News AMD could block Intel sale due to a cross-licensing agreement

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
With how the US government wants to keep Intel as a going concern (at least the fabs, but probably the designs too) I am pretty sure they could declare that agreement null & void for national security reasons if it really came down to it.
 
The only way I see an Intel breakup and sale going through is if AMD get's to buy all of Intel's IP for a bargain.
If, by some miracle, Broadcom is allowed to buy Intel's IP, that might be the final nail in the coffin for x86.

Practically everyone is using ARM at this point.
AMD has rumors of an ARM design in the works.
Intel doesn't even have rumors of an ARM or RISC-V design, so you can see how they're obsolete at this point.
 
GenericUser2001 said:
With how the US government wants to keep Intel as a going concern (at least the fabs, but probably the designs too) I am pretty sure they could declare that agreement null & void for national security reasons if it really came down to it.
Click to expand...
That would mean neither Intel nor AMD could make x86 CPUs. They would have to create a new agreement that allows x86 to continue. As much as ARM advocates would like to see the death of x86 and as much as they've been predicting it for years, it isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
 
ravewulf said:
That would mean neither Intel nor AMD could make x86 CPUs. They would have to create a new agreement that allows x86 to continue. As much as ARM advocates would like to see the death of x86 and as much as they've been predicting it for years, it isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
Click to expand...
What I meant was that the US government could in theory render just the portion of the agreement that requires approval for sales to be null, and force AMD to honor the licensing deal being transferred to a new company. Or just lean on AMD behind the scenes to "approve" the license transfer. Obviously the US government wants both AMD & Intel to be able to continue making x86 chips.
 
TerryLaze said:
Yeah and right afterwards they are going to stop making x86 at tsmc since AMD doesn't have an exclusive license either.
That's what that cross in cross-license means, if AMD vetos anything then intel will do so as well.
Click to expand...
In this case, only Intel's license would be invalidated, because the acquisition would result in a change in management.
This clause was created because Intel was afraid that AMD would be acquired and the license would go to a third party, but it was not anticipated that Intel itself would be acquired.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aldaia
BGA DRAM said:
In this case, only Intel's license would be invalidated, because the acquisition would result in a change in management.
This clause was created because Intel was afraid that AMD would be acquired and the license would go to a third party, but it was not anticipated that Intel itself would be acquired.
Click to expand...
It's a cross-license.
If intels part goes away AMD will not be able to use intels part anymore because it will be gone, and vice versa.
Change in management would need a re negotiation of licenses between intel and amd and either part can say no to that.
That's what happened when amd sold off their fabs and made glofo, intel held AMD hostage to make them agree to settle the anti-trust matter out of court.

And intel is not being sold anyway, in a market where everybody is afraid intel is expanding, intel is like potter, buying up when everybody sells because of fear.
SonoraTechnical said:
Anyone who buys Intel will end AMD licensing in an effort to eliminate/weaken one competitor while buying the other... World commerce is an ugly place....
Click to expand...
It's the other way around, anybody buying intel or amd will de-facto break the cross-license for both parties and they would have to re negotiate.
 
Not really, if behind the story is supported by Donald Trump government, i don't think AMD dare to block. we know Trump, AMD also know Trump , later Donald Trump will look for AMD 😉
 
From the text of the cross-license agreement it looks like it was provisioned that the party not changing control can keep using the license.

Termination Upon Change of Control. Subject to the terms of, and as further set forth in, Sections 5.2(d) and 5.2(e), this Agreement shall automatically terminate as a whole upon the consummation of a Change of Control of either Party.
Click to expand...
However section 5.2(e) states:
Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement, the rights granted to each Party under any license hereunder are personal to the receiving party and dependent on such receiving party being the same party from whom the grantor is itself receiving a license.
Click to expand...
That to me suggests that only the party changing ownership will lose the rights to use the licenses.
But I'm not a lawyer, so i may be wrong.
 
aldaia said:
That to me suggests that only the party changing ownership will lose the rights to use the licenses.
But I'm not a lawyer, so i may be wrong.
Click to expand...
Even if one party looses the right immediately and automatically due to this clause, the other company can still not use IP from a company that isn't their own ,no matter if it has changed names, ownership, or whatever.
If one company gets sold, all the IP of that company is up in the air and can not be used until the remaining company has come to terms with the new owners.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom