why hasn't intel's x86 patent expired yet ?

[Sureshot324]

I wonder what Intel's goal is with this. If their argument holds up in court, they could force AMD to re-merge their two halves into one. They'd be the laughing stock of the high tech industry if that happened. I really don't think it makes any difference to Intel whether AMD is two companies or one, but I wouldn't put it past them to do this simply to cause pain for their competitor. I still don't understand why AMD split up in the first place.

The other possible reason is to use this as a bargaining chip. AFAIK AMD's antitrust case against Intel is still going on. Intel could agree to drop this case if AMD drops that one.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Sureshot324
I still don't understand why AMD split up in the first place.

Money. They were going to be in chapter 11 in another 6 months otherwise.

Originally posted by: Sureshot324
AFAIK AMD's antitrust case against Intel is still going on. Intel could agree to drop this case if AMD drops that one.

No way AMD would drop the antitrust suit. Remember AMD's argument here is that the seeds were sown back in 2002-2004 timeframe to undermine AMD's growth trajectory so much so that they were not capable of then weathering the existing storm as they didn't have the excess gross margins needed in 2004 to fully fund an R&D team capable of developing competitive products for production in the 2006-2008 timeframe.

If Intel wins the current claim against AMD it will only be used as further evidence of the damage done to AMD stemming from Intel's antitrust activities in 2002-2004.

Intel may win some battles, but its going to add up to them losing the war.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Sureshot324
I still don't understand why AMD split up in the first place.

Money. They were going to be in chapter 11 in another 6 months otherwise.

It wasn't THAT bad, but it was close (more like 12-18 months...)

Originally posted by: Sureshot324
AFAIK AMD's antitrust case against Intel is still going on. Intel could agree to drop this case if AMD drops that one.

No way AMD would drop the antitrust suit. Remember AMD's argument here is that the seeds were sown back in 2002-2004 timeframe to undermine AMD's growth trajectory so much so that they were not capable of then weathering the existing storm as they didn't have the excess gross margins needed in 2004 to fully fund an R&D team capable of developing competitive products for production in the 2006-2008 timeframe.

If Intel wins the current claim against AMD it will only be used as further evidence of the damage done to AMD stemming from Intel's antitrust activities in 2002-2004.

Intel may win some battles, but its going to add up to them losing the war.

I agree that dropping the case won't happen...sort of.
I have been fairly sure that this case never gets decided in open court. I don't think Intel can afford to actually let the case go through, and AMD can probably get a better all around deal in a settlement.
That said, the question becomes what form will the settlement take...?
1. Certainly it will cost Intel a good amount of cash (my guess is it will be enough to pay off all of AMD's debts)
2. It's a given that Intel will never take up their old rebate program again
3. A more favourable cross-license agreement would seem to be quite probable.
4. No more x86 royalties

This is all guesswork, but I think they are fairly good guesses...

PS And no, I don't think there's any chance at all that Intel will go to court and win.

 

[Sureshot324]

Originally posted by: Sureshot324
I still don't understand why AMD split up in the first place.

Money. They were going to be in chapter 11 in another 6 months otherwise.

How does splitting up save them money?

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Sureshot324

Originally posted by: Sureshot324
I still don't understand why AMD split up in the first place.

Money. They were going to be in chapter 11 in another 6 months otherwise.

How does splitting up save them money?

GlobalFoundries now pays the bills for the $2-3B annual capex needed to operate the fabs plus all the future process development costs.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Originally posted by: CTho9305

Engineers avoid reading patents for lawsuit reasons. If you'd said it was an Intel patent up front that may have helped.

Hmm, interesting. I didn't know that. Makes sense though.

My understanding is that patents cover implementation of the instruction set. The claims in the AMD patent DrMrLordX linked are almost all "A microprocessor comprising: whatever". From the AMD patent:
Broadly speaking, the present invention contemplates a microprocessor comprising a register file and an instruction decode circuit. The register file includes a standard register set comprising a plurality of standard registers and an extension register set comprising a plurality of extension registers.
It's all about the processor that has the extra registers and the new fancy instruction decoder, not the actual new registers.

Yeah, I got the same impression reading it. What's interesting is that, by making their claims broad enough, the patent-holder (in this case, AMD) can assert that their patent covers every (or nearly every) possible hardware implementation of their instruction set, making the patent effectively a patent covering the instruction set itself (even though, as you correctly stated, the patent itself is more concerned with hardware implementation). That could explain why Transmeta was able to legally decode instructions in software and why DEC was able to ship FX!32 back in the day.

For what it's worth, the "background of the invention" and "summary of the invention" sections of AMD patents (and probably others) are usually pretty readable if you ignore the overuse of "plurality" and "comprising" / "comprehending" / "contemplating" . It's mainly the "claims" section that is unreadable legalese.

Yes, this is true. Were it not for those two sections of the AMD patent I linked, I don't know that I ever would have sorted out which instruction set to which they were referring.

Originally posted by: Viditor

Nice link...I counted (BOE) 8100+ AMD patents there, and 8800+ Intel Patents.
It's easy to see why the 2 companies have become so dependent on each other for technological advancement, and why the "nuclear option" of either company pulling the plug on licenses will never come to fruition.

Indeed, unless one party is able to prove that the other is solely in breach of contract, enabling them to reap the rewards of a cross-licensing agreement while denying them to the other.

Still, in the long run, it seems like Intel and AMD would both be better off benefiting from the research and patents of the other.

 

[Sureshot324]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Sureshot324

Originally posted by: Sureshot324
I still don't understand why AMD split up in the first place.

Money. They were going to be in chapter 11 in another 6 months otherwise.

How does splitting up save them money?

GlobalFoundries now pays the bills for the $2-3B annual capex needed to operate the fabs plus all the future process development costs.

Yes but GlobalFoundries needs to pay the bills too. Hows does being a seperate company make it any easier for GlobalFoundries to pay that $2-3B?

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Sureshot324
Yes but GlobalFoundries needs to pay the bills too. Hows does being a seperate company make it any easier for GlobalFoundries to pay that $2-3B?

GlobalFoundries can seek out additional customers who's sales receipts will increase GlobalFoundries revenue above and beyond the business volume AMD represents.

It is the same foundry model that enables all fabless chip designers to exist, not to mention the foundries themselves.

 

[aka1nas]

To expand on Idontcare's post, AMD currently does not fab products for other companies AFAIK. They probably would not get much traction if they did so with the fabs as a part of AMD, as few companies are going to do business with a direct competitor for their product fabrication. Spinning off the fabs frees them somewhat from that potential conflict of interest.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: aka1nas
To expand on Idontcare's post, AMD currently does not fab products for other companies AFAIK. They probably would not get much traction if they did so with the fabs as a part of AMD, as few companies are going to do business with a direct competitor for their product fabrication. Spinning off the fabs frees them somewhat from that potential conflict of interest.

Exactly. Very few IDM's with fabs ever made a successful business model out of offering their fab capacity to outside businesses for dual-use foundery works.

My former employer Texas Instruments managed to do this with SUN for more than a decade but that was a very restricted and highly structured agreement.

Samsung has tried to operate their fabs as dual-use, foundry and internal, and have not been met with the kind of success they thought it would generate. Same with IBM.

The problem in all these cases is as aka1nas is stating - the perception of potential conflict of interests within the company that owns the fabs is more than enough to stifle would-be customers from taking on the risk of signing up for the foundry services.

Would Nvidia have agreed to fab their GPU's in AMD's fabs if AMD had not spun the fabs off as GlobalFoundries but instead had opened the fab doors as dual-use foundry business model like IBM? No way in hell. NV would not take the risk that AMD would unethically and amorally leverage the confidential informations NV would need to make available to AMD for fabbing their chips in a way to better the ATI chips.

This is why foundries tend to operate best when they are truly a third-party (NV and ATI have their GPU's produced at TSMC) where the possibility of conflict-of-interest is at least minimized as much as humanely possible (but still not zero of course).

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Sureshot324

Originally posted by: Sureshot324
I still don't understand why AMD split up in the first place.

Money. They were going to be in chapter 11 in another 6 months otherwise.

How does splitting up save them money?

GlobalFoundries now pays the bills for the $2-3B annual capex needed to operate the fabs plus all the future process development costs.

I see A lot of off the wall stuff being said here. So lets add some reality here shall we.

GF is now a business. It paid alot. Thats a neg. on the books. Its going to be very interesting to see GF losses for its first reporting qt. It will be more intersting is AMDs share in those losses. Lets say GF has a 1 billion dollar loss. AMD has to take at least a 300 million loss on its ownership in GF . This is going to be intersting. GF has to follow the model of the other Job fabs . So AMD has to pay more per die now than befor when they owned the fabs . Also what date did AMDs second fab come online. When was c2d released. AMD couldn't compete because they only had 1 fab. Intel will show that in court.

Also after amd got 2 fabs they couldn't keep them running at capacity because C2D was here. Its all going to be interesting. The EU will love the new intel pricies for the EU after they pay fine. In the server end Nehelam mp and DP will dominate. If you don't use them you won't be competive with other farms. In the EU you will pay big bucks or run second rate less efficient AMD server chips. Its that simple. The EU will lose this one in the end. Intel will give them what they wanr . Higher pricies for SErVERS .

In the server market speed and efficiency is Key to successful farm and to productivity.

The EU will get what they want . Thats a fact.

As for Intel removing X86 from AMD a blind mancould see that coming. I do think intel moved to soon tho. But maybe not. Its going to be very telling . When this qt. Ends and both AMD and GF have to report there losses. Any one who thinks a 4 billion dollar fab can operate in the black without any customers is crazy. GF will have hugh losses . The price AMD pays for chips will also be looked at by all in the industry. Rest assurred when AMD sold the fabs they sold there soul. No fancy book work is going to change it .

Even tho GF has deep pockets. They still have to carry a balance sheet that acceptable.

Amd has to take on at least 30% of the losses on AMD books. Also AMDs margins must decline as they are now BUYING Fabbed chips. Unless GF is just an illeagal front. They have to charge AMD more for the chip than it cost them to produce. And quanity has much to do with those cost . Die size ect ect ect .

The reporting qt . Coming up is going to prove Intel is correct . The losses GF has and the higher cost of chip production for AMD has gone up. AMD has to show there share of those losses. This will stop AMD from getting outside financing. Which will lead to more investment bt ATIC . Which will dilute even further AMD ownership. When AMD sold the FABS AMD sold out. The Accounting books will have so many Intel lawyers on them . Know way can AMD get out of this. GF has to sign agreement with Intel. If intel doesn't get that agreement. Than AMD will lose in a court of law X86, Intel being RIGHT does not lose any X86 rights . Including 64-x86. All we have to wait for now is to see how the losses are carried on the books . That will tell all . Margines is the other taletail. For GF to make money they have to charge AMD a primiem for tha chip or they can never make money . If they charge AMD less than others . That will destroy there business model.

Somebody might beable to pull something like this off . If know one was paying attention. But thats not the case here. Intel is very interested and rightly so. So these guys on reporting earnings losses and margins had better use math that works correctly because Intels lawyers will see to it .

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Sureshot324

Originally posted by: Sureshot324
I still don't understand why AMD split up in the first place.

Money. They were going to be in chapter 11 in another 6 months otherwise.

How does splitting up save them money?

GlobalFoundries now pays the bills for the $2-3B annual capex needed to operate the fabs plus all the future process development costs.

I see A lot of off the wall stuff being said here.

Nemesis please let me know where the "off the wall stuff" is exactly in the line of posts you quoted.

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
So lets add some reality here shall we.
.
.
.

Seriously dude there is nothing about your post that follows this statement which is in any way "reality". You repetitively discuss "future" events and probably outcomes. That is not reality, that is fantasy (yours specifically) which has a non-zero probability of someday becoming reality.

Usually folks use the phrase "add some reality" when they are actually adding some facts (of the recorded history type) to the discussion.

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
GF is now a business. It paid alot. Thats a neg. on the books. Its going to be very interesting to see GF losses for its first reporting qt. It will be more intersting is AMDs share in those losses. Lets say GF has a 1 billion dollar loss. AMD has to take at least a 300 million loss on its ownership in GF . This is going to be intersting. GF has to follow the model of the other Job fabs . So AMD has to pay more per die now than befor when they owned the fabs . Also what date did AMDs second fab come online. When was c2d released. AMD couldn't compete because they only had 1 fab. Intel will show that in court.

The nature of the business deal is structured such that AMD would only have to report a write-down (an impairment charge) if the market value of globalfoundries appreciably decreased. A $1B loss by GF would not mean a $300m loss for AMD unless it meant the market value of GF declined by $1B...and as we all know cashflow and market value have little in common.

AMD does NOT have to pay more per die now than they did before. Whether it happens or not is entirely up to their negotiating abilities with the GF contract guys. For all we know GF will operate the fabs in such a manner that enables GF to lower their costs per wafer below what AMD had been operating the fabs at, and with the lowered cost structure they can offer AMD lower prices if they so desired.

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Also AMDs margins must decline as they are now BUYING Fabbed chips. Unless GF is just an illeagal front. They have to charge AMD more for the chip than it cost them to produce. And quanity has much to do with those cost . Die size ect ect ect .

GF can sell chips at below cost for loss-leader purposes if they desire to expand their customer portfolio and they have an objective of showing the world how good it treats their one customer for the time being. GF needs AMD, AMD does not need GF. Sure the CPU division of AMD would be castrated if they stopped using GF to fab 45nm, but the GPU division would live on. And after the necessary amount of bloodletting AMD would shrink to operate within the footprint of ATI. It is possible (but not desirable)...however GF ceases to exist if they can't keep AMD buying wafers.

GF has a legitimate business reason for operating at a loss until they get 32nm customers signed up, and if that helps AMD's balance sheet in the meantime there is nothing illegal about it. Just business.

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
The reporting qt . Coming up is going to prove Intel is correct . The losses GF has and the higher cost of chip production for AMD has gone up. AMD has to show there share of those losses. This will stop AMD from getting outside financing. Which will lead to more investment bt ATIC . Which will dilute even further AMD ownership. When AMD sold the FABS AMD sold out. The Accounting books will have so many Intel lawyers on them . Know way can AMD get out of this. GF has to sign agreement with Intel. If intel doesn't get that agreement. Than AMD will lose in a court of law X86, Intel being RIGHT does not lose any X86 rights . Including 64-x86. All we have to wait for now is to see how the losses are carried on the books . That will tell all . Margines is the other taletail. For GF to make money they have to charge AMD a primiem for tha chip or they can never make money . If they charge AMD less than others . That will destroy there business model.

Somebody might beable to pull something like this off . If know one was paying attention. But thats not the case here. Intel is very interested and rightly so. So these guys on reporting earnings losses and margins had better use math that works correctly because Intels lawyers will see to it .

Let me know which part of this is the "reality" you intended to add with your post. I see wishful thinking and fantasy land. Its all possible, so too is my convincing Geithner for a personal bailout to the tune of $1B (after which I'll bonus myself $1m for my mad negotiating skillz)...doesn't make it probable though.

 

[Viditor]

1. A loss at GF is not reported on AMD's books as a loss (as IDC has mentioned). GF is an AMD asset now, not an ongoing operation. For instance, if you own Intel shares and they make a profit, you don't have to record that profit for your own taxes...the only loss/gain you are concerned with (like AMD) is the value of the shares.

2. For many servers, Nehalem is a superior product...but for the largest growing segment (virtualization), AMD is still far superior.

3. Don't forget that while the 8s x 6-core Opterons are due mid year, the first Nehalem EX chips won't be here till year's end...that should be a very cool review matchup!

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Viditor
1. A loss at GF is not reported on AMD's books as a loss (as IDC has mentioned). GF is an AMD asset now, not an ongoing operation. For instance, if you own Intel shares and they make a profit, you don't have to record that profit for your own taxes...the only loss/gain you are concerned with (like AMD) is the value of the shares.

2. For many servers, Nehalem is a superior product...but for the largest growing segment (virtualization), AMD is still far superior.

3. Don't forget that while the 8s x 6-core Opterons are due mid year, the first Nehalem EX chips won't be here till year's end...that should be a very cool review matchup!

I don't know what world your from . But 30 % ownership in a company does not make you the controller the other 70% does. As Intel has said . This deal smells. In the USA no Amnericans are going to go along with idea . of 30% gives you controlling interest.

You say what you will . AMD will never convience American jury. That this is How it works for AMD ,. But not the rest of the world. OJ is not = to AMD.

Amd does not own GF . GF owns AMD . Amd is nothing more than a engineering house now. If GF losses 1 billion dollars and A 300 million dollar loss does not show up on AMD balance sheet. Thats not the same as me owning AMD shares. Your saying Viditor what Intel is saying . That AMD has know real control over GF. Same as me over AMD stock . All I can do is vote. Since all my votes will go with GF I am a loss to AMD on voteing matters. Most share holders will do the same. Ya got to follow the money.

Idon't care. So now your saying GF can sell chips below cost take the lossses . Amd doesn't have to report those losses while there getting below cost chip to sell. Accoding to Viditor. They can do this. You want to bet. Can Intel do the SAME???? There not a monolpy so can Intel do the SAME. KNOW THEY CAN"T . Its the reason AMD is sueing.

Intel is not a monoply. So Intel AMD can play by exact same rules.

If GF tries to sell chips below cost. They will be shut down . Investors in ATIC like myself will sue the company. We don't invest in companies designed to lose money illeagal business practicies. Now if AMD wants to do coupons thats OK . Everbody uses coupons very legael. Except in the EU were higher pricies is wanted. I am sure intel will do them as they want.

Ya all got something to say . Put your money were your mouths are. I got money to invest in a sure thing . So any takers. Lets see if AMD/GF doesn't have to redo their business model. Intel is right here you all know it to. I own alot of AMD class c stock now . None of those votes back AMD . I bought into ATIC not AMD.Atic gets my votes and their are many like myselve / AMD hasn't anywhere near 50% voting rights. They are counting my votes as theirs thats not the case at all. I know a 30.000 shares isn't alot but its 30,000 votes.

Viditor Bolded part . Got link to to Nehalem vs. AMD in virtualization. Or are you comparing to penryn again and again and again. Link please. Wait till ya see the server numbers for this qt. Its shocking. No one is buying servers. Their all waiting on intel nehalem DP / MP servers.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: Viditor
1. A loss at GF is not reported on AMD's books as a loss (as IDC has mentioned). GF is an AMD asset now, not an ongoing operation. For instance, if you own Intel shares and they make a profit, you don't have to record that profit for your own taxes...the only loss/gain you are concerned with (like AMD) is the value of the shares.

2. For many servers, Nehalem is a superior product...but for the largest growing segment (virtualization), AMD is still far superior.

3. Don't forget that while the 8s x 6-core Opterons are due mid year, the first Nehalem EX chips won't be here till year's end...that should be a very cool review matchup!

I don't know what world your from . But 30 % ownership in a company does not make you the controller the other 70% does. As Intel has said . This deal smells. In the USA no Amnericans are going to go along with idea . of 30% gives you controlling interest.

Actually, it's a very common practise to have shares with differing voting rights. For example, the stock that the US government was issued for the bailout of many of the companies was Preferred Stock, which has no voting rights at all...though it is ownership.

Amd does not own GF. GF owns AMD. Amd is nothing more than a engineering house now. If GF losses 1 billion dollars and A 300 million dollar loss does not show up on AMD balance sheet. Thats not the same as me owning AMD shares. Your saying Viditor what Intel is saying . That AMD has know real control over GF. Same as me over AMD stock . All I can do is vote. Since all my votes will go with GF I am a loss to AMD on voteing matters. Most share holders will do the same. Ya got to follow the money.

The way it stands is that AMD has 30% ownership, but 50% control (half the seats on the board).
Anytime you have less than 51% ownership, GAAP prevents you from passing the operations onto your own books.
The cross-license agreement specifically mentions 50% control to be a subsidiary under the agreement.

Idon't care. So now your saying GF can sell chips below cost take the lossses . Amd doesn't have to report those losses while there getting below cost chip to sell. Accoding to Viditor. They can do this. You want to bet. Can Intel do the SAME???? There not a monolpy so can Intel do the SAME. KNOW THEY CAN"T . Its the reason AMD is sueing.

Intel is not a monoply. So Intel AMD can play by exact same rules.

Intel almost certainly IS a monopoly...

1. A monopoly means having a controlling marketshare, not 100%
2. You can be a monopoly even before a court says you are. It's up to a company to know their own status.
3. Selling below cost has nothing to do with monopolies...what's prohibited to a monopoly is using their market position to supress the little guys. For example, they can't sign exclusivity deals that lock out competitors because their products are considered necessary for business to survive.
4. Selling below cost is called Predatory Pricing if it's used to drive another company out of the market.

I agree that the cost per chip will go up in some ways and down in others...
1. It will go up because GF wants to make a profit...
2. It will go down because with so many more customers, the higher volume will decrease the per chip cost.

If GF tries to sell chips below cost. They will be shut down . Investors in ATIC like myself will sue the company. We don't invest in companies designed to lose money illeagal business practicies. Now if AMD wants to do coupons thats OK . Everbody uses coupons very legael. Except in the EU were higher pricies is wanted. I am sure intel will do them as they want.

Ya all got something to say . Put your money were your mouths are. I got money to invest in a sure thing . So any takers. Lets see if AMD/GF doesn't have to redo their business model. Intel is right here you all know it to. I own alot of AMD class c stock now . None of those votes back AMD . I bought into ATIC not AMD.Atic gets my votes and their are many like myselve / AMD hasn't anywhere near 50% voting rights. They are counting my votes as theirs thats not the case at all. I know a 30.000 shares isn't alot but its 30,000 votes.

Viditor Bolded part . Got link to to Nehalem vs. AMD in virtualization. Or are you comparing to penryn again and again and again. Link please. Wait till ya see the server numbers for this qt. Its shocking. No one is buying servers. Their all waiting on intel nehalem DP / MP servers.

Honestly, I would bet my last dollar that the lack of server sales has nothing to do at all with either Nehalem or Opteron...
Every company I know of not only has a capex freeze, but a hiring freeze as well...because of the Global Recession.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Sureshot324
I still don't understand why AMD split up in the first place.

Money. They were going to be in chapter 11 in another 6 months otherwise.

It wasn't THAT bad, but it was close (more like 12-18 months...)

Originally posted by: Sureshot324
AFAIK AMD's antitrust case against Intel is still going on. Intel could agree to drop this case if AMD drops that one.

No way AMD would drop the antitrust suit. Remember AMD's argument here is that the seeds were sown back in 2002-2004 timeframe to undermine AMD's growth trajectory so much so that they were not capable of then weathering the existing storm as they didn't have the excess gross margins needed in 2004 to fully fund an R&D team capable of developing competitive products for production in the 2006-2008 timeframe.

If Intel wins the current claim against AMD it will only be used as further evidence of the damage done to AMD stemming from Intel's antitrust activities in 2002-2004.

Intel may win some battles, but its going to add up to them losing the war.

I agree that dropping the case won't happen...sort of.
I have been fairly sure that this case never gets decided in open court. I don't think Intel can afford to actually let the case go through, and AMD can probably get a better all around deal in a settlement.
That said, the question becomes what form will the settlement take...?
1. Certainly it will cost Intel a good amount of cash (my guess is it will be enough to pay off all of AMD's debts)
2. It's a given that Intel will never take up their old rebate program again
3. A more favourable cross-license agreement would seem to be quite probable.
4. No more x86 royalties

This is all guesswork, but I think they are fairly good guesses...

PS And no, I don't think there's any chance at all that Intel will go to court and win.

1. There will be little cash involved. Your good at overlooking REAL EVIDENCE. 2002-2004 AMD had only 1 fab. We can figure how many cpus AMD could make. But could AMD guarentee Dell HP and others they could deliver. Short ans. is no. Intel can prove this with simple math. So Dell being the biggest needed assurances that AMD could deliver. AMD could not give those assurances to Dell and others. Trueth is AMD was FAB constrained and Intel will prove it. Intel will ALSO say AMD was over pricing the AMD64 product and thats the reason they didn't grow more market share. AMDs argument will be we were Fab constrained so we couldn't lower pricies. Ya see how it works. Intel will corner AMD on the FAB capacity for the 2002-2004 period. Which AMD will deny. Than for THE AMD64 period AMD will say they had to charge hifger pricies because we were FAB constrained. After AMD had 2 fabs it was to late C2D appeared . Now AMDs fabs were idling again . YA blame Intel for piss poor management.

2. I think your wrong. I think that Intel / AMD will settle out of court with AMD getting nothing. So that means Intel can still use coupons in the states and other places.

I think Intel will be allowed to use coupons in the places it hasn't been demonized by idiots. So Thats how Intel will get back the fine money. NO coupons for Japan Korea or the EU. But the rest of the world still loves a good coupon deal . So EU /Japan /Korea. Will not get coupon discounts from intel . While others will . Placing EU/Japan/ Korea at a marketing disadvantage to those who recieve coupons. Its their countries they will recieve what they sow. Price cuts are bad business practicies If you base them off large volumn sales ; Is a lie. Its good business and it lowers pricies. If anyone can show a coupon deal offered by intel that wasn't based off of Volumn purchases. I will kiss your ass. No one will show evidance of Intel gives you coupon to not buy AMD. NO one will have that proof. This is the only proof that exist. We intel will give coupons to anyone who buys from US in Volumn. Is this the same as saying you can't buy AMD.? Thats what were about to find out. AMD is reverting back to befor PH1 and distorting the trueth alot. They want intel to blog with them . and calling intel out again . The last time AMD called intel out it didn't go well. It is possiable Hector is trying to steal AMD from its share holders. Its certainly set up that way . Had intel not put stop to it. AMDs calls Intel out. Intel says OKOK I will come clean. Lets show everyone the x86 2001 contract. Thats when AMD backs up and so . Say what. we were just making noise. Lets not let all see the trueth. Or is there something in contract that Intel doesn't want us to see . Nope Intel wants to reveal all / AMD doesn't . How smart are you . Whos playing hideand seek here. Its not Intel.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: Viditor
1. A loss at GF is not reported on AMD's books as a loss (as IDC has mentioned). GF is an AMD asset now, not an ongoing operation. For instance, if you own Intel shares and they make a profit, you don't have to record that profit for your own taxes...the only loss/gain you are concerned with (like AMD) is the value of the shares.

2. For many servers, Nehalem is a superior product...but for the largest growing segment (virtualization), AMD is still far superior.

3. Don't forget that while the 8s x 6-core Opterons are due mid year, the first Nehalem EX chips won't be here till year's end...that should be a very cool review matchup!

I don't know what world your from . But 30 % ownership in a company does not make you the controller the other 70% does. As Intel has said . This deal smells. In the USA no Amnericans are going to go along with idea . of 30% gives you controlling interest.

Actually, it's a very common practise to have shares with differing voting rights. For example, the stock that the US government was issued for the bailout of many of the companies was Preferred Stock, which has no voting rights at all...though it is ownership.

Amd does not own GF. GF owns AMD. Amd is nothing more than a engineering house now. If GF losses 1 billion dollars and A 300 million dollar loss does not show up on AMD balance sheet. Thats not the same as me owning AMD shares. Your saying Viditor what Intel is saying . That AMD has know real control over GF. Same as me over AMD stock . All I can do is vote. Since all my votes will go with GF I am a loss to AMD on voteing matters. Most share holders will do the same. Ya got to follow the money.

The way it stands is that AMD has 30% ownership, but 50% control (half the seats on the board).
Anytime you have less than 51% ownership, GAAP prevents you from passing the operations onto your own books.
The cross-license agreement specifically mentions 50% control to be a subsidiary under the agreement.

Idon't care. So now your saying GF can sell chips below cost take the lossses . Amd doesn't have to report those losses while there getting below cost chip to sell. Accoding to Viditor. They can do this. You want to bet. Can Intel do the SAME???? There not a monolpy so can Intel do the SAME. KNOW THEY CAN"T . Its the reason AMD is sueing.

Intel is not a monoply. So Intel AMD can play by exact same rules.

Intel almost certainly IS a monopoly...

1. A monopoly means having a controlling marketshare, not 100%
2. You can be a monopoly even before a court says you are. It's up to a company to know their own status.
3. Selling below cost has nothing to do with monopolies...what's prohibited to a monopoly is using their market position to supress the little guys. For example, they can't sign exclusivity deals that lock out competitors because their products are considered necessary for business to survive.
4. Selling below cost is called Predatory Pricing if it's used to drive another company out of the market.

I agree that the cost per chip will go up in some ways and down in others...
1. It will go up because GF wants to make a profit...
2. It will go down because with so many more customers, the higher volume will decrease the per chip cost.

If GF tries to sell chips below cost. They will be shut down . Investors in ATIC like myself will sue the company. We don't invest in companies designed to lose money illeagal business practicies. Now if AMD wants to do coupons thats OK . Everbody uses coupons very legael. Except in the EU were higher pricies is wanted. I am sure intel will do them as they want.

Ya all got something to say . Put your money were your mouths are. I got money to invest in a sure thing . So any takers. Lets see if AMD/GF doesn't have to redo their business model. Intel is right here you all know it to. I own alot of AMD class c stock now . None of those votes back AMD . I bought into ATIC not AMD.Atic gets my votes and their are many like myselve / AMD hasn't anywhere near 50% voting rights. They are counting my votes as theirs thats not the case at all. I know a 30.000 shares isn't alot but its 30,000 votes.

Viditor Bolded part . Got link to to Nehalem vs. AMD in virtualization. Or are you comparing to penryn again and again and again. Link please. Wait till ya see the server numbers for this qt. Its shocking. No one is buying servers. Their all waiting on intel nehalem DP / MP servers.

Honestly, I would bet my last dollar that the lack of server sales has nothing to do at all with either Nehalem or Opteron...
Every company I know of not only has a capex freeze, but a hiring freeze as well...because of the Global Recession.

Your wrong on the server thing . Google: Many are waiting on Nehalem eagerly. Class C stock has full voting priv. on AMD. Some restrictions on class b . I believe class A has no vote. Could have it mixed up. no biggie.


Hay I want AMD to succeded but not by doing it the way they are accusing intel of doing it. Thats exactly whats going on here. AMD brought a suite against intel because they couldn't compete with INTEL FABS Not processors. One fab in the beginning works . One fab 15 years into production is weak as all hell. Intels case is won on math. How many cpus did AMD sell . per year with 1 fab . What is max capacity of that fab per year. What years were your fabs running at max volumn what happened when you have 2 fabs. Why weren't they running at max capicity. No lies and falsely anaylized lawyer work isn't going to help amd here. Intel is going to rely a MATH and prove to all how math cann't lie. Weres AMD can and do rather well at it I might add.Lieing that is.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Heres 2001 for amd . I see a problem with AMds case read.
http://edge.networkworld.com/n...news/2001/0118amd.html


2002

http://news.cnet.com/AMD-misse...100-1001_3-981036.html



I don't see were AMD was having problem selling CPUs.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Idon't care. So now your saying GF can sell chips below cost take the lossses . Amd doesn't have to report those losses while there getting below cost chip to sell. Accoding to Viditor. They can do this. You want to bet. Can Intel do the SAME???? There not a monolpy so can Intel do the SAME. KNOW THEY CAN"T . Its the reason AMD is sueing.

Nemesis I think you are getting wrapped up about this solely because it involves AMD.

Change the subject to just about any other industry that involves manufacturing and we have examples where this happens commonplace.

GM doesn't sell cars at cost, they lose money on every single car they sell. Who does it benefit for GM to sell cars at a loss? Their dealers. So if a dealer buys a loss-leading car from GM and turns around and sells it for a profit for themselves (for the dealership's books) then the dealership made profits. No big deal. It happens all the time.

Has GM been sued specifically for this?

Ever buy airline tickets thru a travel agent? Orbitz makes money on those $79 tickets to Las Vegas but you can bet the airline does not. Its a loss-leader. Get warm bodies on the plane to at least recover some of the fuel costs since the plane was going to fly anyways whether it had 20 people onboard or 120 people.

Has United Airlines been sued specifically for this?

Globalfoundries can operate at a loss for as long as their balance sheet prevents them from going into bankruptcy. Suing a company for having bad management which made bad decisions is common, so you could sue Globalfoundries if you like but the courts have a pretty weak history of finding for the investor in such cases.

Again for globalfoundries and what it is they need to accomplish in the next 12-18 months in order to be viable in the foundry business the last thing they need is for their ONLY customer to go under, losing AMD would be fatal to globalfoundries from a credibility and momentum standpoint. If I were a shareholder I'd want them to be playing it smart, not be a penny smart and a pound foolish, as they try and gain customers in this environment.