VIA license agreement and future CPUs

[Exophase]

Since there's been talk in other threads about VIA's upcoming 28nm processors I thought this might be interesting to some.

While digging through information on older x86 CPUs I came across this:

http://www.via.com.tw/en/resources/pressroom/2003_archive/pr030408patentcase.jsp

The cross-license agreement between VIA and Intel was made back in 2003. Apparently it only extends for 10 years, meaning that by 2014 at the latest VIA shouldn't be able to make x86 processors anymore. Does anyone know if this cross-license agreement was extended at some point? I doubt Intel is bothered in the slightest by their market presence but they've still been pretty protective about letting anyone make x86 processors, no matter how small.

 

[mrmt]

The cross-license agreement between VIA and Intel was made back in 2003. Apparently it only extends for 10 years, meaning that by 2014 at the latest VIA shouldn't be able to make x86 processors anymore. Does anyone know if this cross-license agreement was extended at some point? I doubt Intel is bothered in the slightest by their market presence but they've still been pretty protective about letting anyone make x86 processors, no matter how small.

It was answered in the other thread already. VIA got a 5 year extension when Intel settled with the FTC. The agreement is good through 2018.

 

[Exophase]

It was answered in the other thread already. VIA got a 5 year extension when Intel settled with the FTC. The agreement is good through 2018.

Got a link?

That looming deadline would make me very nervous when making selections for embedded products with long term prospects.. which is a big part of VIA's remaining niche..

 

[mrmt]

Got a link?

That looming deadline would make me very nervous when making selections for embedded products with long term prospects.. which is a big part of VIA's remaining niche..

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/08/intel.shtm

(...)

Under the settlement, Intel will be prohibited from:

conditioning benefits to computer makers in exchange for their promise to buy chips from Intel exclusively or to refuse to buy chips from others; and

retaliating against computer makers if they do business with non-Intel suppliers by withholding benefits from them.


In addition, the FTC settlement order will require Intel to:

modify its intellectual property agreements with AMD, Nvidia, and Via so that those companies have more freedom to consider mergers or joint ventures with other companies, without the threat of being sued by Intel for patent infringement;

offer to extend Via’s x86 licensing agreement for five years beyond the current agreement, which expires in 2013;

maintain a key interface, known as the PCI Express Bus, for at least six years in a way that will not limit the performance of graphics processing chips.

These assurances will provide incentives to manufacturers of complementary, and potentially competitive, products to Intel’s CPUs to continue to innovate; and disclose to software developers that Intel computer compilers discriminate between Intel chips and non-Intel chips, and that they may not register all the features of non-Intel chips. Intel also will have to reimburse all software vendors who want to recompile their software using a non-Intel compiler.

 

[Idontcare]

^ that right there pretty much tells us the FTC considers Via (and AMD then by extension) as being critical to preventing Intel from securing an actionable monopoly.

They'd probably force Intel to do the same again when 2018 gets close, as well as something along the same lines should AMD be bought up by a larger company IMO.

 

[SocketF]

Got a link?

Here:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2313816

 

[Exophase]

Here:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2313816

Thanks, I seriously don't know how I missed it. I forgot about that thread entirely (despite having posted in it!), thought all the VIA talk was in the Kabini thread and I didn't want to post this there. Had I remembered the first thread it'd have been more on topic, but in that case maybe I'd have seen it was already answered too

^ that right there pretty much tells us the FTC considers Via (and AMD then by extension) as being critical to preventing Intel from securing an actionable monopoly.

They'd probably force Intel to do the same again when 2018 gets close, as well as something along the same lines should AMD be bought up by a larger company IMO.

I wonder how much market share you need to actually counter a monopoly. Surely not just > 0% and probably not what VIA currently enjoys. I would think that the markets VIA does serve are also pretty different from Intel's, hard to even see them as competitors anymore (not that VIA wasn't trying)

 

[Idontcare]

I wonder how much market share you need to actually counter a monopoly. Surely not just > 0% and probably not what VIA currently enjoys. I would think that the markets VIA does serve are also pretty different from Intel's, hard to even see them as competitors anymore (not that VIA wasn't trying)

I don't know how the FTC determines such things, but obviously from their actions they felt compelled to require Intel to extend the license at their (the FTC's) behest.

If it wasn't critical to the FTC's charter then I would assume the FTC would have left the negotiations, successful or not, up to the mechanics of free-enterprise.

 

[Exophase]

I don't know how the FTC determines such things, but obviously from their actions they felt compelled to require Intel to extend the license at their (the FTC's) behest.

If it wasn't critical to the FTC's charter then I would assume the FTC would have left the negotiations, successful or not, up to the mechanics of free-enterprise.

True, but they were also part of the anti-trust settlement, meaning that it's compensation for potential business lost due to Intel's anti-competitive practices. Not an action to prevent a monopoly. Furthermore, as a settlement it was negotiated by Intel and approved by the FTC, it was not a ruling.

 

[Wall Street]

I wonder how much market share you need to actually counter a monopoly.

Generally, they use HHI to measure industry competitiveness. An industry with HHI > 0.25 to be highly concentrated. They don't worry about how big a company needs to be to compete with Intel but rather what share of the market Intel controls without considering who controls the rest.

VIA was given the extension not only because Intel is the biggest player, but also because Intel was found to be violating anti-competitive principals at the time. If Intel doesn't find itself in court again in a similar case, it is highly unlikely that the FTC will step in again.

 

[Idontcare]

True, but they were also part of the anti-trust settlement, meaning that it's compensation for potential business lost due to Intel's anti-competitive practices. Not an action to prevent a monopoly.

Point being the "compensation" was the very kind that keeps one of two active competitors in a position to field x86 products, versus the financial kind the likes of which Nvidia and AMD received.

Furthermore, as a settlement it was negotiated by Intel and approved by the FTC, it was not a ruling.

When the FTC is involved what that means is the FTC told the parties in advance what type of settlement it was interested in seeing offered for approval.

It may appear to be a "blind bid" process to us outsiders, but it is very much a structured "come to jesus" type meeting with the FTC behind closed doors :whiste: :ninja: Everything is coached and pre-approved before anything official actually reaches our ears.

The same thing happened with the DEC Alpha production when Intel bought DEC's IP...the FTC approved a joint proposal by Samsung, Intel, and Compaq that had both Samsung and Intel dual-source the production of Alpha processors (to be sold by Compaq).

If you didn't know what was going on behind the scenes then you would have really scratched your head how on earth Samsung came into the picture. But it was the FTC's idea, which they then "approved" once it was formally proposed to them as part of the deal for Intel buying DEC's IP (with the remainder of DEC's assets going to Compaq).

(^ note, I only know this because later on in life I worked with a then ex-Samsung employee who happened to be directly involved in the matters at the time)