- Joined
- Nov 28, 2001
- Location
- in a magical field
'Here's some pocket change, now go away.' 
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Intel pays AMD $1.25B
- Thread starter rpwinters
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2009
Not enough , AMD is 5 billion in dept , its a bad settlement . AMD shares rose 22% but intel shares dropped one cent... IF trial went public Intel shares would have received a much bigger hit ,not just that ,but public awareness would have diminished the brand . I guess they could have used the money more then anything right now , profits next quarter it is , at least something came out of this .
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2001
- Location
- New Iberia, LA
'Here's some pocket change, now go away.'
A little more than pocket change was at stake, as well as a hell of a lot more than just 1.25 billion. If all those suits had gone to trial it could have ended up costing Intel many billions more in fines and punitive damages. So just paying out a mere 1.25 billion is a big win for Intel too. They still are appealing their EU loss too and I wouldn't doubt they are going to cough up a big chunk of chage on that one in the end also.
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2003
On the one hand 1.25 is a sizeable number, on the other hand it is not that large when you look at the industry. I am glad AMD got something but I can't help but feel they would have done better if they went to court.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2003
Definitely, but now lets see, AMD can not blame Intel if it does not do well, they will have to finally stand up and take blame for their own companies bad decisions.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2007
- Location
- Near Toronto Canada
The article said that even though they lost that money in the same quarter they still profited $1B in that quarter
QuietIce
Disabled
- Joined
- May 7, 2006
- Location
- Anywhere but there
$1.25B is a paltry sum considering the return Intel has seen on their illegal "investments" and the amount of sales AMD lost but having cash in-hand is the better choice. AMD could have waited for the court cases and probably hauled in more money in the long run but they would have been waiting yeeeaaarrrs to see any of it. It's easy for Intel to be "gracious" now considering the position of both companies.
Some homeless bum mugs you and steals a $10000 check you were taking to invest in a small start-up. Turns out the investment you were going to make would have returned $50000 inside a year. Two years later the bum shows up at your door and hands you $10000 in cash explaining he got $1000 for your check and spent $500 of it on lottery tickets, winning the $1M jackpot. "Here, now we're even", he says ...
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
Doesn't mean a thing either way.
I asked all my friends (who aren't PC enthusiasts) about this and every one of them was like "who cares". Nobody even heard of it in the news. It's only a very small part of the PC community that cares about this, and they have little to no impact on the future of either company through sales or any other influence.
Things will go on and the enthusiasts will still complain and argue about Intel this or AMD that without ever accomplishing anything.
BTW, in my experience in many, many years of online discussions in various forums, a large portion of the enthusiast community also pirates software. They know all the crack sites and places to get versions of PShop and other expensive software. Of course, the mods of these forums always discourage this behaviour and sharing of information, which again shows how prevalent it really is. I mean, I never hear of people talking about cracks in non-enthusiast forums.
So the majority of the whiners about Intel not playing fair can simply STFU since they are also breaking the law by pirating software.
I asked all my friends (who aren't PC enthusiasts) about this and every one of them was like "who cares". Nobody even heard of it in the news. It's only a very small part of the PC community that cares about this, and they have little to no impact on the future of either company through sales or any other influence.
Things will go on and the enthusiasts will still complain and argue about Intel this or AMD that without ever accomplishing anything.
BTW, in my experience in many, many years of online discussions in various forums, a large portion of the enthusiast community also pirates software. They know all the crack sites and places to get versions of PShop and other expensive software. Of course, the mods of these forums always discourage this behaviour and sharing of information, which again shows how prevalent it really is. I mean, I never hear of people talking about cracks in non-enthusiast forums.
So the majority of the whiners about Intel not playing fair can simply STFU since they are also breaking the law by pirating software.
QuietIce
Disabled
- Joined
- May 7, 2006
- Location
- Anywhere but there
I don't pirate software (I even pay for share-ware) but more to the point, I'm not in competition with anybody over having the most software.
I'm not saying I'm an angel - far, far from it - but there's a big difference between taking a pencil home from work and stealing a CAD workstation ...
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2002
- Location
- Indianapolis, IN
while i am not one to buy amd products very frequently, i still want amd to succeed. if amd wasn't around, intel could charge much more for their products because basically they would have a monopoly in the desktop processor market. competition is good whether or not you want to buy the product from them or not. i'll probably stick to intel chips myself but there would be plenty of people out there who would purchase amd chips to keep the prices competitive. everyone wins in a situation with good competition.
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2005
How do you go from a discussion on a computer forum about a lawsuit between two CPU manufacturers to all those who care are breaking the law? OH YEAH, it's because all those who are somewhat knowledgeable about computers automatically pirate right?
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2001
- Location
- New Iberia, LA
Oh, by the way, in my many years of being a member here, then a Senior member and finally a Moderator here on these forums, I've always seen mention of pirating software instantly stomped on too, by the regular members here all the way up to the Admins on these forums.
And in my capacity here as a Moderator I am telling you that the "STFU" statement is not appropriate for these forums! These are "G" rated forums and we watch the language we post here. The only reasons your post wasn't edited is that you are a relatively new member and also you didn't direct that at anyone specific in this thread by name.
Keep your posts Germaine to the topic, which is this agreement between the 2 companies and not about whether our members here pirate software.
BTW, I do not pirate software either.
muddocktor
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2005
- Location
- Tau'ri
One sin doesn't beget another, though most humans in their finite capacity think it does.
I am not going to engage the conversation any more past this: If I want something, I do what the person who made it asks of me to get it. Whether that is buying a music CD, or sending a check that will cash to a guy I'm conducting a trade with, or getting a game.
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2001
- Location
- in a magical field
Well I was joking at least somewhat (I hope that was obvious.)
The EU fne was already paid, it was posted to their previous quarterly financials. If they win on appeal they'll get it back, I don't think it can or will increase though.
Even though some people would like to have seen AMD stick it out there are 'wins' for them as well beyond the obvious immediate cash infusion. No more ongoing legal fees to start. The most important thing for AMD is that the question of Global Foundries producing x86 CPUs is settled here which has to be a big part of the reason AMD settled for 'so little.' Since parts of the cross license agreement are confidential we don't know but it may be that GloFo would have violated the agreement.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 10, 2009
AMDs issue is that Intel had a pretty solid point about their x86 license, that was not looking good for AMD.
However AMD had an excellent counter-suit against Intel that would have stripped Intel of the rights to use integrated memory controllers and the 64bit instruction set.
Combined, it would have left AMD selling no CPUs whatsoever, and intel selling only mobile Atoms (their only 32bit-only CPU). Very bad for both companies, almost certainly fatal for AMD though, while Intel probably could survive (though it'd be the end of the core i5/i7).
They both got a pretty decent deal IMO. Especially if Intel actually does stop doing the various nastiness they have been doing.
However AMD had an excellent counter-suit against Intel that would have stripped Intel of the rights to use integrated memory controllers and the 64bit instruction set.
Combined, it would have left AMD selling no CPUs whatsoever, and intel selling only mobile Atoms (their only 32bit-only CPU). Very bad for both companies, almost certainly fatal for AMD though, while Intel probably could survive (though it'd be the end of the core i5/i7).
They both got a pretty decent deal IMO. Especially if Intel actually does stop doing the various nastiness they have been doing.
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2007
I've read some critisim on the eu vs intel. and the buy outs. something smells fishy because I don't have all the facts which a judge should have.
it can be looked at in a bad way, bribe, or it is really just normal practice. exclusive contracts, for products and services; I don't know much about them but I don't think those types of contracts are out of the norm unless there is something I don't know about that intel was doing.
the last critisim is what is the eu doing with $1 B of intel's global revenue and or profits? or their ## % fine. How is that justice, It's AMD that suffered, not EU. So in some sick way, it is sort of a set of weird laws that seems to hurt both intel and not do much for the already injusticed AMD. I want them to justify their fine because it is kind of high, the terms are unfair and does nothing for AMD as far as fines go.
(WHAT IF eu sales were just 1% of global sales and they got fined 15% of GLOBAL(hello world police/world court..bs) revenue (not profit which is minused expenses therefore a lot less is kept, worth more), that would not be fair and that is what it sounds similar to.)
Bringing to light the issue and seeing to it that it doesn't happen again is good for AMD and us but really you need 1 billion for what? this?
brand loyalty should really go out the window, if intel fails I bet some of those people would send their resumes to amd. I do prefer the keeping it honest way.
it can be looked at in a bad way, bribe, or it is really just normal practice. exclusive contracts, for products and services; I don't know much about them but I don't think those types of contracts are out of the norm unless there is something I don't know about that intel was doing.
the last critisim is what is the eu doing with $1 B of intel's global revenue and or profits? or their ## % fine. How is that justice, It's AMD that suffered, not EU. So in some sick way, it is sort of a set of weird laws that seems to hurt both intel and not do much for the already injusticed AMD. I want them to justify their fine because it is kind of high, the terms are unfair and does nothing for AMD as far as fines go.
(WHAT IF eu sales were just 1% of global sales and they got fined 15% of GLOBAL(hello world police/world court..bs) revenue (not profit which is minused expenses therefore a lot less is kept, worth more), that would not be fair and that is what it sounds similar to.)
Bringing to light the issue and seeing to it that it doesn't happen again is good for AMD and us but really you need 1 billion for what? this?
brand loyalty should really go out the window, if intel fails I bet some of those people would send their resumes to amd. I do prefer the keeping it honest way.
Last edited:
Similar threads
