• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

AMD Reckon "INTEL Wants Us Dead"

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
I am looking for some focal points and this is one pulled from post #17 and 20 respectively section 3.2:

(a) make, use, sell (directly or indirectly), offer to sell,
import and otherwise dispose of all AMD Licensed Products;

(b) make, have made, use and/or import any equipment and practice
any method or process for the manufacture, use and/or sale of
AMD Licensed Products; and

(c) have made ***** AMD Licensed Products by another manufacturer
for supply solely to AMD for use, import, sale, offer for sale
or disposition by AMD pursuant to the license granted above in
Section 3.2(a).
 
I am looking for some focal points and this is one pulled from post #17 and 20 respectively section 3.2:

(a) make, use, sell (directly or indirectly), offer to sell,
import and otherwise dispose of all AMD Licensed Products;

(b) make, have made, use and/or import any equipment and practice
any method or process for the manufacture, use and/or sale of
AMD Licensed Products; and

(c) have made ***** AMD Licensed Products by another manufacturer
for supply solely to AMD for use, import, sale, offer for sale
or disposition by AMD pursuant to the license granted above in
Section 3.2(a).
Hmm...Looks like AMD's lawyer's need to find a new job
AMD is kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Either they kept the fab's and went under, or they sold the fab and possibly loose the x86 license
I think this will end with a new license and nothing else.
 
Hmm...Looks like AMD's lawyer's need to find a new job
AMD is kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Either they kept the fab's and went under, or they sold the fab and possibly loose the x86 license
I think this will end with a new license and nothing else.

That is what they are allowed to do. I think the real question is % ownership of foundry.
 
Attention should also be made to 8.1 and 8.2 (where 8.2 is the exception) we can't see what is blotted out but from the general overview I see AMD as ok and holding to the contract.
 
AMD will be okay, I am sure they went thru every word of that contract line by line when they decided to make the foundry company. I am sure the investors had their lawyers look at it too, why invest millions upon millions of $$ in something that could be killed by this license agreement.
 
^^ because they may have miss-interpreted something, happens alot with contracts, it is why the wording in contracts is always so complex, or "lawyer talk" it may say one thing but means something else.
 
Hey, did you folks see this? This could be one of those things Intel knows that has them running scared.

R7 :beer:

why would they post this information? god thats stupid. theres really no way to fix it other than to give a bunch of people with fixed chips right.

Why can't AMD just invest some more money to make it 50%, it would probably save a lot of time over lawsuits and also would allow them to continue making the cpu's without any hassle in the short term from Intel. I don't want Intel to win, competition is good and with only Intel, there will be no rush for new technology or as low prices.

thats the point here, AMD has dumped alot into this but intel doesent belive its 50%. odd moves on both sides but to me it seems intel is scrambling and picking at straws because they must be feeling the pressure from something.

mabe its a new processes that they think AMD will get too first. with ati, amd has more resources to get a smaller working die and over many different things as well as some hands in new memory technologies
 
If I read the agreement properly since AMD own ATI doesnt this mean Intel can use some of the ATI tech or is this only pertaining to the CPU and hence that is why nVidias offer to AATI may have been turned down as to cuda and PhysX? As they do not want to share that tech or put it into the view of Intel?
 
ATI can use x86, but they dont need to. but ATI GPUs have nothing to do with x86 instructions, so there's nothing for intel to get.
 
Yeah that is kind of what I was thinking but when you get into the coprocessor and parts of the like it could get gray.
 
why would they post this information? god thats stupid. theres really no way to fix it other than to give a bunch of people with fixed chips right.

Theres a concept in security of "full disclosure". It means you disclose vulnerabilities so that good guys know about them too, and responsible systems can be patched.

As for the resolution to this vulnerability, I'm not sure what it will be, but possibly a microcode update could fix this? The resolution will likely be similar to that of "blue pill", since that is what they keep comparing this too. They won't be replacing peoples chips I can promise that.
 
Yeah that is kind of what I was thinking but when you get into the coprocessor and parts of the like it could get gray.

it could but it could also go RISC and then it would be a moot point. i dont fully understand how some of these GPUs process things but now that we have them folding and stuff its possible a prcessor can come of it that would still work with windows but who knows.

all i know is an x86 based cpu/gpu combo thing that intel is workin on sounds like it sucks
 
Yeah that is kind of what I was thinking but when you get into the coprocessor and parts of the like it could get gray.

<PAGE>

INTEL & AMD CONFIDENTIAL
------------------------

1.20. "Processor" shall mean any Integrated Circuit or combination of
Integrated Circuits capable of processing digital data, such as a
microprocessor or coprocessor (including, without limitation, a math
coprocessor, graphics coprocessor, or digital signal processor) that
is capable of executing a substantial portion of the instruction set
of an AMD Processor or an Intel Processor.

^^Here is where I draw that conclusion as to the proposed nVidia deal and Niku I believe this also addresses your concerns to a point.^^

By doing a little deep reading I think AMD while bound by this agreement is also limited to a point by it as it hampers development the contract works both ways and AMD needs to work with MS before the end of this contract if they want to move away from X86 or we will be stuck in this quagmire for the foreseeable future.

Patent life:

UNITED STATES
"In the U.S., according to the current patent law, the pattm grants utility patents that last for 20 years; & plant patents & design patents that last for 14 years". (" Introduction to Understanding Patents" University of Michigan, Media Union Library [Accessed August 30, 2006] )

EUROPE
"A European patent gives its holder the same rights in the designated contracting states as a national patent. It is valid for 20 years". ("Facts & figures 1999" EPO < www.european-patent-office.org/epo/facts_figures/facts1999/e/3.htm> [Accessed October 5, 2000])

JAPAN
"The term of the utility model right is 6 years from the filing date of the utility model application, though a utility model right shall come into force upon registration of its establishment. No renewal of the utility model right is possible. The term of a design right shall expire 15 years from the date of registration of its establishment. No renewal of the design right is possible. The term of the patent right is 20 years from the filing date of the patent application, though a patent right shall come into force upon registration of its establishment. No renewal of the patent right is possible. As an exception, the term of the patent right may be extended by a period not exceeding 5 years, if it was not possible to work the patented invention because of the necessity of obtaining an approval or other disposition which is governed by provisions in laws such as the Pharmaceutical Affairs Law & the Agricultural Chemicals Regulation Law". ("Frequently Asked Questions" Japanese Patent Office <http://www.jpo.go.jp/index.htm>[Accessed October 5, 2000])

UNITED KINGDOM
"In the UK the legal rights last for a maximum term of 20 years from the date of filing of the patent application at the Patent Office. The patent has to be maintained by payment of renewal fees. Once the 20 year term has expired or the patent has lapsed through non-payment of renewal fees, the invention can be worked by anyone as long as there are no other intellectual property rights associated with the invention". ("FAQ - How long does a patent last?" The British Library Science Technology & Business < http://www.bl.uk/collections/patents/faq.html> [Accessed October 20, 2000])

CANADA
"For patent applications filed before October 1, 1989, the term of the patent is 17 years from the date of issue. For patent applications filed on or after October 1, 1989, the term of the patent is 20 years from the date of filing of the application". ("Help" Canadian Patent Database < patents1.ic.gc.ca/content-e.html#patdocument[Accessed October 23, 2000])

I need to study this!!
 
Last edited:
After some preliminary reading AMD has some work to do they can keep using the base x86 instructions the way I understand (as the patents are expired) it but some of the extensions can not be used and as these are simd extensions that would hurt there are legal ways around it but it will hurt. If amd were to take a total system approach and do some redesign as well as work with developers on new and better if possible extensions then it can be done.
 
After some preliminary reading AMD has some work to do they can keep using the base x86 instructions the way I understand (as the patents are expired) it but some of the extensions can not be used and as these are simd extensions that would hurt there are legal ways around it but it will hurt. If amd were to take a total system approach and do some redesign as well as work with developers on new and better if possible extensions then it can be done.

Reminds of back when SSE2 or was it SSE3? was not available to AMD so they came up with that crappily un(der)utilized 3Dnow and 3Dnow+
 
Reminds of back when SSE2 or was it SSE3? was not available to AMD so they came up with that crappily un(der)utilized 3Dnow and 3Dnow+

Yeah I only had a couple of games that utilized it but 3DFX's drivers made great use of the AMD cpu. Crap remember when the good old days.
 
well after everything though it comes to a point to where AMD has supplied 50% in this company right? they are only a smaller than 50% market holder in the company but from what i read it was more than that, 50% of the resources and designs and fab process or some other junk like that
 
Yep - this is the important part:
1.22. "Subsidiary" shall mean any corporation, partnership, joint venture,
limited liability or other entity, now or hereafter, in which a
party

(a) owns or controls (either directly or indirectly) or originally
contributed (either directly or indirectly) at least fifty
percent (50%) of the tangible and intangible assets of such
entity
; and

(b) owns or controls (either directly or indirectly) either of the
following:

(1) if such entity has voting shares or other securities, at
least fifty percent (50%) of the outstanding shares or
securities entitled to vote for the election of
directors or similar managing authority and such entity
is under no obligation (contractual or otherwise) to
directly or indirectly distribute more than seventy
percent (70%) of its profits to a third party, or


(2) if such entity does not have voting shares or other
securities, at least fifty percent (50%) of the
ownership interest that represents the right to make
decisions for such entity and an interest sufficient to
receive at least thirty percent (30%) of the profits
and/or losses of such entity.

(c) An entity shall be deemed to be a Subsidiary under this
Agreement only so long as all requisite conditions of being a
Subsidiary are met.

Along with the "alleged" fact that AMD holds more than 50% of the voting shares I just don't see the problem.

Intel must be chasing this to get some kind of info they want on AMD's arrangements with the fabs. That, or they're doing it to drive AMD stock prices down even lower, which I'm sure this announcement did ... :(
 
This is the crux as I see it:
1.22. "Subsidiary" shall mean any corporation, partnership, joint venture,
limited liability or other entity, now or hereafter, in which a
party

(a) owns or controls (either directly or indirectly) or originally
contributed (either directly or indirectly) at least fifty
percent (50%) of the tangible and intangible assets of such
entity
; and

(b) owns or controls (either directly or indirectly) either of the
following:

(1) if such entity has voting shares or other securities, at
least fifty percent (50%) of the outstanding shares or
securities entitled to vote for the election of
directors or similar managing authority and such entity
is under no obligation (contractual or otherwise) to
directly or indirectly distribute more than seventy
percent (70%) of its profits to a third party,
or

(2) if such entity does not have voting shares or other
securities, at least fifty percent (50%) of the
ownership interest that represents the right to make
decisions for such entity and an interest sufficient to
receive at least thirty percent (30%) of the profits
and/or losses of such entity.

(c) An entity shall be deemed to be a Subsidiary under this
Agreement only so long as all requisite conditions of being a
Subsidiary are met.

Along with the "alleged" fact that AMD owns half the voting stock I just don't see where Intel thinks there's a violation. My guess is they want more information on the contract between AMD and the Fabs, and this is one way to get it. Or maybe they're trying to hedge their bet for next year's court battle ...
 
Last edited:
Back