Rumors of Intel buying AMD are being taken very seriously...

[blackened23]

The assumption that most people have(on this thread at least) is that Intel licenses Nvidia IP but AFAIK that isn't case. Intel has some IP(graphics) that Nvidia has patented ~
http://pressroom.nvidia.com/easyir/...CE9F579F09&prid=706607&releasejsp=release_157

Its a "cross-licensing agreement" similar to what MS has signed with various Android manufacturers, more specifically Intel isn't using Nvidia tech in their stuff but has agreed to pay license for such implementation(s) that Nvidia has a patent on !

Yes. You are correct. The statement that intel is specifically using nvidia's tech in their iGPUs is false, as is the statement that any firm can freely license any IP they want. The latter statement is downright laughable, really.

The nvidia-intel thing was a hard and bitterly fought court battle in which intel just gave up and decided to settle out of court. Thus nvidia received nearly 2BN in cash, and intel admitted no wrong doing. And nvidia wasn't able to use x86 or create x86 chipsets any longer.

 

[ams23]

Uhm...no. Perhaps you should read what exactly happened with this licensing agreement between your firm and intel. What happened was the culmination of a years long court battle between nvidia and intel; nvidia wanted to use x86 (and produced chipsets, among other things) and intel wouldn't have it. Long story short, the end-result of this court battle (settlement) was a mutual decision that nvidia would never be able to use x86, but both companies shared various IP's which were mutually beneficial. Not all, some. Additionally, in the out of court settlement intel was forced to pay nvidia some 1.5 billion and change and admitted no wrong doing, and the case did not proceed further in the court system

Uhm...yes. What part of the term "cross-license" do you not understand? Cross-license means that Intel surely has access to some significant part of NVIDIA's patent portfolio. In fact, Rohit's link to the press release on NVIDIA's website proves that when NVIDIA states: "Under the new agreement, Intel will have continued access to NVIDIA's full range of patents".

 

[ams23]

The statement that intel is specifically using nvidia's tech in their iGPUs is false

You are horribly confused here. This "statement" is your own concoction. What was actually said in this thread is that Intel has access to graphics IP from NVIDIA through their cross-licensing agreement with NVIDIA. Whether Intel chooses to use NVIDIA's technology is entirely up to them, but they do indeed have "full" access to the NVIDIA patent portfolio.

 

[blackened23]

Uhm...yes. What part of the term "cross-license" do you not understand? Cross-license means that Intel surely has access to some significant part of NVIDIA's patent portfolio. In fact, Rohit's link to the press release on NVIDIA's website proves that when NVIDIA states: "Under the new agreement, Intel will have continued access to NVIDIA's full range of patents".

Maybe you missed the part of it being part of a multi billion lawsuit and out of court settlement. IT certainly was not voluntary, intel found this solution preferable to the alternative of perhaps paying a higher sum to your company. Thus they paid nvidia 2 billion in addition to their other details.

Firms don't freely give away IP through licensing. Period. They certainly can do it voluntarily, but if you think that's the norm instead of the exception, you are sadly misinformed if you believe so. Let's go back to your original assertion that "any company can license IP from another company at-will". That was your original implication, if you don't remember. You suggested that intel can license any IP they want from any company they want at-will. That is an incorrect and laughable statement.

 

[ams23]

You clearly don't get it. NVIDIA and Intel had a cross-licensing agreement in place years before the litigation started. The $1.5 billion settlement from Intel was necessary so that NVIDIA would drop litigation against Intel to pursue damages in court. One way or another, Intel would have needed to pay NVIDIA for the damage they did to NVIDIA's chipset business by breaching the original contract.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Yes but what is not allowed is when you purchase a competitor to gain the monopoly.

This happens when the big company buys all the small ones.

If you gain the monopoly by your competitor going bust then there is nothing that can be done.

Intel will not be able to buy AMD for this very reason.

Intel is US based....AMD is US based...does the EU have jurisdiction in the US now?

 

[ams23]

let's go back to your original assertion that "any company can license IP from another company at-will".

Don't put words in my mouth, that is not what I said. What I said is that Intel could pursue a licensing agreement rather than just buy up a company outright to "gobble up" IP. Common sense dictates that the other company would have to agree to terms just as in any other business deal.

 

[FalseChristian]

Intel can't buy AMD because of the anti-monopoly laws in the EU, US and Canada. Intel would lose the ability to set the prices for their CPUs and GPUS as teh Gov't would do this for them.

 

[AustinInDallas]

Intel is US based....AMD is US based...does the EU have jurisdiction in the US now?

your the one from washington, so please correct me if im wrong, but isnt the EU anti-trust always up MS ass for monopoly?

 

[Idontcare]

your the one from washington, so please correct me if im wrong, but isnt the EU anti-trust always up MS ass for monopoly?

They have jurisdiction to tell a business it cannot have access to the EU market, but they can't tell the business to not do what it does.

So long as the penalty does not exceed the profit potential, MS will continue to mildly pay heed to the EU commission and its anti-trust concerns.

They could stop an Intel/AMD merger, not formally but by way of declaring in advance that such a business would be barred from selling CPUs and GPUs to the EU marketspace. That would make the financials of the merger prohibitively unacceptable in a financial sense and would effectively block the merger.

 

[RampantAndroid]

your the one from washington, so please correct me if im wrong, but isnt the EU anti-trust always up MS ass for monopoly?

They are, yes. But that's for stuff like the browser issues - claiming MS is abusing it's position in the market. I think it's apples to oranges, comparing MS to the possibility of Intel buying AMD - the EU couldn't block the purchase, and to sue they'd have to sue for monopolistic practices (at which point MS becomes a valid comparison.) Would the EU do it? They'd try - they need the money after all...would the win? Maybe...hell, it's the EU. Probably. Maybe they'd switch from MS to Intel...

 

[Fx1]

They have jurisdiction to tell a business it cannot have access to the EU market, but they can't tell the business to not do what it does.

So long as the penalty does not exceed the profit potential, MS will continue to mildly pay heed to the EU commission and its anti-trust concerns.

They could stop an Intel/AMD merger, not formally but by way of declaring in advance that such a business would be barred from selling CPUs and GPUs to the EU marketspace. That would make the financials of the merger prohibitively unacceptable in a financial sense and would effectively block the merger.

The EU stopped Honeywell merging with another US company. First of its kind.

Global companies have a lot to lose. Generally a merger never really helps consumers anyway, its usually just a way to cut jobs and increase prices and profits.

Much of europe is firmly socialist which balances out the heavily capitalist american views. Good news is that it offers at least some balance to keep the markets functioning. But obviously nothing is perfect.

The EU has the power to fine any company 10% of its global turnover for any anti competitive behaviour. So the downsides can be pretty significant.

 

[Fx1]

They are, yes. But that's for stuff like the browser issues - claiming MS is abusing it's position in the market. I think it's apples to oranges, comparing MS to the possibility of Intel buying AMD - the EU couldn't block the purchase, and to sue they'd have to sue for monopolistic practices (at which point MS becomes a valid comparison.) Would the EU do it? They'd try - they need the money after all...would the win? Maybe...hell, it's the EU. Probably. Maybe they'd switch from MS to Intel...

No the EU can outright block the takeover. They would need regulatory approval before they could even think about it.

Also the EU has already shot intel with a record $1.5bln fine. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/business/global/14compete.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Do you think Intel would even risk it? that fine is probably near half what AMD are worth!

The EU can freeze assets and arrest directors and employees for failing to comply with their rulings. You can literally go to jail.

Intel and MS do not have all their money in the US because tax is huge in the US over 30% tax. Apple has 150bln in cash but needs to borrow money to repay shareholders... The EU can get at that money if it really wanted to fight it out.

 

[fyb3r]

I doubt this rumor is legitimate. It would give Intel far too much hold in the desktop/workstation/server community. Also the argument that they would get rid of selling gpu's is ridiculous. Too many engineers, photo editors, and gamers (yes there is still quite a demand for them) use them for intel to close up shop. And if they did there will always be another company ready to buy the patents and plans off of them to ever see the death of the video card.

 

[ViRGE]

Thread cleaned. Let's try this again without the nationalist rhetoric.
-ViRGE

 

[Exophase]

You are horribly confused here. This "statement" is your own concoction. What was actually said in this thread is that Intel has access to graphics IP from NVIDIA through their cross-licensing agreement with NVIDIA. Whether Intel chooses to use NVIDIA's technology is entirely up to them, but they do indeed have "full" access to the NVIDIA patent portfolio.

Having full access to IP and full access to patents sound like very different things to me. Unless shown otherwise I don't believe that Intel can call up nVidia and ask for whatever internal design documents, drawings, RTL, tests, etc that it wants. Which seems to be what you're saying Intel has access to when you say that Intel can use nVidia's GPU technology freely.

Having access to patents should only mean that they won't get sued for infringement.

 

[RampantAndroid]

No the EU can outright block the takeover. They would need regulatory approval before they could even think about it.

How? If you're saying the EU could forbid Intel from selling products in the EU, or confiscate AMD's property, well I guess they might be able to. At the same time, if the EU really goes after Intel if Intel does buy AMD - what will they do? Block Intel imports and dig some Pentium 1s from the landfills?

And no, they cannot simply arrest anyone who works at MS or Intel. They have to prove a case against the person and "you work at this company" doesn't count.

 

[galego]

Intel is US based....AMD is US based...does the EU have jurisdiction in the US now?

Intel sells in EU. EU has jurisdiction in EU. EU has laws regulating the market... This is an example of what happens when Intel violates EU laws:

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/ICT/intel.html

 

[RampantAndroid]

Intel sells in EU. EU have jurisdiction in EU. EU has laws regulating the market... This is an example of what happens when Intel violates EU laws:

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/ICT/intel.html

....Yes, I have covered that already. The EU cannot BLOCK the purchase, which was implied earlier.

 

[galego]

How many times AMD has been out of business or did buy by competence?

Looks as good rumours never die.

 

[galego]

....Yes, I have covered that already. The EU cannot BLOCK the purchase, which was implied earlier.

Ok, but could block the products in the EU market, which means that the hypothetical purchase would not do them more competitive, but just the contrary.

 

[FearfulSPARTAN]

No the EU can outright block the takeover. They would need regulatory approval before they could even think about it.

Also the EU has already shot intel with a record $1.5bln fine. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/business/global/14compete.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Do you think Intel would even risk it? that fine is probably near half what AMD are worth!

The EU can freeze assets and arrest directors and employees for failing to comply with their rulings. You can literally go to jail.

Intel and MS do not have all their money in the US because tax is huge in the US over 30% tax. Apple has 150bln in cash but needs to borrow money to repay shareholders... The EU can get at that money if it really wanted to fight it out.

The EU cant block two US companies from merging they can just say no to them selling products in Europe. I doubt this merger would even happen to begin with either but you seem to view the EU as all mighty and powerful and doesnt care about anyone as long as theirs competition. The US system isnt great but the EU is far from perfect.

 

[frozentundra123456]

The EU cant block two US companies from merging they can just say no to them selling products in Europe. I doubt this merger would even happen to begin with either but you seem to view the EU as all mighty and powerful and doesnt care about anyone as long as theirs competition. The US system isnt great but the EU is far from perfect.

Yea, I actually never understood why Microsoft got fined for bundling Internet Explorer with Windows. I mean, would you rather it shipped with no browser at all? I could understand it if they made it impossible to use another browser, but all you have to do is use the browser they provided you to download Opera, Chrome, or Firefox.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Yea, I actually never understood why Microsoft got fined for bundling Internet Explorer with Windows. I mean, would you rather it shipped with no browser at all? I could understand it if they made it impossible to use another browser, but all you have to do is use the browser they provided you to download Opera, Chrome, or Firefox.

I can understand its a grayzone. And personally I want a browser as default too. Maybe because I remember the days before.

However when that is said. It is a huge dominant tool to be able to use. And Microsoft choose to abuse it to promote their own products.

 

[blackened23]

Yea, I actually never understood why Microsoft got fined for bundling Internet Explorer with Windows. I mean, would you rather it shipped with no browser at all? I could understand it if they made it impossible to use another browser, but all you have to do is use the browser they provided you to download Opera, Chrome, or Firefox.

Chrome? Firefox? Whoa whoa whoa. Let's rewind here.

There was a brief couple of years where IE wasn't terrible. Chrome didn't exist, firefox didn't really exist - but we had netscape instead, and during this short span of time everyone complained about IE. It was popular to hate MS, and "M$" meme's were everywhere. Netscape was becoming an irrelevant piece of junk, and firefox wasn't nearly as developed at this time, nobody used it. This is (IIRC) around the year 2k when microsoft was at it's peak. Obviously things turned around both for IE and for microsoft, who isn't dominant anymore.

IE was a good browser for a couple of years, maybe that's when it happened, dunno. Obviously IE isn't good (IMO) like it was during that brief run. And MS isn't in the same position as it was back then.