• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Intel is making waves about AMD's split-up

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...

Which means that Intel whole Xeon line will be rendered useless without the 64bit implementation.

Scali2 said:
It might not even be a case of winning or losing. The bad publicity for AMD and the costs of the lawsuit alone might be enough to kill off AMD before the case even comes to a decision.
Aside from that, you already know that I don't agree that Intel can't stop AMD from selling x86 chips. We went over that, I provided historic evidence.
Click to expand...

It is a cross license agreement, if Intel wants to stop AMD from shipping x86 CPUs without a court declaring that AMD has breached the agreement, Intel needs to stop shipping CPUs with 64bit extension as well.
 
alg7_munif said:
Which means that Intel whole Xeon line will be rendered useless without the 64bit implementation.
Click to expand...

Not really, they still have PAE.

alg7_munif said:
It is a cross license agreement, if Intel wants to stop AMD from shipping x86 CPUs without a court declaring that AMD has breached the agreement, Intel needs to stop shipping CPUs with 64bit extension as well.
Click to expand...

Nope, the agreement specifically states that the party that didn't breach the agreement will get continued use of the licensed technology.
As I said, Intel's lawyers thought of everything.
If we take the agreement by the letter, then AMD has no case whatsoever. They weren't allowed to split up, and because they broke the agreement, they can't stop Intel from continuing the use of their IP.
All AMD can do is try and fight the agreement in court. And a small company like AMD going up against a large company like Intel in court on such dubious issues, not likely to succeed. Intel can drag it out forever, and AMD will just go bankrupt.

I think AMD was just desperate and it's all or nothing for them now. They either have to break free from the license agreement in order to become more competitive, or they would have gone down anyway.
 
Scali2 said:
Not really, they still have PAE.



Nope, the agreement specifically states that the party that didn't breach the agreement will get continued use of the licensed technology.
As I said, Intel's lawyers thought of everything.
If we take the agreement by the letter, then AMD has no case whatsoever. They weren't allowed to split up, and because they broke the agreement, they can't stop Intel from continuing the use of their IP.
All AMD can do is try and fight the agreement in court. And a small company like AMD going up against a large company like Intel in court on such dubious issues, not likely to succeed. Intel can drag it out forever, and AMD will just go bankrupt.

I think AMD was just desperate and it's all or nothing for them now. They either have to break free from the license agreement in order to become more competitive, or they would have gone down anyway.
Click to expand...
The decision whether AMD has breached the agreement or not will not be out soon. During the court hearing, the agreement will still be valid, hence AMD can still sell their x86 CPU. If Intel wants AMD to stop selling x86 CPU during this time, Intel will need to stop using 64bit extension as well since the court has not decided that AMD has breached the agreement. Just because Intel said that AMD has breached the agreement doesn't mean that AMD has breached it unless it has be decided by the court.
 
alg7_munif said:
If Intel wants AMD to stop selling x86 CPU during this time, Intel will need to stop using 64bit extension as well since the court has not decided that AMD has breached the agreement.
Click to expand...

No they don't, because unlike AMD, Intel is not under any suspicion of breaching any part of the agreement. Intel can continue to use the 64-bit extensions, even after the argreement is officially considered breached and AMD is put out of business.
 
Scali2 said:
No they don't, because unlike AMD, Intel is not under any suspicion of breaching any part of the agreement. Intel can continue to use the 64-bit extensions, even after the argreement is officially considered breached and AMD is put out of business.
Click to expand...

what he is saying is until there is a court rulling nothing will stop amd.

 
Scali2 said:
No they don't, because unlike AMD, Intel is not under any suspicion of breaching any part of the agreement. Intel can continue to use the 64-bit extensions, even after the argreement is officially considered breached and AMD is put out of business.
Click to expand...

Lol, what? That is not how the legal system works. If that was the case, then any party can file a court case at anytime saying that the agreement has been breached for whatever reason by the other party, it will take a long time to prove the case but in the mean time, the "suspected party" won't be allowed to use the IPs of the party which filed the case. :rolleyes:
 
ALL4AMD said:
what he is saying is until there is a court rulling nothing will stop amd.
Click to expand...

There are two things here.
Obviously the court will have to undertake SOME action, because Intel itself doesn't have the legal power to stop AMD. Everyone understands that, don't underestimate people.
However, the court can order AMD to stop shipments pending investigation and final court ruling. So that means that AMD could be stopped long before the court case is over.
 
alg7_munif said:
Lol, what? That is not how the legal system works. If that was the case, then any party can file a court case at anytime saying that the agreement has been breached for whatever reason by the other party, it will take a long time to prove the case but in the mean time, the "suspected party" won't be allowed to use the IPs of the party which filed the case. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That's exactly what happened with the Am386. :rolleyes:
I think you're missing a key issue here. AMD no longer produces x86 CPUs. The Foundry corp now produces x86 CPUs. AMD owns the license, Foundry does not.
AMD will have to prove that even though Foundry has no license, it has the right to produce x86 processors. Technically the "suspected party" is the Foundry, whic isn't just suspect, it's plain as day that they never had a license.
This makes the situation very delicate for AMD.
 
Scali2 said:
There are two things here.
Obviously the court will have to undertake SOME action, because Intel itself doesn't have the legal power to stop AMD. Everyone understands that, don't underestimate people.
However, the court can order AMD to stop shipments pending investigation and final court ruling. So that means that AMD could be stopped long before the court case is over.
Click to expand...

If the court wants to stop AMD, the court would stop Intel too since it is a cross license agreement. The agreement is not breached until the court has ruled that it was breached. Until then, both parties are considered equal.
 
alg7_munif said:
If the court wants to stop AMD, the court would stop Intel too since it is a cross license agreement. The agreement is not breached until the court has ruled that it was breached. Until then, both parties are considered equal.
Click to expand...

Nope, that's not how it works. Intel wasn't stopped from shipping 386es either, when AMD was (that was a cross-license aswell).
The breach is one-sided. The fact that the license is a cross-license doesn't change that. AMD doesn't hold itself to the license terms, and as such, the license no longer applies to AMD. Intel is still holding up its end of the license terms, so it can continue producing CPUs under license.

Look it up if you don't believe me.
 
Scali2 said:
Nope, that's not how it works. Intel wasn't stopped from shipping 386es either, when AMD was.
The breach is one-sided. The fact that the license is a cross-license doesn't change that. AMD doesn't hold itself to the license terms, and as such, the license no longer applies to AMD. Intel is still holding up its end of the license terms, so it can continue producing CPUs under license.
Click to expand...

Who will decide that AMD doesn't hold itself to the license?
 
Scali2 said:
Nope, that's not how it works. Intel wasn't stopped from shipping 386es either, when AMD was (that was a cross-license aswell).
The breach is one-sided. The fact that the license is a cross-license doesn't change that. AMD doesn't hold itself to the license terms, and as such, the license no longer applies to AMD. Intel is still holding up its end of the license terms, so it can continue producing CPUs under license.

Look it up if you don't believe me.
Click to expand...

What AMD technology was in the 386 processors back then that would have required Intel to stop shipments?
 
ryan_975 said:
What AMD technology was in the 386 processors back then that would have required Intel to stop shipments?
Click to expand...

That never was disclosed, but it was a cross-license, so chances are that Intel had been using AMD technology for years. Why else would they have the cross-license?
 
Scali2 you don't have any idea what you are talking about. A court is not going to automatically side with Intel, force AMD to shut down production, and then sort out the details with due process. That is NOT how this works.

There is a specific arbitration process that must be followed, as per the contract between AMD and Intel. Both parties are accusing the other of breaching the contract, something a court may have to decide. But no matter who the judgment ends up going for, the process will very likely take years to resolve. Not that Intel cares, they just want to burden AMD down as much as possible.

In fact, Intel may have actually breached the contract themselves by attempting to bypass the escalating dispute process. As per the contract, any company that does that, forfeits their rights to the shared IP.
 
What's to stop Intel from get a quick C&D order to block AMD until after the hearing decides whether they've breached the license or not? Or does it not work that way in the corporate world?
 
ryan_975 said:
What's to stop Intel from get a quick C&D order to block AMD until after the hearing decides whether they've breached the license or not? Or does it not work that way in the corporate world?
Click to expand...
What's to stop AMD from doing the same thing?
 
§kynet;1033857400 said:
Scali2 you don't have any idea what you are talking about. A court is not going to automatically side with Intel, force AMD to shut down production, and then sort out the details with due process. That is NOT how this works.
Click to expand...

Actually it is. The matter whether or not AMD breached the agreement can be settled quite quickly.
AMD will then have to counter-sue Intel for having illegitimate clauses in the agreement, or whatever other strategy they choose... Or they have to appeal to the original decision.
In the meantime the decision stands.

AMD is just accusing Intel of breaching the contract because that's the only option they have. That doesn't mean they actually have a case, unlike Intel.
 
Scali2 said:
AMD is just accusing Intel of breaching the contract because that's the only option they have. That doesn't mean they actually have a case, unlike Intel.
Click to expand...
I see, so according to you, when Intel makes accusations, they must be true. But when AMD does it, they are false until they somehow prove they are in fact true.

LOL you are a real legal expert :p
 
§kynet;1033857409 said:
What's to stop AMD from doing the same thing?
Click to expand...

Intel has a point, namely that AMD has changed its corporate structure completely, outsourcing production to a company that has no x86 license, and that AMD has no majority of ownership in.
AMD doesn't have a point, because Intel still produces CPUs like they've done since the first cross-license agreement. Any court will rule against AMD simply for the reason that it took AMD so long to respond, and as such is considered to have failed to defend its agreement. You are supposed to defend your rights as soon as something happens.
 
§kynet;1033857417 said:
I see, so according to you, when Intel makes accusations, they must be true. But when AMD does it, they are false until they somehow prove they are in fact true.

LOL you are a real legal expert :p
Click to expand...

Read the cross-license agreement terms, and you'll come to the same conclusion as tons of legal experts on the web: The change of ownership/subsidiary companies are covered in detail in the terms of the agreement, and as such it is quite clear that Intel has a point.

AMD accuses Intel of breaking the agreement by saying that AMD broke the agreement. Obviously this is only true if the court rules that AMD did in fact NOT break the agreement. Which is unlikely, in which case, AMD doesn't have a point.
 
Scali2 said:
Intel has a point, namely that AMD has changed its corporate structure completely, outsourcing production to a company that has no x86 license, and that AMD has no majority of ownership in.
AMD doesn't have a point, because Intel still produces CPUs like they've done since the first cross-license agreement. Any court will rule against AMD simply for the reason that it took AMD so long to respond, and as such is considered to have failed to defend its agreement. You are supposed to defend your rights as soon as something happens.
Click to expand...
Now you think you are the Judge in the case, and are assuming how and what decisions will take place. Ridiculous. :p
 
§kynet;1033857449 said:
Now you think you are the Judge in the case, and are assuming how and what decisions will take place. Ridiculous. :p
Click to expand...

Care to argue the facts?
 
Scali2 said:
Read the cross-license agreement terms, and you'll come to the same conclusion as tons of legal experts on the web:
Click to expand...
Tons of legal experts? Like who? Seeing there are tons out there, link to 4 or 5 of them.
 
§kynet;1033857471 said:
You clearly are not interested in the facts, you have made up your mind that Intel will most certainly win any judgment.

I suggest you do some reading.
Click to expand...

I read that already. What part of this article is in conflict with anything that I said?
I see quite a few things that support what I said.
For example:
"It's standard operating procedure in any patent infringement lawsuit to claim that your opponent's patents are invalid/inapplicable, but the x86 agreement contains a bit of victori spolia. In the event a material breach is upheld, the breaching party loses all rights to the nonbreaching party's patents but the inverse is not true."
So Intel keeps x86-64, no matter what.

Other than that it's mostly AMD throwing accusations around that don't relate to this issue. Diversionary tactics.
 
Is it really hard to understand? Until there is a ruling that says a party has breached the agreement, there will be no party that has breached the agreement. It will take a lot of time until there is a ruling on this matter. Until then, the agreement is not breached by any party so it will still be valid. If Intel wants AMD to stop producing x86 CPUs, Intel will need to stop using the 64bit extension as well since there is no ruling yet that says AMD has breached the agreement.

Just because your lawyers said that the other party has breached the agreement, it doesn't mean that the other party has really breached the agreement unless there is a ruling from a court on this.
 
Scali2 said:
Again, it's not an API, it's an instructionset. At least get your facts straight.
And it's not about the instructionset itself, but rather the microcode and patents involved with the technology used in an x86 implementation.
Click to expand...

API or instruction set is the same thing. It's a set of instructions, a programming interface, whatever. Fact is that it is perfectly legal to produce an x86-compatible CPU without first asking Intel whether it's okay to do so. NVidia is one of those who has finally realized this and is moving ahead to produce its own x86 CPU without some silly license.

And what other x86-specific technology could one come up with? 'x86' CPUs have been more or less pure RISC CPUs internally for the longest time now. Licensing an instruction set is silly, so if it isn't about that, Intel and/or the press should be more accurate in how they name the issue.

On a sidenote, a CPU I'm developing at the moment uses a heavily ARM-influenced instruction set and design (for the front-end at least). Should ARM be able to sue me for this as well?
 
alg7_munif said:
Is it really hard to understand? Until there is a ruling that says a party has breached the agreement, there will be no party that has breached the agreement. It will take a lot of time until there is a ruling on this matter. Until then, the agreement is not breached by any party so it will still be valid. If Intel wants AMD to stop producing x86 CPUs, Intel will need to stop using the 64bit extension as well since there is no ruling yet that says AMD has breached the agreement.

Just because your lawyers said that the other party has breached the agreement, it doesn't mean that the other party has really breached the agreement unless there is a ruling from a court on this.
Click to expand...

I've already covered this. Stop repeating yourself.
 
Scali2 said:
So Intel keeps x86-64, no matter what.
Click to expand...
No matter what? No, Intel keeps their rights if the judgment goes their way. YOU think Intel is going to win "no matter what" but what you or I think doesn't have any bearing on how things will proceed.

Now post those tons of legal experts you are talking about.
 
alg7_munif said:
Just because your lawyers said that the other party has breached the agreement, it doesn't mean that the other party has really breached the agreement unless there is a ruling from a court on this.
Click to expand...
Some people are utterly incapable of understanding this.
 
§kynet;1033857544 said:
No matter what? No, Intel keeps their rights if the judgment goes their way.
Click to expand...

Nope. You don't seem to get it.
If Intel wins the case, AMD loses its license. However, according to the terms, Intel does not lose its part of the license (as quoted from Arstechnica).
If Intel loses, that means the license will stay in place as it always was... In which case Intel will also have its part of the license.
So in other words: Intel keeps x86-64, no matter what.
 
Scali2 said:
I've already covered this. Stop repeating yourself.
Click to expand...

No you didn't. You said about something in the past that is a different situation from this one and you said that AMD doesn't hold itself to the license terms. When I asked about who will decide that AMD doesn't hold itself to the license terms, you still didn't answer the question.
 
alg7_munif said:
Why would the court stop AMD CPU shipment? Why the court won't stop the shipment of Intel CPUs too which could use some of AMD IPs including some related to the functionality of integrated memory controllers, the x86-64 instruction set, and x86 multicore configurations?
Click to expand...

The court would stop AMD CPU shipment if they believe that AMD violated the license terms, and as such has given up the right to produce and sell x86 CPUs.

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).
 
rflcptr said:
Because Intel isn't accused of breaching the contract. Nor did they.
Click to expand...

Well AMD can accuse them for breaching the contract and file a court case too, will the court stop the shipment of Intel CPUs pending the investigation and final court ruling too? Just because you are accused of something, it doesn't mean that you did something wrong.

Scali2 said:
The court would stop AMD CPU shipment if they believe that AMD violated the license terms, and as such has given up the right to produce and sell x86 CPUs.

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...

How long will it take for the court to decide that AMD has violated the terms? Until then, what is there to stop AMD?

"It's standard operating procedure in any patent infringement lawsuit to claim that your opponent's patents are invalid/inapplicable, but the x86 agreement contains a bit of victori spolia. In the event a material breach is upheld, the breaching party loses all rights to the nonbreaching party's patents but the inverse is not true."
 
Scali2 said:
Intel has a point, namely that AMD has changed its corporate structure completely, outsourcing production to a company that has no x86 license
Click to expand...
You mean what Intel did with Atom and TSMC?

rflcptr said:
Because Intel isn't accused of breaching the contract. Nor did they.
Click to expand...
"Nor did they" you are a regular comedian. According to YOU.

You are laughably biased. What happens if AMD turns around and accuses Intel of a specific contract breach? By your standard, Intel will be forced to halt production until the matter is resolved. You seem to think that Intel has some kind of blank cheque in the agreement. They don't. Both are bound by the same terms, equally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top