Intel to AMD: Your x86 License Expires in 60 Days

Status
Not open for further replies.

The_Blood_Raven

Distinguished
Jan 2, 2008
2,567
0
20,790
4
Now I usually scoff at people calling Intel evil, but this is about as evil as it gets. I hope the government steps in and bitch slaps Intel, they are trying for a total monopoly of modern CPUs, that is ILLEGAL!
 

jhansonxi

Distinguished
May 11, 2007
1,262
0
19,280
0
This will be an interesting battle to watch. Without the x86 patents AMD is stuck being a video and chipset company in the PC world. It also means that Intel is back to monopoly status. Even if you prefer Intel CPUs the presence of AMD in the market helps keep their prices low.
 

frozenlead

Splendid
Since Intel would be the only major x86 processor producing company, couldn't that be considered a monopoly and be subject to anti-trust filings, which would probably reinstate AMD's x86 license?
 

jacobdrj

Distinguished
Jan 20, 2005
1,475
0
19,310
5
The real question is: How is it that people/corporations are allowed to keep their patents after 13ish years, if the whole point is to 'make your profit, and then benefit humanity'. Same goes for copyrights. Make your money, and then it is public knowledge.
I guess the Constitution is just sort of a set of 'guidelines'.
 
G

Guest

Guest
"I apologize for my ignorance... what patent are we talking about here which Intel has that AMD requires licensing?"

Intel designed and owns the rights to the x86 instruction set. AMD has always been a licensee (due to insistence by IBM on having multiple suppliers). VIA and a couple of other companies also hold licenses from Intel. I believe some of the design of the current x64 standard were AMDs, thus the cross licensing. Maybe I'm wrong about what AMD licenses Intel has in return.
 

HermDawg

Distinguished
Apr 12, 2006
26
0
18,530
0
How will it work with x86-64 licensing? Intel licenses that technology from AMD. If Intel revokes x86 from AMD then AMD would probably revoke x86-64 from Intel. Then all we'd be left with would be 32 bit Intel processors. I really don't think it's Intel's intentions to revoke the x86 license. They probably have some other motive behind this.
 

hellwig

Distinguished
May 29, 2008
1,743
0
19,860
26
[citation][nom]grieve[/nom]I apologize for my ignorance... what patent are we talking about here which Intel has that AMD requires licensing?[/citation]
I had the same question when there was talk about Nvidia building an x86 CPU and requiring a license from Intel. As far as I can tell, Intel's patents only go back to the Pentium and more recent extensions (like SSE and 3dNow, or was that AMD?). The actual x86 architecture should be out of patent by now (the 486 expired or does expire sometime this year).

Considering AMD created the modern 64-bit architecture (Intel/EMT 64 is a licensed version of AMD64), I doubt Intel has much clout anymore. Intel can whine and complain all they want, but the truth is the x86 (x64) processor we know today is a combination of AMD and Intel technology. I really don't see how Intel thinks it can continue developing its own processor line without AMD anymore.
 
looks like this is nothing but AMD fanboys commenting here.

i can understand Intel's stance on this. they gave A.M.D the access to the X86 for ONE company called A.M.D. Now they try to create another company separate from A.M.D and they expect Intel to let them have access to this patent so they can use it with as many businesses they can think up?

of all the patent wars going on everyone knows Intel own this patent fair and square. A.M.D. should have tried to create there own CPU from the beginning instead of paying Intel loads of cash so they can make the same kind of CPU
 

tenor77

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2009
711
0
18,980
0
The constitution doesn't apply here. Nothing about the patent system in there.

Anyway this is junk and nobody but intel would benefit from this. My guess is that Uncle Sam will step in on this one.
 

buzznut

Splendid
Well I am a big AMD fan, but this actually looks like Intel has a case. This statement sounds as though Intel has a legitimate claim.

"AMD cannot unilaterally extend Intel's licensing rights to a third party without Intel's consent," said Bruce Sewell, Intel's general counsel."

My guess is AMD will be forced to cough up some money (probably from the shootoff) to extend the license.
 

hellwig

Distinguished
May 29, 2008
1,743
0
19,860
26
[citation][nom]HermDawg[/nom]How will it work with x86-64 licensing? Intel licenses that technology from AMD. If Intel revokes x86 from AMD then AMD would probably revoke x86-64 from Intel. Then all we'd be left with would be 32 bit Intel processors. I really don't think it's Intel's intentions to revoke the x86 license. They probably have some other motive behind this.[/citation]

Intel might be trying the old Microsoft method. Get into license agreements with competitors, then use a bunch of legal handwaving to invalidate the agreement, but keep the competitors technology, then undersell and eliminate. Intel might be trying to keep the 64-bit technoloy while eliminating competition from AMD. I seriously doubt they could get away with such an action in today's market.

More likely, Intel is just trying to get more money out of AMD. The two companies will be forced to work this out, and in the end, AMD might have to buy into a new agreement. Intel has been complaining about reduced computer sales. They are probably looking to ride atop the bad economy using Nvidia's and AMD's money. These licensing battles are just a ploy to prevent losing any market share without gaining some sort of benefit in return.
 

SAL-e

Distinguished
Feb 4, 2009
383
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]tenor77[/nom]The constitution doesn't apply here. Nothing about the patent system in there.[/citation]
Re-post from other thread found here: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/microsoft-surface-patent-10000-us,7004.html

nottheking is correct. There is no mention of the patents and copyright in the US Constitution. To bad I trusted sources like Abraham Lincoln:

"Next came the Patent laws. These began in England in 1624; and, in this country, with the adoption of our constitution. Before then [these?], any man might instantly use what another had invented; so that the inventor had no special advantage from his own invention. The patent system changed this; secured to the inventor, for a limited time, the exclusive use of his invention; and thereby added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius, in the discovery and production of new and useful things."
Abraham Lincoln

I had to do some searching and asking questions around here is what I found out:

Article 1, Section 8, clause 8 of the US Constitution says,
“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;”

So looks like the copyright and patent supporters are correct that US Constitution provide bases for their claims, but I was wandering how the people who wrote the US Constitution will react, if they can see the results today. And I'm not the only one:
Constitutional Sanction
Mythologising Copyright
The last two links a discussions about copyrights, but I think the same arguments (pro and con) can be made for patents.
 

MosportMike

Distinguished
Jan 20, 2009
8
0
18,510
0
It all boils down to Intel knowing AMD is soon going to catch, then surpass everything Intel has. AMD is back and last quarter they gained market share and Intel doesn't want that to happen. Intel knows that AMD will mass produce with big yields so they can sell cheap.
 

hellwig

Distinguished
May 29, 2008
1,743
0
19,860
26
[citation][nom]captaincharisma[/nom] A.M.D. should have tried to create there own CPU from the beginning instead of paying Intel loads of cash so they can make the same kind of CPU[/citation]
You obviously don't know the history of AMDs x86 production. IBM forced Intel to license the technology to AMD because IBM has a rule that it have two sources for any component.

Not only that, but since the days of the AMD K6-2, AMD has been creating its own extensions to the x86 architecture. Modern AMD and Intel CPUs are very similar (thats why you don't need different versions of Windows or Linux). If Intel built a CPU without any AMD technology in it, you'd probably be stuck with a Pentium II.

I'm not saying AMD didn't breach any agreement between the two companies, I'm just saying Intel can't say it owns all of x86 in general. It lost its stranglehold on that market a long time ago. If you like having more than 4GB of memory in your PC, you can thank AMD for that (or use Intel's wonderful (sarcasm) Itanium architecture).
 

werepossum

Distinguished
May 12, 2007
40
0
18,530
0
Intel is completely in the right as far as I can see, but since we don't know exactly what the contract says . . .

This could spell the end of legacy software and, at worst, two different versions of Windows, with AMD using complete true 64 bit code and a bunch of new commands. It could also mean huge monopoly taxes on Intel as our government looks for new piles of cash to seize. And it could mean significant disruption in the computer market at a very difficult time, which might push some marginal companies over the edge.

I don't think Intel means to prohibit AMD from making X86 chips, though, especially given that Apple now uses Intel chips. More likely by far is that Intel wants to write a new, much more lucrative license agreement that would keep AMD in the X86 market, but without the R&D budget to be a serious competitor on innovation and performance. This isn't the first time Intel has declared the X86 licensing agreement void.
 

curnel_D

Distinguished
Jun 5, 2007
741
0
18,990
1
If intels strategy works, they can invalidate their x86 license, but AMD has no grounds to invalidate the x86-x64 license, which would mean intel would essentially come out with everything while stomping AMD into nothing.

The only possible outcome I can see of that is the anti-trust group would do the same exact thing they did to intel back in the day that got AMD started in the first place, meaning intel would essentially be the biggest looser, continuing to suffer through the AMD license, and being forced to give AMD more x86 time.

Not only that, it's the worst PR I could imagine.

I love intel products, but they're shooting themselves in the foot.
 
if that was the case then i am sure if AMD didn't survive (god knows how much longer it will) what makes you think IBM wouldn't have started making its own x86 CPU's for the costumer market? Heck they did it with Cyrix and if AMD didn't exist then Cyrix would have been still around today
 

A Stoner

Distinguished
Jan 19, 2009
239
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]p4l1ndr0m3[/nom]Last time they did, they lost... Intel is making a power play without ammo. AMD holds the more relevant patent on x64, which most new computers are shipping with.[/citation]
x86-64
basically they own the last bit. Take away the x86 and there is no 64.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts