Kohenkatz writes "Intel has agreed to pay $1.25 billion to AMD. In return, AMD will drop its lawsuits about patent and antitrust complaints. The two companies released this joint statement: 'While the relationship between the two companies has been difficult in the past, this agreement ends the legal disputes and enables the companies to focus all of our efforts on product innovation and development.' The press release also says, 'Under terms of the agreement, AMD and Intel obtain patent rights from a new 5-year cross license agreement,' and that 'Intel and AMD will give up any claims of breach from the previous license agreement.'"
Seriously, this number seems low to me. The pending suits against Intel alleged that for a decade Intel conspired to freeze AMD out of the market. Intel poisoned nearly all of AMD's potential customers. Surely that cost AMD a lot more than just a billion or so dollars in lost revenue.
I imagine that AMD has quite a bit to gain from the cross-licensing provision. In fact, they both do. I wouldn't be surprised if they're both worried about competition from mutual rivals such as ARM. This could be a big win for both in that regard.
Possibly; however, if it ever came down to an all-out litigious patent war, AMD may well have come out on top thanks to holding the rights to the x86-64 instruction set. It's not clear that AMD gets any real benefit other than getting to put the whole dispute behind them. I suspect that the real advantage that AMD gets out of this is the admission from Intel that they were engaging in illegal business practices. Intel has agreed to stop blocking AMD from OEM sales and will probably honor it considering that they've just admitted to bad behavior.
It looks to me like AMD thinks that they can compete based on their products despite the disadvantage that Intel has put them in through illegal means. I just hope that it means we get to see some chips from AMD that once again provide a much better performance/cost ratio than the Intel chips.
I just hope that it means we get to see some chips from AMD that once again provide a much better performance/cost ratio than the Intel chips.
AMD processors are still beating Intel in the performance/cost ratio. They have been falling behind Intel on performance benchmarks alone, but the cost is cheap enough to make AMD a clear winner when comparing performance and cost.
I'm looking forward to the time where they once again provide better performance than Intel while also toting a cheaper price tag.
And even then... since when is most desktop performance limited by the CPU any more? I bought a quad-core Phenom II for under $200 a couple months back. I have yet to feel limited by CPU speed. I mean... I have been transcoding my DVD's to insanely high quality H.264 at over 40FPS. If I transcode to an iPod format with handbrake, it'll hit over 300FPS. Why would I need to pay over double for a higher-performing i7, especially since the i7 will require new RAM and a motherboard, whereas the Phenom didn't?
AMD processors are still beating Intel in the performance/cost ratio.
Only if you ignore Intel processors which cost more than $200, right?
The best AMD (Phenom II X4 965) is about on par with the i5 and they cost about the same. As the CPU gets faster the price performance gets worse for Intel CPUs.
To be fair, if your buying a whole system that extra CPU cost becomes less significant. An i7-860 might be worth it if it increases the cost of the system by at most 30%. Even an i7-960 can be OK if it increases the price by at most 60%. Given that a good AMD computer costs maybe 600 then the i7-860 is probably worth it, but the i7-960 is overpriced when you factor in the motherboard.
Of course, Intel wouldn't have such good prices without AMD, so in the long run it's good to support AMD. Also most people don't really need the extra speed. If you need a new machine then a midrange AMD for around 500 is probably your best bet.
If you are really concerned about speed then just use the money you save to upgrade more often. Given Moore's law, on average, you'll have a faster machine (or at least a machine with more cores.) Also, when just upgrading, the AMD price/performance gap gets even better.
So I'll grant you that Intel's flagship i7 is faster than AMD's flagship Phenom II, but the Phenom has a slightly LOWER TDP and is 1/5 of the cost of the i7. Is the i7 4-5 times faster?
When AMD first started releasing x86-64 processors, they were beating Intel in price and performance. I think that is why Intel started to resort to the tactics that they did.
AMD can't beat Intel on top performance these days because they keep falling behind on new fabrication processes. However, price out a comparable low to medium end AMD system with an Intel system, and you'll find that not only is the processor cheaper, but so is the motherboard.
AMD can still claim advantages at certain price points. N
That's too bad about your experiences. I've gotten at least 6 CPU's from AMD (original x2's though to my current Phenom II quad-core), as well only buying ATI graphics cards recently. Haven't had a single problem, even with open-box items. Maybe it was the motherboards you were using? Every problem I've ever had with AMD stuff has always come down to a bad motherboard.
Of course they lost more in revenue than that. But did they lose more in profits? Perhaps. There's also the possibility of access to patents that they did not have before, though this seems to be a pattern wherein around the end of the cross-licensing agreements, AMD sues (or threatens to sue) Intel, leading to some media stories and eventually an agreement, from which AMD seems to get more practical use than does Intel.
our SGNA expenses will decrease a bit on a go-forward basis
for us this has never been about money, it's about the marketplace, and there's no correlation between the settlement amount and anything... it's a negotiated number
what's important... it signals a new era, it's a pivot from war to pease, and we're trying oto redefine not only the path to a fair and fierce competitive fight in the blah blah blah tonality blah blah blah buzzword get this behind us and move forward in a very respectful way, blah blah blah
As an AMD shareholder and an enthusiast who has followed this 'case' since 1999, I also think this settlement is low. I do not believe $1.25billion could bump AMD to a cash position of where it would have been if Intel had not competed unfairly. Yes, it is a $1.25billion injection of direct profits to AMD - but the cashflow through the company over the years from the marketplace to R and D would have put AMD in a much more competitive position.
My guess is that they don't really care about the past. They care about now. $1.25Bn is a lot of money coming in especially in the current economic climate. This and the patent deals means that AMD can move forward on relevant technologies now and in the future without worrying over spending money on lawsuits.
Only recently AMD was clearing some debts for 30 cents on the dollar - i.e., the banks wanted money so bad that they allowed AMD to pay back one third of the amount they were willing to clear. AMD didn't have much spare money though, so they didn't clear much.
Imagine if AMD has another such offer on the table from their banks - they could clear far far more than the money they got from Intel. Getting the money now could have an overall net benefit greater than letting such a deal expire and getting a bit more from Intel in a couple of years. Never mind the interest payments they'll save paying them off now rather than in the future, even if there is no such deal.
I think putting everything behind them, getting freedom to manufacture as they like, and having a level playing field with the OEMs (sadly at a time when AMD's offerings aren't the shiniest) is more important to them.
Except that this is 1.25 billion dollars that AMD need make no sale to acquire. No materials costs, no QC costs. No manufacturing losses. Why should AMD (or anyone else) be concerned with revenues lost? They're only a way to secure profits. This is much closer to a billion dollars of profits, which is far more valuable than a billion dollars of revenue.
good point, I don't know what AMDs profit margins are but if they are 20%, this $1.25B would be worth $6.25B in revenue.
I thought the 5 year term was a rather short period for this kind of business where it can take that long to bring a new design from drawing board to production. In a way, I hope it doesn't give either Intel nor AMD any fire power against ARM. I'd like to finally see another hardware platform enter the desktop segment first. ie, I'd like to see ARM get a foothold before they really see viable competition. They are doing quite well in the handset segment and are due to enter the netbook segment this fall. Success there will open the door to move up the chain into the laptop segment by this time in 2011 via multi-core systems.
The anti-trust suits against Intel were/are mostly going to go to the EU, with appeals and legal wrangling AMD probably decided 1.25bn now would be better than an optimistic 2.5bn in 8 years when they've become the new SGI.
I don't pay attention to all of the legal details every time Intel and AMD fight in court, because they fight a lot. This is always what happens: a new cross licensing deal and some money exchanges hands. How much money is right? I don't think anyone knows. Less than the amount that it would take to kill either one of them, but more than enough to save face for the other.
Not to mention Intel has already been found guilty in other countries. I think that Intel had good reason to suspect the same might happen in the US. Intel did get off light.
I assume AMD took the deal because they have been hemmoraghing money for some time now. They needed a cash influx and couldn't afford to fight a legal battle much longer.
The sad thing here is that the end lesson is that illegal, anti-competitive practices can be quite beneficial. The US government overlooked them, even when a bevy of vendors testified on AMD's behalf, despite Intel threatening those vendors. Intel profitted not only in the immediate dollar sense, but also in gaining massive market share.
Yet the US threatened to go after Google if they had a search partnership with Yahoo. That is an evil monopoly that must be quashed (but it would be fine if Microsoft purchased Yahoo, swallowed their services, and removed choice and competition from the marketplace). None of this makes much sense.
but we still have to worry about intel bullying manufacturers like dell into using intel only.
the dropping the lawsuit, 5 year no fire period is good though...
is to get its shit together Fab-wise. They've been leading Intel for nearly 10 years in developing or deploying new tech and architecture but Chipzilla has always been able to keep abreast because of their fabrication prowess.
Now that Intel's Nehalem architecture has all of the elements that AMD has been delivering with the Athlon and its descendants, they're back to being the budget brand.
Color me stupid, but why doesn't AMD strike a deal with IBM who does routinely manage to get their fabrication processes put together in a reasonable matter of time.
The Cell hasn't taken off like mad. IBM lost the Apple processor deal a few years back. I'm assuming IBM could ramp up and assist AMD.
They did. IBM and AMD shared manufacturing research [youtube.com] together with Chartered, Freescale, Infineon and Samsung. AMD even considered manufacturing processors at Chartered because of this manufacturing process similarity, but in the end they couldn't get enough yield and had issues with licensing x86 from Intel. AMD probably doesn't consider manufacturing chips using IBM's similar East Fishkill factory because their production is already allocated and IBM is notoriously known as an expensive place to outsource
The European Commission has set an example by fining Intel 1.45B. No US court was likely to award much more than that.
AMD can make much better use of the cash now, rather than a few years down the line. And Intel can do without being continuously accused of cheating.
Rest assured that the agreement has included quite a few provisions regarding dirty play in the future, but don't expect those to be made public.
I don't understand US law but if intel have done something worthy of an antitrust suit isn't it down to the DOJ to go after them? Or was this some sort of civil antitrust suit?
I think only the DoJ can open up criminal anti-trust suits, but I believe anyone can do a civil anti-trust suit. I could be mistaken, as I am not a lawyer.
I don't understand US law but if intel have done something worthy of an antitrust suit isn't it down to the DOJ to go after them?
Or was this some sort of civil antitrust suit?
The answers to your questions are in order: Yes and Yes.
If the DOJ thinks that Intel has done something worthy of an antitrust suit they can go after them (and the DOJ has been investigating Intel, so they still may). However, a non government entity can also bring an antitrust suit (although they have to demonstrate that they are in some way directly impacted by this behavior).
Not if the Bush/Obama administration tells DoJ [eff.org] not to. Look at the pattern for the last 9 years and there's little reason to expect DoJ getting involved. As far as I can tell, these days the DoJ's main purpose in computers and communication industries seems to be to fight FOIA requests, keep cases out of courts, etc.
This still doesn't resolve a major problem in the chip industry and that is that these two companies have a duopoly on x86 and x86-64 chip designs due to patents. I'm not a patent lawyer, but I really don't see how Intel can possibly patent an instruction set (the implementation thereof, sure, but the instructions themselves?). Until these companies are forced to license to third-parties, we'll still see a real lack of competition.
Until these companies are forced to license to third-parties, we'll still see a real lack of competition.
Forcing them to license out all the relevant x86 patents would open up the playing field, but it wouldn't be totally open. One must still pay for what will almost certainly be expensive licenses. The only way to truly open up this market for competition is just to get rid of all of the x86 patents. Otherwise, Intel and AMD will still have quite a bit of control over who they deem important enough to enter the hallowed x86 market.
Yeah, I see it as good and bad. The good: this might help AMD. The bad: it helps no other manufacturers. I would have preferred to see the absurd idea that an instruction set is patentable, get smashed. But I suppose there's no reason for AMD to advocate that, if they can get what they want through other means, since they happen to have the advantage over Intel in this regard.
I really don't see how Intel can possibly patent an instruction set (the implementation thereof, sure, but the instructions themselves?)
Technically all the patents are on implementations, but there are thousands of them, mostly covering the obvious ways you would implement any of the features, or any pair of features, or any triple of features, or any pair of features in a particular process, etc., etc. The end effect is that it's basically impossible to implement x86 without stepping on some patents, proba
___AMD and Intel have made agreements previously, only to not be happy with the results. In particular, the first time, it looked very much as if as soon as they agreed to cross-license, AMD stopped innovating and depended upon Intel for product development. Intel felt cheated. AMD and Intel have also agreed to stop suing each other previously. I wonder how long it will last this time.
The good news is that for a while some lawyers won't be getting any money.
Q: So what does this mean... in terms of... ownership
Um uh, um uh. We have a obviously very important relationship with Abu Dhabi, global foundries is part of the vision of AMD, great thing for industry and us... we will be implementing the agreements the key thing here is that for AMD and for global foundries, this addresses anybody's concerns about robustness and entitlement AMD the product company is well-poised to move ahead on its strategy in order to serve the market and be a key buzzword blah blah blah
the new patent cross-license between AMD and intel does give AMD broad rights no longer requires global foundries to be structured as a subsidiary of AMD
Q: intel has agreed to provide business practice provisions
think of it in terms of marketplace and customer access ability for multinational OEMs and key channel partners to have "freedom of action" and choice to differentiate offerings between AMD and intel respect to specific practices and ground rules, the agreement... totally transparent about this, the agreement will be totally public as quickly as we can achieve that the key points are for us that intel will not be able to condition doing business with them on not doing business with us, that's one way I would put it. they can't use inducements in order to force exclusive dealing, delay customers from using our products, delaying companies from delaying advertising... withholding benefits from OEMs... in the compiler business, compilers will not unfairly/artificially impair the performance of our products, we're never looking for any help, just not unfairly... intel has an obligation not to do things simply designed to hurt us blah blah lots of repetition of buzzwords like 'ecosystem' and 'productitivity gains'
Q: global foundries separation timeline
clearly gives AMD, global foundries, and atek flexibility esp. in light of acquisition of charter, and does pave the way for merger of charter and global foundries, but no announcemnet being made, no timeline
Q: ?
We are trying to reset the relationship between AMD and intel. That relationship has been intense, emotional, and at times acrimonious for... all too many years. The one thing that I would say that is a touchstone principle... we are going to be fierce competitors in a free and open marketplace, we are going to be mutually respectful, we want to put this behind us... healthy, normal relationship that competitors do. you will see in the agreement fought-out procedures by which we will build relationship and trust and try to resolve our differences without spilling into the courts, into the public affairs domain. this is a start and both parties intend this agreement to be an opportunity to pivot the relationship and go forward in a very classy way.
Q: Is this only x86? No graphics etc?
I uh, um, uh, that's a complicated answer but I think the general answer to your question is yes. The suits... have pertained to x86 processors and platforms,
there's two parts to the agreement, one is antitrust, the other is patent cross-license, broad, covers "all productS"
let me put it this way... it is an important feature of our agreement... that we have resolved ALL disputes. on the IP side, amd and intel have had patent peace with each other since 1976. design freedom to innovate, great contributors to patent portfolio... we have now the flexibility with rights under IP agreement for full use of foundries.
Q: is the cash being deployed towards reducing debt
you now understand why we were not more specific in yesterday's meeting on debt restructuring
Q: What happens to the cases around the world, what is your expectation
the regulatory investigations etc are conducted by sovereign governments... so the regulators will do what they are
For those who bought AMD early enough, stock price jumped ~20% today. Not bad:-)
Don't forget that 1.25 billion represents a significant portion of AMD's capitalization and far surpasses the cumulated earnings of the last few years.
They did get soft indeed, particularly around the Pentium 4 / Itanium era. Actually neither of those seemed to sound obviously bad ideas at the time but they utterly failed to deliver on the promised benefits:-( AIUI the Pentium M processor was actually pretty close to the Pentium III design, which many people seem to have approved of.
At least the stuff learnt from Pentium 4 (arguably even Itanium) systems hasn't been completely lost, since hyperthreading and EFI (for instance) are both seeing use in oth
Only $1.25 Billion? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Only $1.25 Billion? (Score:4, Interesting)
I imagine that AMD has quite a bit to gain from the cross-licensing provision. In fact, they both do. I wouldn't be surprised if they're both worried about competition from mutual rivals such as ARM. This could be a big win for both in that regard.
Parent
Re:Only $1.25 Billion? (Score:5, Interesting)
Possibly; however, if it ever came down to an all-out litigious patent war, AMD may well have come out on top thanks to holding the rights to the x86-64 instruction set. It's not clear that AMD gets any real benefit other than getting to put the whole dispute behind them. I suspect that the real advantage that AMD gets out of this is the admission from Intel that they were engaging in illegal business practices. Intel has agreed to stop blocking AMD from OEM sales and will probably honor it considering that they've just admitted to bad behavior.
It looks to me like AMD thinks that they can compete based on their products despite the disadvantage that Intel has put them in through illegal means. I just hope that it means we get to see some chips from AMD that once again provide a much better performance/cost ratio than the Intel chips.
Parent
Re:Only $1.25 Billion? (Score:5, Insightful)
I just hope that it means we get to see some chips from AMD that once again provide a much better performance/cost ratio than the Intel chips.
AMD processors are still beating Intel in the performance/cost ratio. They have been falling behind Intel on performance benchmarks alone, but the cost is cheap enough to make AMD a clear winner when comparing performance and cost.
I'm looking forward to the time where they once again provide better performance than Intel while also toting a cheaper price tag.
Parent
Re:Only $1.25 Billion? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Only $1.25 Billion? (Score:4, Informative)
The best AMD (Phenom II X4 965) is about on par with the i5 and they cost about the same. As the CPU gets faster the price performance gets worse for Intel CPUs.
To be fair, if your buying a whole system that extra CPU cost becomes less significant. An i7-860 might be worth it if it increases the cost of the system by at most 30%. Even an i7-960 can be OK if it increases the price by at most 60%. Given that a good AMD computer costs maybe 600 then the i7-860 is probably worth it, but the i7-960 is overpriced when you factor in the motherboard.
Of course, Intel wouldn't have such good prices without AMD, so in the long run it's good to support AMD. Also most people don't really need the extra speed. If you need a new machine then a midrange AMD for around 500 is probably your best bet.
If you are really concerned about speed then just use the money you save to upgrade more often. Given Moore's law, on average, you'll have a faster machine (or at least a machine with more cores.) Also, when just upgrading, the AMD price/performance gap gets even better.
Parent
Huh? AMD's TDP is quite competitive with Intel (Score:5, Informative)
According to Newegg:
AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition Deneb 3.4GHz Socket AM3 125W Quad-Core Processor $199.99
Intel Core i7-975 Extreme Edition Bloomfield 3.33GHz LGA 1366 130W Quad-Core Processor $999.99
So I'll grant you that Intel's flagship i7 is faster than AMD's flagship Phenom II, but the Phenom has a slightly LOWER TDP and is 1/5 of the cost of the i7. Is the i7 4-5 times faster?
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
When AMD first started releasing x86-64 processors, they were beating Intel in price and performance. I think that is why Intel started to resort to the tactics that they did.
AMD can't beat Intel on top performance these days because they keep falling behind on new fabrication processes. However, price out a comparable low to medium end AMD system with an Intel system, and you'll find that not only is the processor cheaper, but so is the motherboard.
AMD can still claim advantages at certain price points. N
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Only $1.25 Billion? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they lost more in revenue than that. But did they lose more in profits? Perhaps. There's also the possibility of access to patents that they did not have before, though this seems to be a pattern wherein around the end of the cross-licensing agreements, AMD sues (or threatens to sue) Intel, leading to some media stories and eventually an agreement, from which AMD seems to get more practical use than does Intel.
Re:Only $1.25 Billion? (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, you can bet I bought a Core 2 Duo after what happened to my coffee when I was researching a Phenom II...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Those they couldn't poison they tried to bribe with cache...
Re: (Score:2)
my thoughts exactly. I'm sure there is more to it than that from what I read of the business practice requirements.
Also, I suspect this won't stop the antitrust investigation in the US, either.
Re:Only $1.25 Billion? (Score:4, Informative)
Q: How did you arrive at this number
our SGNA expenses will decrease a bit on a go-forward basis
for us this has never been about money, it's about the marketplace, and there's no correlation between the settlement amount and anything... it's a negotiated number
what's important... it signals a new era, it's a pivot from war to pease, and we're trying oto redefine not only the path to a fair and fierce competitive fight in the blah blah blah tonality blah blah blah buzzword get this behind us and move forward in a very respectful way, blah blah blah
You can tell I'm listening to the webcast.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Only $1.25 Billion? (Score:5, Insightful)
As an AMD shareholder and an enthusiast who has followed this 'case' since 1999, I also think this settlement is low. I do not believe $1.25billion could bump AMD to a cash position of where it would have been if Intel had not competed unfairly. Yes, it is a $1.25billion injection of direct profits to AMD - but the cashflow through the company over the years from the marketplace to R and D would have put AMD in a much more competitive position.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is that they don't really care about the past. They care about now. $1.25Bn is a lot of money coming in especially in the current economic climate. This and the patent deals means that AMD can move forward on relevant technologies now and in the future without worrying over spending money on lawsuits.
Re:Only $1.25 Billion? (Score:4, Interesting)
Only recently AMD was clearing some debts for 30 cents on the dollar - i.e., the banks wanted money so bad that they allowed AMD to pay back one third of the amount they were willing to clear. AMD didn't have much spare money though, so they didn't clear much.
Imagine if AMD has another such offer on the table from their banks - they could clear far far more than the money they got from Intel. Getting the money now could have an overall net benefit greater than letting such a deal expire and getting a bit more from Intel in a couple of years. Never mind the interest payments they'll save paying them off now rather than in the future, even if there is no such deal.
I think putting everything behind them, getting freedom to manufacture as they like, and having a level playing field with the OEMs (sadly at a time when AMD's offerings aren't the shiniest) is more important to them.
Parent
Re:Only $1.25 Billion? (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that this is 1.25 billion dollars that AMD need make no sale to acquire. No materials costs, no QC costs. No manufacturing losses. Why should AMD (or anyone else) be concerned with revenues lost? They're only a way to secure profits. This is much closer to a billion dollars of profits, which is far more valuable than a billion dollars of revenue.
Parent
Re:Only $1.25 Billion? (Score:4, Interesting)
I thought the 5 year term was a rather short period for this kind of business where it can take that long to bring a new design from drawing board to production. In a way, I hope it doesn't give either Intel nor AMD any fire power against ARM. I'd like to finally see another hardware platform enter the desktop segment first. ie, I'd like to see ARM get a foothold before they really see viable competition. They are doing quite well in the handset segment and are due to enter the netbook segment this fall. Success there will open the door to move up the chain into the laptop segment by this time in 2011 via multi-core systems.
LoB
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Only $1.25 Billion? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to mention Intel has already been found guilty in other countries. I think that Intel had good reason to suspect the same might happen in the US. Intel did get off light.
I assume AMD took the deal because they have been hemmoraghing money for some time now. They needed a cash influx and couldn't afford to fight a legal battle much longer.
The sad thing here is that the end lesson is that illegal, anti-competitive practices can be quite beneficial. The US government overlooked them, even when a bevy of vendors testified on AMD's behalf, despite Intel threatening those vendors. Intel profitted not only in the immediate dollar sense, but also in gaining massive market share.
Yet the US threatened to go after Google if they had a search partnership with Yahoo. That is an evil monopoly that must be quashed (but it would be fine if Microsoft purchased Yahoo, swallowed their services, and removed choice and competition from the marketplace). None of this makes much sense.
Parent
good thing? (Score:2, Insightful)
What AMD needs to do - and quickly (Score:5, Interesting)
is to get its shit together Fab-wise. They've been leading Intel for nearly 10 years in developing or deploying new tech and architecture
but Chipzilla has always been able to keep abreast because of their fabrication prowess.
Now that Intel's Nehalem architecture has all of the elements that AMD has been delivering with the Athlon and its descendants,
they're back to being the budget brand.
Re: (Score:2)
Chipzilla has always been able to keep abreast because of their fabrication prowess
Well that helps, but also due to the anti-competitive tactics that Intel used against AMD.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Color me stupid, but why doesn't AMD strike a deal with IBM who does routinely manage to get their fabrication processes put together in a reasonable matter of time.
The Cell hasn't taken off like mad. IBM lost the Apple processor deal a few years back. I'm assuming IBM could ramp up and assist AMD.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
AMD was smart to take the money _now_ (Score:2, Informative)
DOJ? (Score:2)
I don't understand US law but if intel have done something worthy of an antitrust suit isn't it down to the DOJ to go after them?
Or was this some sort of civil antitrust suit?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody has to complain first.
Re:DOJ? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't understand US law but if intel have done something worthy of an antitrust suit isn't it down to the DOJ to go after them?
Or was this some sort of civil antitrust suit?
The answers to your questions are in order: Yes and Yes.
If the DOJ thinks that Intel has done something worthy of an antitrust suit they can go after them (and the DOJ has been investigating Intel, so they still may). However, a non government entity can also bring an antitrust suit (although they have to demonstrate that they are in some way directly impacted by this behavior).
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not if the Bush/Obama administration tells DoJ [eff.org] not to. Look at the pattern for the last 9 years and there's little reason to expect DoJ getting involved. As far as I can tell, these days the DoJ's main purpose in computers and communication industries seems to be to fight FOIA requests, keep cases out of courts, etc.
Now only if they would license x86 and x86-64 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Until these companies are forced to license to third-parties, we'll still see a real lack of competition.
Forcing them to license out all the relevant x86 patents would open up the playing field, but it wouldn't be totally open. One must still pay for what will almost certainly be expensive licenses. The only way to truly open up this market for competition is just to get rid of all of the x86 patents. Otherwise, Intel and AMD will still have quite a bit of control over who they deem important enough to enter the hallowed x86 market.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I see it as good and bad. The good: this might help AMD. The bad: it helps no other manufacturers. I would have preferred to see the absurd idea that an instruction set is patentable, get smashed. But I suppose there's no reason for AMD to advocate that, if they can get what they want through other means, since they happen to have the advantage over Intel in this regard.
C'mon, VIA, speak up.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Technically all the patents are on implementations, but there are thousands of them, mostly covering the obvious ways you would implement any of the features, or any pair of features, or any triple of features, or any pair of features in a particular process, etc., etc. The end effect is that it's basically impossible to implement x86 without stepping on some patents, proba
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
There is a third party. VIA
http://www.via.com.tw/en/products/processors/ [via.com.tw]
Here we go again (Score:2)
___AMD and Intel have made agreements previously, only to not be happy with the results. In particular, the first time, it looked very much as if as soon as they agreed to cross-license, AMD stopped innovating and depended upon Intel for product development. Intel felt cheated.
AMD and Intel have also agreed to stop suing each other previously. I wonder how long it will last this time.
The good news is that for a while some lawyers won't be getting any money.
My transcript (Score:3, Informative)
Jumped in a little late, here you go.
Q: So what does this mean ... in terms of ... ownership
Um uh, um uh. We have a obviously very important relationship with Abu Dhabi, global foundries is part of the vision of AMD, great thing for industry and us ... we will be implementing the agreements
the key thing here is that for AMD and for global foundries, this addresses anybody's concerns about robustness and entitlement
AMD the product company is well-poised to move ahead on its strategy in order to serve the market and be a key buzzword blah blah blah
the new patent cross-license between AMD and intel does give AMD broad rights
no longer requires global foundries to be structured as a subsidiary of AMD
Q: intel has agreed to provide business practice provisions
think of it in terms of marketplace and customer access ... in the compiler business, compilers will not unfairly/artificially impair the performance of our products, we're never looking for any help, just not unfairly... intel has an obligation not to do things simply designed to hurt us
ability for multinational OEMs and key channel partners to have "freedom of action" and choice to differentiate offerings between AMD and intel
respect to specific practices and ground rules, the agreement... totally transparent about this, the agreement will be totally public as quickly as we can achieve that
the key points are for us that intel will not be able to condition doing business with them on not doing business with us, that's one way I would put it. they can't use inducements in order to force exclusive dealing, delay customers from using our products, delaying companies from delaying advertising... withholding benefits from OEMs
blah blah lots of repetition of buzzwords like 'ecosystem' and 'productitivity gains'
Q: global foundries separation timeline
clearly gives AMD, global foundries, and atek flexibility esp. in light of acquisition of charter, and does pave the way for merger of charter and global foundries, but no announcemnet being made, no timeline
Q: ?
We are trying to reset the relationship between AMD and intel. That relationship has been intense, emotional, and at times acrimonious for ... all too many years. The one thing that I would say that is a touchstone principle ... we are going to be fierce competitors in a free and open marketplace, we are going to be mutually respectful, we want to put this behind us... healthy, normal relationship that competitors do. you will see in the agreement fought-out procedures by which we will build relationship and trust and try to resolve our differences without spilling into the courts, into the public affairs domain. this is a start and both parties intend this agreement to be an opportunity to pivot the relationship and go forward in a very classy way.
Q: Is this only x86? No graphics etc?
I uh, um, uh, that's a complicated answer but I think the general answer to your question is yes. The suits ... have pertained to x86 processors and platforms,
there's two parts to the agreement, one is antitrust, the other is patent cross-license, broad, covers "all productS"
let me put it this way... it is an important feature of our agreement ... that we have resolved ALL disputes. on the IP side, amd and intel have had patent peace with each other since 1976. design freedom to innovate, great contributors to patent portfolio... we have now the flexibility with rights under IP agreement for full use of foundries.
Q: is the cash being deployed towards reducing debt
you now understand why we were not more specific in yesterday's meeting on debt restructuring
Q: What happens to the cases around the world, what is your expectation
the regulatory investigations etc are conducted by sovereign governments ... so the regulators will do what they are
Totally read that as (Score:3, Funny)
Stock price jumped... (Score:3, Insightful)
For those who bought AMD early enough, stock price jumped ~20% today. Not bad :-)
Don't forget that 1.25 billion represents a significant portion of AMD's capitalization and far surpasses the cumulated
earnings of the last few years.
Re: (Score:2)
Bernie [wikipedia.org] might want to disagree.
(Though his money allowed him to get away with it a damn long time, eventually it didn't work.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is independant of action that the US government would take against Intel.
Similar to how OJ was found not guilty in criminal court, but did end up paying restitution in civil court.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They did get soft indeed, particularly around the Pentium 4 / Itanium era. Actually neither of those seemed to sound obviously bad ideas at the time but they utterly failed to deliver on the promised benefits :-( AIUI the Pentium M processor was actually pretty close to the Pentium III design, which many people seem to have approved of.
At least the stuff learnt from Pentium 4 (arguably even Itanium) systems hasn't been completely lost, since hyperthreading and EFI (for instance) are both seeing use in oth