Staying on the bleeding edge of foundries requires an eff ton of money. Which Intel doesn't have.
"Creating an arm's length foundry relationship now risks crippling the only company theorectically capable of innovating across the entire stack – from fundamental physics (atoms) to software (python)."
Kickstarter for $100 billion. Every contributor with minimum $1000 contribution may choose between a future Core i9 ES (delivered as soon as it becomes available) or release sample fabbed on the process technology they helped to fund.Staying on the bleeding edge of foundries requires an eff ton of money. Which Intel doesn't have.
And being able to build the fabs to pump out enough volume of said cutting edge nodes requires an even larger amount of money.Staying on the bleeding edge of foundries requires an eff ton of money. Which Intel doesn't have.
That money has to come from data centre GPUsAnd being able to build the fabs to pump out enough volume of said cutting edge nodes requires an even larger amount of money.
Outside of maybe AVX-512, what else would they be missing?Which is not enough to make a functioning x86 CPU in 2025.
SSE2, SSE3, and AVXOutside of maybe AVX-512, what else would they be missing?
I don't understand what your point is. My point is that both AMD and Intel hold patents that are needed to make a modern x86 CPU. So what if Intel's acquirer loses access to AMD64? AMD will lose access to Intel's patents as well.I said x64, or also known as AMD64.
No, AMD will retain access to them because they would not have broken terms of the cross licensing deal which is change of control.AMD will lose access to Intel's patents as well.
Source on this?No, AMD will retain access to them because they would not have broken terms of the cross licensing deal which is change of control.
Simple logic - the idea of cross licensing agreement was to prevent 3rd party taking over AMD (or Intel) without permission of the other party, that can only ever work if either party can still use cross licensed patents even if the other party sold out, otherwise it's a gun to the head of the whole business as smaller party like AMD could have fallen to aggressive take over specifically for that purpose, no lawyer at Intel (or anywhere) would have allowed this not to be taken into account in the agreement - otherwise it would basically be pointless.Source on this?
SSE2, SSE3, and AVX
Where does it state in the legal language that AMD will retain access to Intel's x86 IP but Intel's acquirer does not retain access to AMD's?Simple logic - the idea of cross licensing agreement was to prevent 3rd party taking over AMD (or Intel) without permission of the other party, that can only ever work if either party can still use cross licensed patents even if the other party sold out, otherwise it's a gun to the head of the whole business as smaller party like AMD could have fallen to aggressive take over specifically for that purpose, no lawyer at Intel (or anywhere) would have allowed this not to be taken into account in the agreement - otherwise it would basically be pointless.
AMD was small at the time but no lawyer there would have allowed this clause to be one sided (ie Intel can change control but AMD can't), nobody at Intel would have objected that either because nobody would have seriously thought it would EVER be an issue for Intel.
The agreement clearly states that the non-terminated party will keep all the rights, if Intel (or AMD) is acquired they will automatically terminate the agreement due to the change of control clause.
So AMD will not loose any access to Intel patents in any scenario where Intel is acquired or split up.
“…. 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’) continued compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.”
This was the poison pill AMD agreed to in exchange of being able to use TSMC for x86 (among other things) when they settle with Intel.Hmm seems kinda monopolist. This is no better than what ARM did to Qualcomm or at least tried to do.
which courts?If AMD ends up being the owner of everything x86, the courts would encourage them to license it out to at least one party so AMD won't remain a monopolist for long.
Hopefully the EU ones. I know what you meanwhich courts?
No way of knowing but I suspect AMD would have been purchased and sold for parts during the dark days without this poison pill.This was the poison pill AMD agreed to in exchange of being able to use TSMC for x86 (among other things) when they settle with Intel.
This is wrong. You’re reading Section 5.2(d)(I), which applies in the case of termination by notice of breach, Section 5.2(a), or termination by bankruptcy, Section 5.2(b). It does not apply to Section 5.2(c), termination by change of control.The agreement clearly states that the non-terminated party will keep all the rights, if Intel (or AMD) is acquired they will automatically terminate the agreement due to the change of control clause.
So AMD will not loose any access to Intel patents in any scenario where Intel is acquired or split up.
“…. 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’) continued compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.”
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. |
The agreement also covers newer instructions like AVX10.
No, it didn't. It comes from common sense.
Intel and AMD own x86 patents. They have a cross licensing agreement. If Intel gets acquired, and the cross licensing agreement is automatically cancelled, that means AMD no longer has a license to use Intel's x86 patents.
People here are assuming that Intel's x86 patents are gifted to AMD in case Intel gets acquired. That's weird. No. Intel's owner would own the x86 patents. Without a new cross licensing agreemeent, Intel's new owner will sue AMD to prevent them from making x86 chips. In addition, Intel's new acquirer will not be able to make x86 chips either. It's mutual destruction.
That's why this is a non-issue. Any Intel acquirer will simply negotiate a new cross licensing agreement - maybe the exact same contract even.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm guessing this clause is in there to provide any acquirer the freedom to renegotiate a new agreement.
This is wrong. You’re reading Section 5.2(d)(I), which applies in the case of termination by notice of breach, Section 5.2(a), or termination by bankruptcy, Section 5.2(b). It does not apply to Section 5.2(c), termination by change of control.
The effects of a termination by change of control are found in Section 5.2(d)(ii) which reads:
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) relates to rights in bankruptcy, and 3.8(d) deals with subsidiaries. In a change of control the agreement is terminated for both sides.
SSE2 and SSE3 patents should be expired already.
If AMD ends up being the owner of everything x86, the courts would encourage them to license it out to at least one party so AMD won't remain a monopolist for long.