AMD announces complete reorganization to integrate ATi

R

RussianHAXOR

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 14, 2007
Messages
5,590
I guess that AMD needed to eventually do it sooner rather than later, or else they would be suffering even more losses. Although, im not quite sure if reshuffling resources and people will necessarily make them more profitable, or profitable at all for that matter. They are basically positioning people into right positions and getting rid of those who are duplicate positions. I hope this saves them money.:)

GlobalFoundries recently summoned select journalists to fly to Malta, NY and discuss the future of this contracted foundry. Hot on the heels of that event, AMD announced a new operating model, bringing the company in line with new priorities. Gone are the days of "Real Men Have Fabs", AMD is now re-shaping its organization to focus on four critical functions: products, technology, marketing and customers.

This new structure puts additional focus on the upcoming merger between the CPU and GPU, the creation of SOC [System-On-Chip] product lines and the expansion of already existing business units. The AMD of tomorrow will be more focused on execution, instead of blaming the delays on Fabs and difficulties with manufacturing processes.
Click to expand...
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2009/5/7/amd-announces-complete-reorganization.aspx
 
I haven't seen any news regarding it recently...so I suppose they are still in mediation.
 
Would like to see amd come back and for a judge to rule the x86 platform opensource.
 
we probably wont see anything come of the x86 thing for another few years.. especially if its filed in US courts.. which are slow as heck to begin with.. especially stuff like this which isnt important..
 
The legal catch22 with AMD and Intel is that if intel should win on the x86 issue, then AMD has every right to pull several of their technologies that Intel uses... like the integrated memory controllers, multicore IP, and 64-bit architecture... pretty much killing everything Intel has out there. I think both sides know this and they are going on with business as usual. Im sure they will settle any disputes through moderation out of court with this one because of the consequences.
 
undertheradar said:
The legal catch22 with AMD and Intel is that if intel should win on the x86 issue, then AMD has every right to pull several of their technologies that Intel uses... like the integrated memory controllers, multicore IP, and 64-bit architecture... pretty much killing everything Intel has out there.
Click to expand...
That is not the case. If AMD is found in breach of the cross-licensing agreement, they lose their licenses to Intel's technology but Intel keeps everything they got from AMD.
 
undertheradar said:
The legal catch22 with AMD and Intel is that if intel should win on the x86 issue, then AMD has every right to pull several of their technologies that Intel uses... like the integrated memory controllers, multicore IP, and 64-bit architecture... pretty much killing everything Intel has out there. I think both sides know this and they are going on with business as usual. Im sure they will settle any disputes through moderation out of court with this one because of the consequences.
Click to expand...

I don't think AMD has the integrated mem controller, or anything else you listed other then x86-64 that Intel uses
 
Go ahead and do some research, and let me know what you learn. I based the cross-licences I listed on articles that have been published on the issue already.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD64#AMD64 <<< not that wiki isnt foolproof, but this info is accurate.

"The x86-64 specification was designed by Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), who have since renamed it AMD64. The first family of processors to support the architecture was the AMD K8 family of processors. ...AMD licensed its x86-64 design to Intel, where it is marketed under the name Intel 64 (formerly EM64T). AMD's design replaced earlier attempts by Intel to design its own x86-64 extensions which had been referred to as IA-32e. As Intel licenses AMD the right to use the original x86 architecture (upon which AMD's x86-64 is based), these rival companies now rely on each other for 64-bit processor development. This has led to a case of mutually assured destruction should either company revoke its respective license."

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2009/03/16/intel-threatens-to-pull-amd-licenses/1

http://www.euroasiasemiconductor.com/news_full.php?id=10556

"The AMD/Intel cross-license agreement is a two-way agreement, the benefits of which go to both companies. Intel leverages innovative AMD IP critical for its product designs under the cross license. This includes AMD patents related to 64-bit architecture extensions, integrated memory controller, multi-core architecture, etc.). The cross-license is very much a two-way street. "
... which should make sense since AMD was the first to market the memory controller on the proc, and a 64/32-bit dual option proc to the consumer market.
 
Last edited:
undertheradar said:
This has led to a case of mutually assured destruction should either company revoke its respective license.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's if the license is revoked. However, if AMD breaks the terms of the license, that is not the same situation. In such a case, Intel would retain the rights to anything they obtained from AMD through the agreement, while AMD would lose their rights to anything they were afforded by it.
 
Zero82z said:
Yes, that's if the license is revoked. However, if AMD breaks the terms of the license, that is not the same situation. In such a case, Intel would retain the rights to anything they obtained from AMD through the agreement, while AMD would lose their rights to anything they were afforded by it.
Click to expand...
That is the key word, if AMD breaks the terms of the license. Intel can claim that AMD broke the terms if they want but unless there is a court ruling that says AMD has broke the terms, there is nothing much that Intel can really do.

If Intel do something without any court ruling in their favour then AMD can take a legal action and try to get a court ruling saying that Intel broke the terms. Anyhow if they really want to bring the dispute to the court room, it will take a lot of time to get a ruling.
 
oh noes, based on the last few replies im guessing this thread is going to turn into the last one, where everyone is just bashing AMD or Intel trying to prove the other is wrong and that they fully understand the terms of the agreement :(
 
alg7_munif said:
Fail. Ever heard of proper reading? He meant that stuff like this is not important for the US courts :eek:
Click to expand...
Sorry, no. He did not say that, as it can be taken a number of ways greater than one. Here, read for yourself:
sirmonkey1985 said:
we probably wont see anything come of the x86 thing for another few years.. especially if its filed in US courts.. which are slow as heck to begin with.. especially stuff like this which isnt important..
Click to expand...
Let me explain further, why it's important. Intel has an obligation to their shareholders to protect its IP and agreements. If anything goes astray and Intel does nothing, the shareholders can sue. But then again, his wording lends nothing to stating the courts see it as frivolous; but then, it would be an asinine assumption, wouldn't it?
 
alg7_munif said:
That is the key word, if AMD breaks the terms of the license. Intel can claim that AMD broke the terms if they want but unless there is a court ruling that says AMD has broke the terms, there is nothing much that Intel can really do.

If Intel do something without any court ruling in their favour then AMD can take a legal action and try to get a court ruling saying that Intel broke the terms. Anyhow if they really want to bring the dispute to the court room, it will take a lot of time to get a ruling.
Click to expand...
Another user said that it would be a lose-lose situation if Intel wins since both parties would lose out. I merely corrected him by pointing out that if either party is found to be in breach of the agreement, the other can keep everything while the offender loses it all.

Let's not turn this thread into a debate about whether or not Intel should lose the suit, because that isn't what this thread is about.
 
rflcptr said:
Sorry, no. He did not say that, as it can be taken a number of ways greater than one. Here, read for yourself:

Let me explain further, why it's important. Intel has an obligation to their shareholders to protect its IP and agreements. If anything goes astray and Intel does nothing, the shareholders can sue. But then again, his wording lends nothing to stating the courts see it as frivolous; but then, it would be an asinine assumption, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

I guess that you really haven't heard of proper reading :p
 
alg7_munif said:
I guess that you really haven't heard of proper reading :p
Click to expand...
Troll, troll, troll away, gently down the stream...

edt: You know, nevermind. Since you clearly understand and know everything, it's not even worth the time discussing anything with you.
 
undertheradar said:
Go ahead and do some research, and let me know what you learn. I based the cross-licences I listed on articles that have been published on the issue already.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD64#AMD64 <<< not that wiki isnt foolproof, but this info is accurate.

"The x86-64 specification was designed by Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), who have since renamed it AMD64. The first family of processors to support the architecture was the AMD K8 family of processors. ...AMD licensed its x86-64 design to Intel, where it is marketed under the name Intel 64 (formerly EM64T). AMD's design replaced earlier attempts by Intel to design its own x86-64 extensions which had been referred to as IA-32e. As Intel licenses AMD the right to use the original x86 architecture (upon which AMD's x86-64 is based), these rival companies now rely on each other for 64-bit processor development. This has led to a case of mutually assured destruction should either company revoke its respective license."

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2009/03/16/intel-threatens-to-pull-amd-licenses/1

http://www.euroasiasemiconductor.com/news_full.php?id=10556

"The AMD/Intel cross-license agreement is a two-way agreement, the benefits of which go to both companies. Intel leverages innovative AMD IP critical for its product designs under the cross license. This includes AMD patents related to 64-bit architecture extensions, integrated memory controller, multi-core architecture, etc.). The cross-license is very much a two-way street. "
... which should make sense since AMD was the first to market the memory controller on the proc, and a 64/32-bit dual option proc to the consumer market.
Click to expand...


not sure if you were referring to my post or the other post
but AMD only has the x86-64 out of the things you listed there.

IMC and interconnects are not AMD owned technologies
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
not sure if you were referring to my post or the other post
but AMD only has the x86-64 out of the things you listed there.

IMC and interconnects are not AMD owned technologies
Click to expand...

What undertheradar posted was a direct statement from AMD. The statement in full is as follows:

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 that Intel fabricated this claim to interfere with our commercial relationships and thus has violated the cross-license.

AMD remains in full compliance with the cross-license agreement. And as we've stated all along, the structure of GLOBALFOUNDRIES takes into account all our cross-license agreements. We will continue to respect Intel's intellectual property rights, just as we expect them to respect ours.

Again, we believe that Intel manufactured this diversion as an attempt to distract attention from the increasing number of antitrust rulings against it around the world. With a ruling from the European Commission and a U.S. trial date looming, and investigations by the U.S. FTC and NY Attorney General, the clock is ticking on Intel's illegal practices - and yet with its dominant monopoly position it still tries to stifle competitors.

The AMD/Intel cross-license agreement is a two-way agreement, the benefits of which go to both companies. Intel leverages innovative AMD IP critical for its product designs under the cross license. This includes AMD patents related to 64-bit architecture extensions, integrated memory controller, multi-core architecture, etc.). The cross-license is very much a two-way street.

In fact, we informed Intel that their attempt to terminate AMD's license itself constitutes a breach of the cross-license agreement, which, if uncured, gives AMD the right to terminate Intel's license.
Click to expand...

Both Intel and AMD have massive portfolios of x86 related patents. Neither company can make modern CPUs without patents from the other company.
 
Anyways, back to the original topic. People are way overplaying this announcement. Nothing has changed down in the trenches. Projects are still on-going and CPU and graphics guys are still collaborating on a daily basis.
 
morfinx said:
Anyways, back to the original topic. People are way overplaying this announcement. Nothing has changed down in the trenches. Projects are still on-going and CPU and graphics guys are still collaborating on a daily basis.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's hard to imagine anything suddenly changing just because the reorganization has finished, but good to hear. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top