Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (
More info?)
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 22:11:15 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 16:46:33 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:
>
>> On 16 Nov 2004 12:30:06 -0800, yjkhan@gmail.com (ykhan) wrote:
>>
>>>George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in message news:<63hip01ihnon2eb93grcc8a07vi58u7em4@4ax.com>...
>>>> On 15 Nov 2004 08:42:54 -0800, yjkhan@gmail.com (ykhan) wrote:
>>>> >Same goes for production at the IBM plant, since we all know that IBM
>>>> >definitely has its own x86 license.
>>>>
>>>> Are you sure about that. The actual agreements I've seen have the critical
>>>> "confidential" sections removed on such things and I'd be surprised if
>>>> Intel had been so loose in their framing of them.
>>>
>>>I wouldn't say that this is necessarily a loose framing of their
>>>agreement, it is probably just the best they could do under the
>>>contract laws. I'm sure both sides totally envisioned that perhaps if
>>>AMD started fabbing at another x86 licensee's fabsite, that those
>>>agreements would supercede the AMD/Intel agreements. Intel envisioned
>>>it, but there was little that they could do to prevent it, as this
>>>would mean two separate Intel contracts would conflict with each other
>>>(i.e. one with AMD vs. the other with the alternate x86 licensee) and
>>>it would end up in court, and the court would have to strike down
>>>portions of one agreement or another.
>>
>> I'm not intinately familiar with contract law on how that works - IOW how
>> having a part made by someone else who also has a license. It *is*
>> explicitly stated in the Intel-AMD agreement but that section is not
>> publicly available
>
>It's not public, yet you *know* this?
There is a version of the 2001 cross licence agreement here:
http://contracts.corporate.findlaw.com/industries/technology/semiconductors.html
which has "confidential" clauses stripped, most of which cover the nitty
gritty of restrictions on oursourcing and things like $$ amounts. The
placement of the *****'d sections on outsourcing indicates to me that the
exact terms are specified but only in the full official, unexpurgated
version which would be lodged with the S.E.C.
>>>Intel probably just surmised that there aren't too many companies in
>>>the world with x86 licenses, and those that do have it, usually have
>>>to pay a lot to Intel for them, so it makes them somewhat less
>>>competitive against Intel's own manufacturing costs. Any fab with an
>>>x86 license also has to factor in the cost of royalty payments for
>>>every part that they produce.
>>
>> And of course AMD's cross-licensing agreement includes the payment of
>> royalties to Intel based on a % of net income.
>
>You know this? Forgive me for being obteuse here...
Yes, it's in the above agreement.... net income from processor sales of
course and the actual number is "confidential".
>I don't see anythgin nearly as sinister as either of you pretend. I
>simply see AMD out-playing Intel's hand (noticing the nature of Itanic's
>anchor on Intel's marketing plan).
And I think it's safe to assume Intel will fight back with everything at
its disposal, including harrassment over contract details, excessive
auditing, etc. etc.
>>>The most intriguing aspect of this is not AMD sneaking around the
>>>agreement, but IBM's agreement with Intel. IBM probably has a
>>>super-license with Intel, probably dating back to the days when they
>>>used to own part of Intel. They are probably the only ones allowed to
>>>license other companies to produce x86 besides Intel.
>>
>> IBM has broad patent cross-licensing agreements with many companies -
>> they're basically in the catbird seat when it comes to that kind of thing.
>
>Thar's money to be made in them thar hills. ...and patents are "free",
>once the engineering is done (actually that's an understatement).
Hmm, I'm not sure I get that last bit - patents are obviously the
foundation of IP and the combo seems to be taking increasing importance in
corporate value those days... submarined or not.
🙂 There's a "devil" in
the implementation/enginering of course... if that's what you mean... C.F.
Moto/AMD/CU-SOI.
Rgds, George Macdonald
"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram