Originally posted by: Viditor
Originally posted by: Idontcare
Considering that Intel has been generating MCM related IP since at least the
pentium pro days, there's bound to some serious restrictions on AMD's degrees of freedom when it comes to carving out their own IP space for functionally competitive MCM products.
Intel and AMD cross-license a good deal of architecture/ISA IP, but MCM technology lies more in the realm of manufacturing technology and I highly doubt any of it is cross-licensed. That would be like Intel cross-licensing HK/MG to AMD. Not going to happen.
I don't imagine that there is any IP restrictions...their cross-licensing extends through almost everything that they make. The only exception has been x86 (which is mentioned seperately)...though it is part of the same agreement.
Just as Intel was able to use x86-64, AMD should have no problem with MCM.
As to manufacturing not being part cross-license, the reason that neither company copies the other is that it would be just too damned expensive. Not for the licensing, but to actually copy the process in time for shipping...along with the testing and tweaking needed...couldn't happen IMHO.
I know this is your field IDC...can you imagine a company completely changing over their manufacturing tech within those time frames?
To my knowledge Intel and AMD do not cross-license IP outside of the cross-applicable ISA and architecture patents.
In manufacturing (which includes process technology like SOI and HK/MG, as well as packaging technology that includes sockets, MCM, etc) practically nothing is cross-licensed.
The reason for this is not because of the time-frame involved, it is a competitive advantage to "block out" technical approaches to solving a problem. Have you wondered why Intel uses pinless CPU's on LGA sockets while AMD continues to use pinned CPU's on their sockets? It's not because one simply hasn't bothered to make the transition to the other yet.
HK/MG is another example, there is a reason IBM/AMD have not debuted HK/MG yet and it is not because they can't do it but because they can't do it yet in a way that doesn't infringe on process technology IP. When we draft patents on process tech we cover what we use in practice and we also expand the claims section to include the entire process space over which the application can be utilized, this "blocks out" an IP space to prevent competition from using the same process but at 50C higher temp or 10 mTorr lower pressure, etc. It is an industry wide approach to IP and is basically the sole reason you see differentiation in the process technology fielded by any given IDM.
When you see more than one company jump onto what seems like the same process tech bandwagon, stressed channels for instance, it is usually a sign of a pending IP battle brewing. We all file our patents at nearly the same time but the patent office takes 12-24 months to award the patent. Once the patent is awarded then the lawyers go to work forcing the other near-identical process users to license and pay royalties. Its rarely a pretty process to behold but I have seen it in action first hand (albeit in our favor thankfully).
IBM/AMD have publicly stated they delayed the HK/MG introduction as they are pursuing a gate-first approach whereas Intel's approach is replacement-gate. IBM/AMD are doing this because they have no choice, being late to the party they already missed out on all the critical IP needed to effectively build replacement-gate HK/MG IC's. Likewise depending on how much of a lead time IBM has on Intel in the area of gate-first HK/MG, we may simply never see Intel migrate to the gate-first approach as they will be blocked by IP unless they sign a lucrative royalty license deal with IBM/AMD (not likely to happen).
Virtually all industries operate this way to my knowledge. Where standards exist the companies cross-license so no anti-competitive lawsuits get spawned (be it CPU's, memory, automobiles, airplanes, etc) but the method of implementing the standard (manufacturing) becomes the differentiating special sauce unless you outsource and go fabless/productionless (AMD, OCZ, etc).
Facebook
Twitter