AMD throws down the gauntlet at Intel

[Modelworks]

This is getting interesting.
Almost like two kids on the playground.

You got your x86 in my x64, no you got your x64 in my x86 !

http://www.betanews.com/articl...if-you-will/1237302351

Yesterday in an interview with Betanews, Intel corporate spokesperson Chuck Mulloy requested that AMD lift its veil of secrecy regarding the redacted portion of a cross-licensing agreement between the two companies. The unseen portion, we're told and Mulloy believes, includes the list of technologies that AMD is currently licensing to Intel -- Mulloy himself has not seen that list.

It's the list of technologies whose licenses AMD is threatening to cancel if Intel goes through with its plan to cancel its part of the cross-licensing agreement.

This morning, AMD spokesperson Michael Silverman told Betanews that his company would be willing to agree to Intel's request, on one condition. It's a big condition.

"We would be willing to make the full details of the cross-license agreement public," said Silverman, "if Intel would in turn allow the outside world to see the evidence of its illegal business practices, which it has so far hidden behind the protective order in the US civil antitrust litigation." Intel is claiming AMD has breached that agreement by granting spinoff company Global Foundries the rights and means to produce x86 CPUs using Intel's intellectual property. Intel has stated the agreement can only be cancelled in the event of a breach, and believes AMD cannot simply cancel its side simply to retaliate against Intel.

In multiple US courts, Intel has maintained that ongoing and concluded investigations against it, having been conducted in Europe and Korea, have no bearing on the company's conduct in the US. However, Intel has been somewhat successful of late in getting judges to agree with that assessment. Last year, for instance, AMD sought evidence from what Intel was preparing to turn over to the European Commission, in conjunction with the antitrust case there first brought against it by Intergraph. The US Supreme Court ruled that AMD may have the right to pursue this information, but only if a lower court reviewed its request and said yes.

A lower court reviewed its request, and said no. Last October, US District Judge James Ware ruled that AMD's request was "unduly intrusive and burdensome," adding that since the EC had decided some of the information it had received wasn't relevant to its own case, it probably wasn't relevant to any other case either.

AMD's Silverman pointed us to the Korean FTC's decision last June to impose fines upon Intel for anti-competitive behavior. Though the facts of that case are officially public, English-language translations of the decision only began appearing last January. Still, those translations are available to the outside world; what Intel's attorneys have managed to accomplish thus far is to maintain barriers between findings against it in foreign countries, and cases against it in the US.

Someone PM'd me asking what this was really about.
Basically AMD wants to start making its chips at a new fab. Intel doesn't want them to because they say that fab doesn't have an x86 license and Intel isn't going to let them get one for it.

Intel licenses X64 from AMD . AMD is saying that if Intel doesn't let them use the fab that it will cancel Intels right to use X64. AMD kept part of the contract private and Intel now wants to see it. So AMD is saying only if you tell the world about your illegal monopoly tactics.

It reminds me of the you can't fire me I'll quit, you can't quit I fired you .

 

[nerp]

All I know is I have about 40,000 shares of AMD @ an average of $2.08 so I'm ready to cash out and enjoy my profits today. I'm tempted to hold off for a break past $3, but I'm not banking on that. Profits is profits. 🙂

GO AMD!

 

[her209]

Is it true that Intel threatened to raise CPU prices on HP if they started selling AMD?

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: her209
Is it true that Intel threatened to raise CPU prices on HP if they started selling AMD?

I wouldn't put it past them. That is the kind of stuff AMD wants Intel to disclose.
Doubt it will happen though.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: her209
Is it true that Intel threatened to raise CPU prices on HP if they started selling AMD?

Intel cannot threaten anyone.

 

[Babbles]

f Intel.

I have been an AMD fanboy since their K5 chips. Of course I am posting this from my Dell Inspiron ruunning, alas, an Intel.

 

[Crusty]

IMO Intel is just making things worse for everyone involved.

 

[TuxDave]

Am I the only one confused on how you can have a contract or agreement where one party cannot see the whole contract?

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: TuxDave
Am I the only one confused on how you can have a contract or agreement where one party cannot see the whole contract?

I think the certain parts of the contract are hidden from the public, not each other. I could be wrong though.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TuxDave
Am I the only one confused on how you can have a contract or agreement where one party cannot see the whole contract?

I think the certain parts of the contract are hidden from the public, not each other. I could be wrong though.

Correct.

 

[Aikouka]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Someone PM'd me asking what this was really about.
Basically AMD wants to start making its chips at a new fab. Intel doesn't want them to because they say that fab doesn't have an x86 license and Intel isn't going to let them get one for it.

Intel licenses X64 from AMD . AMD is saying that if Intel doesn't let them use the fab that it will cancel Intels right to use X64. AMD kept part of the contract private and Intel now wants to see it. So AMD is saying only if you tell the world about your illegal monopoly tactics.

Well, the first part is a bit general.... AMD is actually in a lot of money troubles right now and cannot afford to keep afloat. So they sold their chip fabrication plants off to some Arab companies to help give them a bit of a cash infusion at this current time. The company will still make AMD parts, but will also be competing with companies like TSMC (I believe it stands for Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Corp).

The issue then comes that this new business, Global Foundries, is considered a completely separate entity. Intel has only licensed AMD the ability to view some of their Intellectual Property regarding x86 processors (VIA also has some limited rights to this) and this allows them to also manufacture. The problem is, this new company does not have the rights to view the IP, which these rights also require the viewer to protect said information (which is why a company usually cares so much).

I think what AMD is looking for is Intel to release part of the agreement that shows how stringent their rules are and how much of a tight grip that they have on the market, which relies heavily on the x86 architecture. AMD's able to pull this leverage with their x86-64 architecture (first seen in the Athlon 64), which Intel uses as... I believe EM64?

I think it's a pretty interesting situation at least and what the core issue is that x86 is huge and chances of it falling to the wayside are extremely small. AMD had the right idea with x86-64 in that people don't want to change architectures (making software either obsolete or needing to be emulated) like Intel with their IT64 (Itanium) architecture.

 

[amdforever2]

Intel doesn't need X86-64


They have Itanium!!

😛

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TuxDave
Am I the only one confused on how you can have a contract or agreement where one party cannot see the whole contract?

I think the certain parts of the contract are hidden from the public, not each other. I could be wrong though.

It isn't the contract between Intel and AMD that Intel wants to see. They want to see the contract between AMD and ATIC the company running the foundry to see what rights AMD is trying to give them.

It is like if I made a deal with you to give you my secret plans and now you want to give those plans to another company. You say we don't need a new contract because our workers and staff will run the company. I say I want to see the new companies details and you say 'NO'.


This could be devastating for AMD if they lose. If they win they could end Intel's rights. If they lose AMD could be forced out of the x86 market.

AMD does not believe it has breached the cross-licensing agreement, and the company considers Intel's allegations of a breach to be in bad faith. If Intel's filing does turn out to be in bad faith, then AMD claims that this gives them "the right to terminate Intel's rights and licenses...while retaining the Company's [AMD's] rights and licenses under the Cross License Agreement."

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. AMD's official response, as delivered by AMD PR spokesperson Michael Silverman, claims that Intel's actions are nothing more than a desperate attempt by the larger company to redirect attention from its own actions. "Intel's action is an attempt to distract the world from the global antitrust scrutiny it faces," Silverman said. "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."

 

[LTC8K6]

Sounds like a "When did you stop beating your wife?" sort of question from AMD...

What fool at AMD signed such a contract in the first place?

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Sounds like a "When did you stop beating your wife?" sort of question from AMD...

Exactly. That is an example of a false question. Any answer to "When did you stop beating your wife?" is perceived as a lying or otherwise bad answer even if you are perfectly innocent of ever beating your wife. However, in fact, it is the question that is false, not necessarilly the answers.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
It isn't the contract between Intel and AMD that Intel wants to see. They want to see the contract between AMD and ATIC the company running the foundry to see what rights AMD is trying to give them.

It is like if I made a deal with you to give you my secret plans and now you want to give those plans to another company. You say we don't need a new contract because our workers and staff will run the company. I say I want to see the new companies details and you say 'NO'.


This could be devastating for AMD if they lose. If they win they could end Intel's rights. If they lose AMD could be forced out of the x86 market.

AMD does not believe it has breached the cross-licensing agreement, and the company considers Intel's allegations of a breach to be in bad faith. If Intel's filing does turn out to be in bad faith, then AMD claims that this gives them "the right to terminate Intel's rights and licenses...while retaining the Company's [AMD's] rights and licenses under the Cross License Agreement."

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. AMD's official response, as delivered by AMD PR spokesperson Michael Silverman, claims that Intel's actions are nothing more than a desperate attempt by the larger company to redirect attention from its own actions. "Intel's action is an attempt to distract the world from the global antitrust scrutiny it faces," Silverman said. "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."

From Intel: link

Intel Corporation today disclosed that the company has notified Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) that it believes AMD has breached a 2001 patent cross-license agreement with Intel. 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.

The bolded portion does not say specifically which agreement Intel wants AMD to release, but I assume they are referring to the Intel-AMD agreement as they refer to it in the earlier part of the paragraph.

 

[Aikouka]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
It is like if I made a deal with you to give you my secret plans and now you want to give those plans to another company. You say we don't need a new contract because our workers and staff will run the company. I say I want to see the new companies details and you say 'NO'.

I'm actually somewhat sided with Intel on this matter here.... I don't see how the IP agreement would be transferable as typically deals are made between two entities. While AMD may be a major customer of this new Global Foundries, it is in no way an AMD company. You can't just blindly allow a separate company with separate owners to have access to your private information 😱.

 

[mrSHEiK124]

Originally posted by: her209

Intel Corporation today disclosed that the company has notified Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) that it believes AMD has breached a 2001 patent cross-license agreement with Intel. 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.

The bolded portion does not say specifically which agreement Intel wants AMD to release, but I assume they are referring to the Intel-AMD agreement as they refer to it in the earlier part of the paragraph.

That's how I understood it. No other agreement is introduced after "a 2001 patent cross-license agreement with Intel."

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Aikouka

Originally posted by: Modelworks
It is like if I made a deal with you to give you my secret plans and now you want to give those plans to another company. You say we don't need a new contract because our workers and staff will run the company. I say I want to see the new companies details and you say 'NO'.

I'm actually somewhat sided with Intel on this matter here.... I don't see how the IP agreement would be transferable as typically deals are made between two entities. While AMD may be a major customer of this new Global Foundries, it is in no way an AMD company. You can't just blindly allow a separate company with separate owners to have access to your private information 😱.

AMD says Global Foundries is a subsidiary. Intel says GF isn't.

AMD has a 44% share in GF. link

This article says AMD only has 34% in GF.
link

Does Intel have a case?

 

[Modelworks]

Here is the agreement:
http://contracts.corporate.fin...icense.2001.01.01.html

The part about

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.

AMD has no case unless they own more of GF.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
AMD has no case unless they own more of GF.

It would be a shame if this is how AMD goes down.

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: her209
AMD says Global Foundries is a subsidiary. Intel says GF isn't.

AMD has a 44% share in GF. link

This article says AMD only has 34% in GF.
link

Does Intel have a case?

AMD says no. and rightly so...

(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.

AMD maintains 50% voting rights with Global Foundry, regardless of what their ownership stake is. According to the agreement - they indirectly control GFC, and hence it satisfies the "subsidiary" rule.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: SunnyD

AMD maintains 50% voting rights with Global Foundry, regardless of what their ownership stake is. According to the agreement - they indirectly control GFC, and hence it satisfies the "subsidiary" rule.

They have to pass A, B, and C. It isn't either or.

 

[SunnyD]

Easy to figure out:

(a) - AMD sold (contributed) nearly 100% of all tangible assets to GFC in the sale.

(b) - Has controlling vote rights (50% control).

(c) - thus is a subsidiary.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: her209
AMD says Global Foundries is a subsidiary. Intel says GF isn't.

AMD has a 44% share in GF. link

This article says AMD only has 34% in GF.
link

Does Intel have a case?

AMD says no. and rightly so...

(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.

AMD maintains 50% voting rights with Global Foundry, regardless of what their ownership stake is. According to the agreement - they indirectly control GFC, and hence it satisfies the "subsidiary" rule.

:thumbsup:

Also, whatever happened to the $65 billion they were supposed to get from Qualcomm? link

Never mind, its a typo. Should be million. They should really fix that.