confidential before.
 
Btw, if they make the portion of the agreement public and if it does prove Intel wrong, what difference will it make? It is not the public that will decide whether the agreement was breached or not, the court will still need to rule on that.
 
alg7_munif said:
The reason why they don't want to make the portion public is the same reason why it was considered confidential before.
Click to expand...

It was confidential because Intel didn't want the licensees to know about their competitor's terms, to avoid endless debates on the terms.
How exactly does it help AMD to keep it confidential now?
 
alg7_munif said:
Btw, if they make the portion of the agreement public and if it does prove Intel wrong, what difference will it make? It is not the public that will decide whether the agreement was breached or not, the court will still need to rule on that.
Click to expand...

I think it's because AMD accuses Intel of fabricating these claims in public.
Note that it wasn't Intel who made this issue public.
The issue became public when AMD mentioned Intel's letter in its 8-K filing.
Then AMD publicly denied Intel's charges and started throwing unrelated issues like the anti-trust case in. So Intel says "make the agreement public if you want to publicly call us out".
Ultimately it won't solve the issue, but it will show the public who is the more trustworthy company, which can be worth lots in terms of public image.
 
no matter what people say, P4 IS CRAP!!
same goes to P-D series..

Back then Intel could not bring what AMD brought to us, but they did return back strong with Core 2 series.

AMD got something to show right now with Phenom II but still not enough to compete the top-end part..

overall, AMD did bring everyone a good price in market, if it wasn't AMD, Intel would jack up the price easily, its like nVidia force to bring down price against ATI..

no matter what people say, I really doubt AMD will goes down...and it should never go down...
 
This can acutally end up as a good thing for AMD. Not in the US buy in Europe. If AMD loses the rights to the x86 architechture then they can go to Europe, file an anti-trust lawsuit and in Europe they will win. You could see AMD make huge gains in Europe.
 
Why do people always argue about Pentium 4/D when AMD comes up?
That was years ago, people.
Besides, this has nothing to do with how good or bad AMD's CPUs are.
 
Scali2 said:
Why do people always argue about Pentium 4/D when AMD comes up?
That was years ago, people.
Besides, this has nothing to do with how good or bad AMD's CPUs are.
Click to expand...

it was brought up because someone implied that intel doesn't make crap CPU's and the P4 should never have been created,

likewise it is still being sold so it is still a valid topic
 
Sounds like a great time to switch over to ARM. x86 was getting old anyway.
 
Boomer.
that'd be steve jobs/apple, they spew out some bile and all their fanboys instantly attack whatever it is.
Click to expand...

QFT!!!!
 
devman said:
Sounds like a great time to switch over to ARM. x86 was getting old anyway.
Click to expand...

X86 has always been considered the bastard child of the microprocessor industry in the 80's and 90's because of it's quirks and inefficiencies. Better things have come along and gone, but who is still the 800lb. gorilla in the room? Like it or not, it's here to stay. For a long time to come.
 
I'm not even going to fuel the above statement.

Anyway, I think AMD would probably be a bit better off if intel wasn't so dominant over it's retailers. I can understand competition but outright bullying your way through retailers telling them what they can and can't do with competitors products has always struck me as odd. Wasn't there someone on here that said it was so bad in the asian region that you can rarely come across any AMD products at all?

not trying to argue what was better or anything about the P4 area because that topics been beat to death already but I think that AMD would've been much better off if Intel hadn't pretty much forced AMD's products off the shelves with politics and money, sure you can make the argument that AMD might have done a similar thing if the roles were reversed but they weren't. if AMD could've sold more processors during that era they would've been able to make create more architectures instead of constantly refining K8 and 10.
 
ChristmasGT said:
I'm not even going to fuel the above statement.

Anyway, I think AMD would probably be a bit better off if intel wasn't so dominant over it's retailers. I can understand competition but outright bullying your way through retailers telling them what they can and can't do with competitors products has always struck me as odd. Wasn't there someone on here that said it was so bad in the asian region that you can rarely come across any AMD products at all?

not trying to argue what was better or anything about the P4 area because that topics been beat to death already but I think that AMD would've been much better off if Intel hadn't pretty much forced AMD's products off the shelves with politics and money, sure you can make the argument that AMD might have done a similar thing if the roles were reversed but they weren't. if AMD could've sold more processors during that era they would've been able to make create more architectures instead of constantly refining K8 and 10.
Click to expand...

Uh...no. AMD's problem wasn't making enough money during the Athlon era. AMD's problem was to spend way too much to buy ATI (which wasn't worth that much...not even close), which created a huge debt and batsically meant absolutely no profi for years in a row.
 
ChristmasGT said:
I'm not even going to fuel the above statement.

Anyway, I think AMD would probably be a bit better off if intel wasn't so dominant over it's retailers. I can understand competition but outright bullying your way through retailers telling them what they can and can't do with competitors products has always struck me as odd. Wasn't there someone on here that said it was so bad in the asian region that you can rarely come across any AMD products at all?

not trying to argue what was better or anything about the P4 area because that topics been beat to death already but I think that AMD would've been much better off if Intel hadn't pretty much forced AMD's products off the shelves with politics and money, sure you can make the argument that AMD might have done a similar thing if the roles were reversed but they weren't. if AMD could've sold more processors during that era they would've been able to make create more architectures instead of constantly refining K8 and 10.
Click to expand...

normally i agree with the corporate bully ideas, because we see them and know they exist. HOWEVER in this particular case there was more going on.

AMD could have easily handled that kind of on the shelf bullying, but it continued to make one piss poor business decision after another and was managed very poorly *cough* Ruiz *cough*

Forcing its products into... was it dells or hp's i can't remember? bad move...ATI, i'd say there are arguments to be made either way on that one, but still that was alot of money they didn't necessarily have to kick around.

Extra capital when the core2 beast dropped could have meant a viable competitor sooner, not a viable one AFTER it's competitor moved onto something even better.

As for athlon, i think up to the introduction of core2 the chips were excellent. NOT just because Intel had a stumbling stone era. The chips were viable even with genuine competition. however Intel saw that and made a killer... i'm still waiting for the response to that one...which may never come since they were and are being mismanaged into the ground.
 
Isn't the reason why AMD has more power consumption because of the IMC?

I thought it was common knowledge that the P4s were terrible CPUs.

My old 754pin 3200+ 2.2GHz runs laps around my old Intel P4 3.2GHz.

How come no one is bringing up Intel's dirty marketing back in the P4 days? Paying Dell, Toshiba, etc not to buy or buy as many AMD CPUs?
 
DTN107 said:
Isn't the reason why AMD has more power consumption because of the IMC?

I thought it was common knowledge that the P4s were terrible CPUs.

My old 754pin 3200+ 2.2GHz runs laps around my old Intel P4 3.2GHz.

How come no one is bringing up Intel's dirty marketing back in the P4 days? Paying Dell, Toshiba, etc not to buy or buy as many AMD CPUs?
Click to expand...

I'm sure we could dig up some dirt on AMD as well, its pointless to argue those little facts. No company is clean. They all pull shit like that, some just don't et caught.

My old Socket A 2800+ could probably run laps around even later model P4s. I loved that CPU. Thing still works too. Pity it never overclocked that well, even with a DFI board and using DFI Street (when it was still around).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top