Info 2 interesting videos about intels rise, and its continuing fall

just wow.
Yeah the amount of BS in a single video...just wow.

13:20
It wasn't a contract to exchange IP just willy nilly, the other party had to provide something of equal quality which the first party had to want.
If intel decided that nothing that AMD could come up with was worth it then how could the contract be violated.
"by offering in exchange to the other party, and by the other party accepting, the manufacturing rights to a product of equivalent technical complexity developed by the first party."
Also they found that AMD's delays were due to AMD's "inertia" and "myopia."
"The arbitrator, however, concluded that the cause of AMD's failure to earn the right to the 80386 was not Intel's breach but AMD's own failure to develop microprocessor products acceptable to Intel that would have earned AMD the right to manufacture the 80386. The arbitrator determined that while Intel's breach had caused AMD some delay in developing the Am386, AMD's delays were largely attributable to its own "inertia" and "myopia." "

https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/4th/9/362.html
In 1982, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD) and Intel Corporation (Intel) entered into a contract setting forth conditions under which each could acquire from the other the right to become a "second source" manufacturer for semiconductor products initially developed by the other. Under the agreement, each party could "earn" the right to manufacture and sell a particular product developed by the other party by offering in exchange to the other party, and by the other party accepting, the manufacturing rights to a product of equivalent technical complexity developed by the first party. For example, AMD could acquire the right to manufacture a particular microprocessor that Intel had developed by offering to Intel, and by having Intel accept, the rights to an AMD-developed microprocessor of equivalent technical complexity. For each product the nondeveloping party acquired the right to manufacture and sell, it would pay a royalty to the developing party. The nondeveloping party could not subcontract any right it acquired to manufacture and sell products developed by the other party. The contract included an arbitration clause.
The arbitrator, however, concluded that the cause of AMD's failure to earn the right to the 80386 was not Intel's breach but AMD's own failure to develop microprocessor products acceptable to Intel that would have earned AMD the right to manufacture the 80386. The arbitrator determined that while Intel's breach had caused AMD some delay in developing the Am386, AMD's delays were largely attributable to its own "inertia" and "myopia." Nonetheless, the arbitrator stated that Intel's breach had damaged AMD "immeasurably"-apparently using the term to mean not that damages were immeasurably large (he found AMD's calculation of lost 80386 profits in the amount of $268 million to be accurate but refused to award those lost profits for lack of causation) but that the damages were not capable of ready and certain calculation.
14:40
"Intel was ruled to have violated anti-trust laws"
NOPE.
Intel and AMD entered a settlement because AMD had just sold IP that didn't belong to them to GlobalFoundries, so both parties agreed, intel agreed to follow anti-trust rules set by the FTC and AMD agreed to not do any larceny.
Both of those without any admission of guilt or wrongdoing by either party.

"The parties agreed that the settlement was intended solely as a compromise of disputed claims, and was not to be understood as a concession or determination that either party has engaged in any wrongdoing. "
https://www.amd.com/system/files/amd-intel-settlement-agreement-full.pdf
The FTC then AFTERWARDS ruled on what the anti-trust rules should be.

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2010/08/ftc-settles-charges-anticompetitive-conduct-against-intel

16:10 supposed prosecution because of misleading customers
The article and the FTC issue was because intel's iGPUs could be considered anti competitive...
I guess that's why we got the F models now.
First, the FTC complaint challenges exclusionary conduct in the emerging and critically important graphic processing unit (GPU) market, a market not addressed in the other actions. GPUs have remarkably powerful processing capability such that they perform many key tasks far more rapidly and effectively than CPUs. The complaint alleges that Intel has sought to thwart competition from GPU manufacturers because "these products have lessened the need for CPUs, and therefore pose a threat to Intel’s monopoly power." In order to diminish the potential competitive threat from GPU manufacturers, according to the complaint, Intel engaged in deception, degraded connections between GPUs and CPUs, refused to deal with a key GPU manufacturer (Nvidia Corp.) and unlawfully bundled Intel’s GPUs with its CPUs, resulting in below-cost pricing.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS