Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 16th Mar 2009 17:04 UTC
AMD Recently, AMD spun off its manufacturing business in a partnership with the Abu Dhabi government into Global Foundries. Apparently, Intel isn't very happy about this, and has said in correspondence to AMD that the patent cross-license agreement from 2001 has now been broken by AMD.
Thread beginning with comment 353315
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: tisk tisk
by bnolsen on Mon 16th Mar 2009 20:47 UTC in reply to "tisk tisk"
bnolsen
Member since:
2006-01-06

Probably it's because Intel has a very commanding lead with core i7 and atom. They've recovered from the Pentium4 fiasco and with the new architecture they feel they are in a position to own the market again.

What they may find is that they make awaken the ire of government(s) who may view this all as a monopoly grab.

Personally what intel is doing doesn't bother me so much. I'd really like to see their patent porfolio decimated (as most patents should be) to allow real valid competition back into the market -- not just AMD and VIA.

Id really hope to see some revolutionary new cpu technology become available which would change all the rules. But that has to happen on its own.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: tisk tisk
by segedunum on Mon 16th Mar 2009 21:23 in reply to "RE: tisk tisk"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Probably it's because Intel has a very commanding lead with core i7 and atom. They've recovered from the Pentium4 fiasco and with the new architecture they feel they are in a position to own the market again.

It's not just Pentium 4 but the Itanium in particular that they have had to recover from, and amusingly that was done by going in several directions and using technology that was very similar to what AMD was doing. The x64 extensions that Intel came up with, for example, are a blatant rip-off of how AMD chose to do 64-bit.

Seriously, I would keep quiet if I were Intel. The cross-license agreement was done so that a hornet's nest would not be stirred up, and it at least ensured that Intel's 'right' to 'license' the concept of the x86 architecture to people would not be questioned any time soon. Mind you, they're caught between a rock and a hard place because they need to be seen to be enforcing it......

Maybe all this was just inevitable anyway? It would certainly please nVidia, amongst others, if this were to blow up nicely.

Edited 2009-03-16 21:24 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: tisk tisk
by DigitalAxis on Tue 17th Mar 2009 04:33 in reply to "RE[2]: tisk tisk"
DigitalAxis Member since:
2005-08-28

My understanding is that Intel 64 *IS* AMD64, and Intel licensed AMD's 64-bit extensions via the cross-licensing agreement. My source on this is Wikipedia, which points out they're not completely identical, and doesn't say who VIA licensed their x86-64 implementation from (the VIA Nano is 64-bit)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: tisk tisk
by segedunum on Tue 17th Mar 2009 23:16 in reply to "RE[2]: tisk tisk"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

In reality, what will happen is that there will be a behind-closed-doors meeting, money will change hands and the situation will miraculously resolve itself. There is too much to lose for all concerned.

Reply Parent Score: 3