A merger I would like to see is where Nvidia buys out AMD but ATI is spun off into a separate company (mostly to get anti-trust approval). Such a move would give Nvidia a place in desktop processors. You would still have a competitive graphics card market but you would have an even more competitive CPU market. Nvidia also has more resources than AMD does so they could better pursue competing with INTC. Nvidia could create there own x86 processor design with Nvidia graphics built in. AMD's valuable x86 license is to my knowledge transferable. Just a crazy idea though.
An Idea for A Merger and Acquisition
- Thread starter railroadmaster
- Start date
NTMBK
Lifer
- Nov 14, 2011
- 10,483
- 5,902
- 136
Not happening.
1. AMD wanted to buy NVidia in the first place, but there was too much of a "clash of cultures" (read: JHH being JHH) for it to work out, so they overpaid for ATi instead.
2. If anyone buys AMD, then AMD loses their license to produce x86 chips.
3. NVidia is already pouring vast quantities of money into breaking into the mobile market. Why would they want to spend even more trying to carve out a niche in the dying desktop market?
1. AMD wanted to buy NVidia in the first place, but there was too much of a "clash of cultures" (read: JHH being JHH) for it to work out, so they overpaid for ATi instead.
2. If anyone buys AMD, then AMD loses their license to produce x86 chips.
3. NVidia is already pouring vast quantities of money into breaking into the mobile market. Why would they want to spend even more trying to carve out a niche in the dying desktop market?
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
- Aug 25, 2001
- 56,587
- 10,225
- 126
Fixed that for you. If it could happen, it would have already. (AMD being bought out by a company with more resources to fight Intel.)
AMD's license is only transferable by bankruptcy court, maybe.
OTOH, whoever acquires AMD's IP gets x86-64, which intel would need to negotiate rights to.
Lol, AMD is not getting bought out. Not even a consideration.
1. Too much of a liability.
2. The x86 license is non transferrable like said above.
3. Intel would never get rights to it. Would not hold up in court due to a monopoly.
AMD needs to stay alive because they have their own patents and instruction sets that Intel uses as well. X86 would have to come to a complete end and ATI would have to be spun off for it to be a possibility. At that time AMD would be worse off than VIA right now.
1. Too much of a liability.
2. The x86 license is non transferrable like said above.
3. Intel would never get rights to it. Would not hold up in court due to a monopoly.
AMD needs to stay alive because they have their own patents and instruction sets that Intel uses as well. X86 would have to come to a complete end and ATI would have to be spun off for it to be a possibility. At that time AMD would be worse off than VIA right now.
gorobei
Diamond Member
- Jan 7, 2007
- 4,039
- 1,535
- 136
best you can hope for is that nv licenses powerpc and makes an apu soc for the next console generation after ps4/xbone.
assuming they can persuade one of them to abandon x86 install base and dev tools. at least there might be a chance of backwards compatibility with the last gen.
assuming they can persuade one of them to abandon x86 install base and dev tools. at least there might be a chance of backwards compatibility with the last gen.
Soulkeeper
Diamond Member
- Nov 23, 2001
- 6,739
- 156
- 106
I always thought a via+nvidia merger would make sense, if it wasn't for those pesky non-transferable licenses.
wilds
Platinum Member
- Oct 26, 2012
- 2,059
- 674
- 136
It is quite a particular situation. If AMD were to go away, Intel would have absolute monopoly for the market. If that were to happen, Intel could be split up in much of a way the federal government split up Bell.
Would any for-profit business ever want that?
Would any for-profit business ever want that?
CHADBOGA
Platinum Member
- Mar 31, 2009
- 2,135
- 833
- 136
Schmide
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2002
- 5,747
- 1,039
- 126
I thought the big merger thing was:
Freescale Semiconductor
+
Advanced Micro Devices
+
Society Thomson Microelectronics(STMicroelectronics)
Freescale Semiconductor
+
Advanced Micro Devices
+
Society Thomson Microelectronics(STMicroelectronics)
Last edited:
Orly? Because Intel even calls it a cross-licensing agreement. It's a two way street. http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/2009/20091112corp_a.htm
Why would Intel need to negotiate rights to something they already have negotiated rights to?
The contract doesn't read "if AMD is bought then all previous contracts are null and void", it reads "if AMD is bought then they relinquish their negotiated rights but Intel retains its negotiated rights".
It is an anti-acquisition poison pill of sorts, assuring Intel that no business in its right mind would acquire AMD because they lose their side of the contract while Intel gets to retain its side.
Schmide
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2002
- 5,747
- 1,039
- 126
I always read that change of control is not the same as breach. (or bankruptcy)
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/2488/000119312509236705/dex102.htm
(c) Termination Upon Change of Control. Subject to the terms of, and as further set forth in, Sections 5.2(d) and 5.2(e), this Agreement shall automatically terminate as a whole upon the consummation of a Change of Control of either Party.
[****] = Certain confidential information contained in this document, marked by brackets, has been omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Rule 24b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to the omitted portions.
- 18 -
INTEL & AMD CONFIDENTIAL
(d) Effects of Termination.
(i) In the event of any termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section 5.2(a), and subject to the provisions of Section 5.2(e), the rights and licenses granted to any terminated Licensed Party(ies), including without limitation the rights granted under Section 3.8(d), shall terminate as of the effective date of such termination, but the rights and licenses granted to the non-terminated Licensed Party(ies) (including without limitation the Terminating Party and all of its non-terminated Subsidiaries) shall survive such termination of this Agreement subject to the non-terminated Licensed Party’s(ies’continued compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
(ii) In the event of any termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section 5.2(c), and subject to the provisions of Section 5.2(e), the rights and licenses granted to both Parties under this Agreement, including without limitation the rights granted under Section 3.8(d), shall terminate as of the effective date of such termination.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/2488/000119312509236705/dex102.htm
NTMBK
Lifer
- Nov 14, 2011
- 10,483
- 5,902
- 136
How fast do tech patents expire? I thought it was longer than a decade?
If so though, that's a bummer for AMD. They're hardly going to be able to hold Intel over a barrel with FMA4!
ShintaiDK
Lifer
- Apr 22, 2012
- 20,378
- 146
- 106
I am not sure honestly. However there is alot other small things I am sure they license from one another rather than the macrosize that we tend to focus on.
Key 3D Printing patents expire in 2014 for example.
Yes, yes, cause Nvidia could do much better vs intel, its pretty funny. It would be killed the same way.
Actually, that's exactly how it reads. It's right there. Paraphrasing:
5.2(c) says the agreement is terminated if either party undergoes a change of control.
5.2(d)(i) only applies for a termination due to 5.2(a), which doesn't apply in the scenarios we are discussing.
5.2(d)(ii) says that if the agreement is terminated due to 5.2(c) then the agreement is bilaterally terminated.
So again, IDC, if AMD's rights are terminated due to a change of control so are Intel's.
And this doesn't even begin to address my original point, that bankruptcy court can modify contracts in order to salvage the value of assets for creditors. There is no way that AMD's x86 license would be voided in the case of bankruptcy.
Last edited:
No.
Commentary on bolded part: Agreement shall automatically terminate as a whole upon the consummation of a Change of Control of Either Party, EXCEPT for terms set forth in, Sections 5.2(d) and 5.2(e).
Now what is set for in Sections 5.2(d) and 5.2(e)?
5.2(d) Effects of Termination.
(i) In the event of any termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section 5.2(a), and subject to the provisions of Section 5.2(e), the rights and licenses granted to any terminated Licensed Party(ies), including without limitation the rights granted under Section 3.8(d), shall terminate as of the effective date of such termination, but the rights and licenses granted to the non-terminated Licensed Party(ies) (including without limitation the Terminating Party and all of its non-terminated Subsidiaries) shall survive such termination of this Agreement subject to the non-terminated Licensed Party’s(ies’
Commentary on bolded part: The rights and licenses granted to any terminated Licensed Party(ies) [AMD], including without limitation the rights granted under Section 3.8(d), shall terminate as of the effective date of such termination,
but
The rights and licenses granted to the non-terminated Licensed Party(ies) [Intel] (including without limitation the Terminating Party and all of its non-terminated Subsidiaries [for example, the graphics division or ATI]) shall survive such termination of this Agreement subject to the non-terminated Licensed Party’s(ies’
[Intel's]continued compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.Key words here are "terminated Licensed party" and "non-terminated Licensed party." So, as long as Intel is not in breach of any of the terms, it gets to keep all licenses, whilst AMD loses all licenses except in the case of bankruptcy 5.2 (e).
5.2 (e) talks about bankruptcy, not applicable.
Edit: Acquisition of AMD will constitute a breach - 5.2 (a)
Last edited:
Make up your mind. You can't agree with me and disagree with me simultaneously.
5.2(a) preserves Intel's rights. 5.2(c) terminates them.
I'm not agreeing with you, not indulging in urban speak today. What you don't see or refuse to see is the word "breach" in that sentence. Yes? Thank you.
Second point. Do you understand that the breach would have occurred before actual acquisition? In that case, you go to 5.2(a), 5.2(d), and perhaps 5.2(e) in the instance of a bankruptcy.
So, don't jump the gun. AMD as a company must satisfy certain terms with Intel before it can be bought. AMD cannot offer the x86 license up for sale through acquisition by a third party because that immediately renders AMD in breach and strips it of all IPs and licenses, rendering the entire exercise pointless.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter