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 353319
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: tisk tisk
by segedunum on Mon 16th Mar 2009 21:23 UTC 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[4]: tisk tisk
by Treza on Tue 17th Mar 2009 12:16 in reply to "RE[3]: tisk tisk"
Treza Member since:
2006-01-11

Now that Intel plans to manufacture Atoms in TSMC Fabs as part of SoC chips, and if these Atoms gets the 64bits extensions (which most of them currently lack), then Intel could have some troubles as well.

Reply Parent Score: 3

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