AMD mulling break, spinoff

[JDG1980]

Would be no purpose in nVidia buying the CPU half. The x86 license becomes void if AMD is bought/sold.

The cross-licensing agreement becomes void - which means that AMD loses the x86 license, but Intel would also lose access to various AMD technology including the 64-bit extensions. Since Intel obviously can't go back to 32-bit CPUs, this means the agreement will inevitably be renegotiated.

 

[jpiniero]

The cross-licensing agreement becomes void - which means that AMD loses the x86 license, but Intel would also lose access to various AMD technology including the 64-bit extensions. Since Intel obviously can't go back to 32-bit CPUs, this means the agreement will inevitably be renegotiated.

Think about it - do you think Intel would agree to something like that? The whole purpose of that agreement was to ensure that a competent company never got their hands on the x86 license.

 

[dark zero]

And if AMD dies, Intel wins the tech AMD will leave FOR FREE. To make it better, they could simply move to ITANIUM despite the heavy nerfs and no one will complain since Intel would be the monopoly.

 

[CHADBOGA]

The cross-licensing agreement becomes void - which means that AMD loses the x86 license, but Intel would also lose access to various AMD technology including the 64-bit extensions. Since Intel obviously can't go back to 32-bit CPUs, this means the agreement will inevitably be renegotiated.

Intel will retain all their existing rights to x86-64, if a new purchaser gobbles up AMD, even though the new purchaser would lose their rights to x86-32.

 

[dark zero]

Intel will retain all their existing rights to x86-64, if a new purchaser gobbles up AMD, even though the new purchaser would lose their rights to x86-32.

Actually Intel would even gain the GPU side tech if AMD dies in both aspects due the pact they made.

 

[jhu]

Intel will retain all their existing rights to x86-64, if a new purchaser gobbles up AMD, even though the new purchaser would lose their rights to x86-32.

A lot of those x86 patents have already expired.

 

[NTMBK]

Actually Intel would even gain the GPU side tech if AMD dies in both aspects due the pact they made.

Stop making stuff up.

 

[ShintaiDK]

People should ask themselves what company in their right mind would want to compete with Intel in x86. The first 4-5 years it would be nothing but a blackhole for money. And even then you need a miracle to make any kind of money the following years, Remember its not small companies that gave up on x86 in the first place.

The CPU(x86) division with AMD is simply worthless and nobody wants it. Graphics is pretty much the last thing AMD got of any worth besides the semicustom contracts.

 

[cbn]

People should ask themselves what company in their right mind would want to compete with Intel in x86. The first 4-5 years it would be nothing but a blackhole for money. And even then you need a miracle to make any kind of money the following years, Remember its not small companies that gave up on x86 in the first place.

The CPU(x86) division with AMD is simply worthless and nobody wants it. Graphics is pretty much the last thing AMD got of any worth besides the semicustom contracts.

Regarding AMD CPU, one thing I am confused about is the positioning of ARM server chips like Seattle.

Using ARM (in the form of a small APU) for the Android Ecosystem seems logical enough, but why ARM instead of x86 for server? Sure Intel is tough, but I don't understand how changing ISA makes that Server challenge easier?

 

[NTMBK]

Regarding AMD CPU, one thing I am confused about is the positioning of ARM server chips like Seattle.

Using ARM (in the form of a small APU) for the Android Ecosystem seems logical enough, but why ARM instead of x86 for server? Sure Intel is tough, but I don't understand how changing ISA makes that Server challenge easier?

ARM is meant to be a more efficient instruction set- in theory, an ARM CPU would be faster than an x86 CPU of the same size and power consumption (assuming same process node, and equally competent designers).

 

[ShintaiDK]

Regarding AMD CPU, one thing I am confused about is the positioning of ARM server chips like Seattle.

Using ARM (in the form of a small APU) for the Android Ecosystem seems logical enough, but why ARM instead of x86 for server? Sure Intel is tough, but I don't understand how changing ISA makes that Server challenge easier?

A dream of ARM in servers, tho its as far from happening as ever. A way to reset the tables. But its just another wasted R&D project.

ISA change wont change anything outside theory. But that never stopped people from making bad decisions.

 

[Phynaz]

Stop making stuff up.

The Intel-AMD cross license agreement includes GPU IP.

 

[dark zero]

The Intel-AMD cross license agreement includes GPU IP.

That's what I said... NVIDIA is preparing their own grave if AMD dies sooner than expected.

Intel would simply start to screw with PCI, screwing nVIDIA even more hard.

 

[JDG1980]

Intel will retain all their existing rights to x86-64, if a new purchaser gobbles up AMD, even though the new purchaser would lose their rights to x86-32.

I found the cross-license agreement online at the SEC website. Here's what it says about termination upon change of control:

5.2 - Termination; Effects of Termination.

(c) 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.

The relevant part of 5.2(d) is as follows:

In the event of any termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section 5.2(c), and subject to the provisions of Section 5.2(e), the rights and licenses granted to both Parties under this Agreement, including without limitation the rights granted under Section 3.8(d), shall terminate as of the effective date of such termination.

There you have it. In the case of a "Change of Control", the whole deal is off - on both sides.

(Section 5.2(e) talks about bankruptcy, not acquisition, so it's not relevant in the case of a normal buyout.)

Having said that, the agreement does say that if one party breaches the agreement, that party loses their cross-licenses and the other party keeps theirs. I think this part confused some people, and may have led to this rumor. Also, the agreement says that if one party goes bankrupt and then takes a "Prohibited Action", then the other party can terminate only the bankrupt party's rights under the agreement while keeping their own rights under the agreement intact. The bankruptcy legalese is very dense and I have a hard time understanding it. But it doesn't apply to a purchase by a third party if AMD is still solvent.

For what it's worth, AMD's own public statements back up my interpretation as outlined here.

Actually, the agreement is pretty clear – if there is a change of control for either company the agreement is terminated,” said Mr. Prairie. “That does not mean a new agreement could not be reached, but in a change of control the agreement is terminated.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice or investment advice.

 

[ShintaiDK]

The important part.

but the rights and licenses granted to the non-terminated Licensed Party(ies) (including without limitation the Terminating Party and all of its non-terminated Subsidiaries) shall survive such termination of this Agreement subject to the non-terminated Licensed Party’s(ies&#8217 continued compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement

So yes, Intel will keep all the rights to x64 and what else if someone buys AMD. While AMD loses all theirs.

 

[dark zero]

The important part.



So yes, Intel will keep all the rights to x64 and what else if someone buys AMD. While AMD loses all theirs.

Not only that. Intel would get Radeon GPU rights and tech too if that part is correct. Maybe AMD way to adquire ATI was a bad desicion after all... If they died, they should died alone.

 

[NTMBK]

Not only that. Intel would get Radeon GPU rights and tech too if that part is correct. Maybe AMD way to adquire ATI was a bad desicion after all... If they died, they should died alone.

Erm, AMD's GPU designs are not covered under that license agreement in the first place. There's a reason why Intel aren't merrily churning out 14nm GCN graphics cards and destroying AMD and NVidia. Intel gets rights to utilise some graphics patents, but that is a very different thing. (There's more than one type of "IP".)

 

[Vesku]

The important part.

but the rights and licenses granted to the non-terminated Licensed Party(ies) (including without limitation the Terminating Party and all of its non-terminated Subsidiaries) shall survive such termination of this Agreement subject to the non-terminated Licensed Party’s(ies&#8217 continued compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement

So yes, Intel will keep all the rights to x64 and what else if someone buys AMD. While AMD loses all theirs.

At the start of that is " In the event of any termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section 5.2(a)"

That's only for 5.2 (a) Termination by Notice for Breach.

Note:

5.2 (c) 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.

5.2 (d)
(ii) In the event of any termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section 5.2(c), and subject to the provisions of Section 5.2(e), the rights and licenses granted to both Parties under this Agreement, including without limitation the rights granted under Section 3.8(d), shall terminate as of the effective date of such termination.

5.2 (e) covers bankruptcy

Less legalese:

If either AMD or Intel stops following the agreement and fails to correct itself within 60 days then the agreement ends for them but not for the one still complying as long as they continue to follow the agreement.

If either AMD or Intel experiences a change of control that doesn't result from bankruptcy then the agreement ends for both.

 

[dark zero]

Erm, AMD's GPU designs are not covered under that license agreement in the first place. There's a reason why Intel aren't merrily churning out 14nm GCN graphics cards and destroying AMD and NVidia. Intel gets rights to utilise some graphics patents, but that is a very different thing. (There's more than one type of "IP".)

Maybe because AMD is alive and still kicking Intel GPU hard?
Also if the Alliance with Mediatek becomes real.. That could be a gamebreaking move