Intel's X86 license with AMD questioned

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: seferio
It seems like Intel's main argument for a breach of contract is due to GF not counting as a subsidiary of AMD. However, based on the definition of a subsidiary in the cross-licensing agreement, GF does clearly seem to fall into the category of a subsidiary. AMD has a 50% voting right and has invested ownership of over 30% of the company (and I believe I read somewhere that the initial contribution by AMD is actually closer to 50%). I think what Intel is trying to dig for is how the profits of GF are going to be split. While AMD may own 34% of GF, nowhere publicly did it say that AMD gets an amount equal to its investment share in the company, and therefore could be found in breach of the agreement. I bet this piece of information is what Intel is trying to get at.

Actually, what matters is the voting rights. The contract states that a subsidiary is a company that AMD "owns or controls (either directly or indirectly)" "at least fifty percent (50%) of the tangible and intangible assets of such entity".
The creation of GF has written into it that 50% control...

http://www.amd.com/us-en/asset...xyStatement_3Dec08.pdf

"The 50/50 ownership of the voting shares and rights of each of AMD and ATIC to designate four directors will not change until the occurrence of the Reconciliation Event"

"?Reconciliation Event? means the earlier of (i) such time when AMD has secured for The Foundry Company the right to make unlimited volumes of products"
"or (ii) such time when The Foundry Company Board determines that The Foundry Company no longer needs to be a ?Subsidiary? of AMD as defined in Section 1.22 of the Intel Patent Cross License Agreement"

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: seferio
If AMD was baiting Intel, and everything works out for them Intel will be in big trouble because they will be the ones in breach of contract and will lose access to all of AMD's patents.

Not all of them, just the ones cross-licensed by this specific agreement. And as Vditor pointed out it was due to expire next year anyways.

So unless it is renewed in some form over the next year then come 2010 it doesn't matter who is in breach of the contract as it expires and ALL parties lose access to the IP covered by this particular cross-license agreement.

Since litigation won't come to pass within the remaining duration of the terms of the contract it really is "posturing" as by the time someone is claimed the victor the spoils of war (unfettered access to the IP covered by the license) will have already, ah, spoiled.

 

[piesquared]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: seferio
It seems like Intel's main argument for a breach of contract is due to GF not counting as a subsidiary of AMD. However, based on the definition of a subsidiary in the cross-licensing agreement, GF does clearly seem to fall into the category of a subsidiary. AMD has a 50% voting right and has invested ownership of over 30% of the company (and I believe I read somewhere that the initial contribution by AMD is actually closer to 50%). I think what Intel is trying to dig for is how the profits of GF are going to be split. While AMD may own 34% of GF, nowhere publicly did it say that AMD gets an amount equal to its investment share in the company, and therefore could be found in breach of the agreement. I bet this piece of information is what Intel is trying to get at.

Yep, and AMD's desire to hide this very aspect of the GF contract shows that AMD knows they are treading on dangerous territory and their legal team suspects they need to hide something from the public and Intel for a reason.

Could be they are playing coy all along, setting a trap to see if Intel makes a move that itself causes breach of the contract (which appears to be AMD's counter-claim at the moment) while Intel tries to force AMD to show its hand.

Who knows, maybe the "intimidation" aspects of Intel's suit will actually be the foundation of globalfoundries own anti-trust suit against Intel.

Actually, AMD is completly willing to release all documents in question it seems, provided Intel is willing to let the "outside world see the evidence of it's illegal practices, which it has so far hidden behind the protecive order in the US civil anitrust litigation."

"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."

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


Intel's response: Crickets?