Intel and AMD Settle Antitrust, Patent Lawsuits 165
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.'"
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.
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: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.
Now only if they would license x86 and x86-64 (Score:3, Interesting)
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).
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.
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
Re:Only $1.25 Billion? (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. Now, it just so happens I am really pissed at AMD for a string of defecting products I've gotten from them, combined with terrible service, but I think people overlook that there are reasons to purchase AMD.
Re:What AMD needs to do - and quickly (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:Only $1.25 Billion? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Only $1.25 Billion? (Score:2, Interesting)
"the upper end Intels will give you the best performance per dollar if you're budget allows"
That's simply not true. The Core i7-975 costs more than three times as much as the i7-920, but it performs only around 25% faster. Or are you talking about some other upper-end Intels?