Microsoft might be interested in buying AMD, according to source

[layte]

To do what? to refuse Intel 64Bit if Intel refuse AMD 32Bit?

If AMD are bought out and a settlement cannot be reached, then yes, exactly that.

 

[humbug]

Then Intel would have to negotiate with the new owner on X86_64, they ain't just entitled to other peoples IP just because they are Intel anymore than anyone is ^^^^.

Hold on, what you talking about, Intel 64 or AMD 64 ?

X86_64, it enables 64Bit execution in the X86 Architecture. Intel do have thier own 64Bit instruction but they also use and need AMD64 (Or X86_64) as its more widely known.

PS: your running it right now.

 

[layte]

Then Intel would have to negotiate with the new owner on X86_64, they ain't just entitled to other peoples IP just because they are Intel anymore than anyone is ^^^^.

No, because in the event a settlement cannot be reached (given AMD have been bought by a third party) the penalty clauses stripping AMD to the rights for any previously shared Intel IP come into effect. Whilst Intel's rights to the previously shared AMD IP remain unaffected.

 

[David Bisset]

If access to a certain licensed tech is viewed as essential to a given space then access to it cannot be legally denied so no Intel can't block others using x86 - though what may be deemed as fair compensation is still a significant issue and would be a renegotiation rather than based on the existing AMD license, though of course any buyer could use that as a basis for arguing the same licensing cost. The buyer would have to demonstrate that the license is also essential for FRAND to apply though this should not be difficult, especially were the buyer MS.

Quite a bit of the x86 licence is actually open now so Intel have no say, but you'd want the newer stuff which Intel do have control over.

No, because in the event a settlement cannot be reached (given AMD have been bought by a third party) the penalty clauses stripping AMD to the rights for any previously shared Intel IP come into effect. Whilst Intel's rights to the previously shared AMD IP remain unaffected.

Not true - they'd have a year of grace but their rights would be affected. However, Intel have the same right to acquire a licence as whoever the buyer is - it's a two-way street here. They'd have a big advantage due to that year of free play if they decided to be pushy, but they would risk annoying regulators themselves.

Basically a bunch of lawyers would get rich and both sides would get their licenses. Intel want to remain the big boy and doing so requires people keeping buying into x86_64... MS being forced to ARM would be a huge blow to Intel.

 

[humbug]

No, because in the event a settlement cannot be reached (given AMD have been bought by a third party) the penalty clauses stripping AMD to the rights for any previously shared Intel IP come into effect. Whilst Intel's rights to the previously shared AMD IP remain unaffected.

Nope, only in your dreams, if a settlement isn't reached AMD don't get X86 and Intel don't get X86_64.

Intel are not entitled to it if AMD or whoever owns AMD don't let them have it. Yet in reality both are entitled to X86 and X86_64 as the industry could not function if one or the other failed to reach an agreement, Intel is as entitled to withhold X86 from AMD or their owners as much as AMD and its owners are entitled to withhold X86_64, ultimately in practical terms they are not.

Its contradictory, but in this case it is how anti trust licensing works.

 

[djkav]

Thats the whole AMD - Intel X-Licence. AMD can use the x86 OP codes and Intel can use AMD-64.

Intel Itanium (formerly IA-64) architecture, which is not compatible on the native instruction set level with the x86 architecture.

 

[layte]

If access to a certain licensed tech is viewed as essential to a given space then access to it cannot be legally denied so no Intel can't block others using x86 - though what may be deemed as fair compensation is still a significant issue and would be a renegotiation rather than based on the existing AMD license, though of course any buyer could use that as a basis for arguing the same licensing cost. The buyer may have to demonstrate that the license is also essential though this should not be difficult.

Intel are under no obligation to license x86 to anyone, so they have no obligation to offer fair licensing to any new business entity. x86, is not required to make a CPU.

Not true - they'd have a year of grace but their rights would be affected.

In which time a settlement has to be reached, if not, things will get nasty very quickly once that period is over. I cant see anyone pushing ahead with the threat of Intel and a pretty slam dunk case hanging over their heads.

I'm sure any potential suitor would sound out Intel first, and it's pretty likely that some deal could be made. But one that would be beneficial to Intel given they hold the advantages in such a situation.

 

[layte]

Nope, only in your dreams, if a settlement isn't reached AMD don't get X86 and Intel don't get X86_64.

No, in hard reality. I'm sick and tired of having this same ludicrous conversation with you each and every time. You refuse to accept the legalities of the situation and persist in promoting your fantasy situation. Behaviour you often persist in when those pesky facts get in the way.

I've linked to the actual contractual agreement between the companies, more than once. You've done nothing but repeat a fantastical situation.

 

[humbug]

Because you make a lot of ludicrous assumptions. ^^^^^

Intel are under no obligation to license x86 to anyone, so they have no obligation to offer fair licensing to any new business entity. x86, is not required to make a CPU.

Contradictory logic

M$ Windows is entirely based on X86, a CPU without X86 will not run Windows.

A CPU without X86_64 will run windows but only in 32Bit mode, like Windows XP

Both can make CPU's without X86 and / or X86_64. they just wouldn't be much use.

By your own logic Intel don't get X86_64

 

[David Bisset]

Intel are under no obligation to license x86 to anyone, so they have no obligation to offer fair licensing to any new business entity. x86, is not required to make a CPU.

'These provisions compel Intel to make certain offers; they do not compel a third party to accept them. The goal is to require Intel to open the door to renewed competition'

They are under obligation to offer, though the terms could be rubbish. I doubt Intel throwing it's weight around would go down very well with regulators who've already taken legal action to slap them down for just this sort of thing

I'm sure any potential suitor would sound out Intel first, and it's pretty likely that some deal could be made. But one that would be beneficial to Intel given they hold the advantages in such a situation.

Aye true, only a fairly idiotic business would buy without talking to Intel first

 

[humbug]

Intel could use X86_64 without the permission of the IP's owner, AMD or Microsoft as the case may be could use X86 Without Intel's permission.

Intel may want to sue AMD / Microsoft if they did that, which will start an anti trust war, the likely result of that is both will get slapped down and orderd to come to a mutual agreement.

 

[layte]

Because you make a lot of ludicrous assumptions. ^^^^^

Nope, I base what I am saying on the contract at hand, you base what you are saying on...?

Contradictory logic

M$ Windows is entirely based on X86, a CPU without X86 will not run Windows.

A CPU without X86_64 will run windows but only in 32Bit mode, like Windows XP

Both can make CPU's without X86 and / or X86_64. they just wouldn't be much use.

By your own logic Intel don't get X86_64

This rambling mess is a response to what exactly?

I understand you have difficulty with comprehending what other people say, but surely given the facts have been hammered onto the screen enough time that surely something must have gotten through? But just for fun, one last time, and I'll try to keep it simple for you.

If AMD get bought, either a settlement is reached, or the penalty clauses come into effect that strip AMD (or newco) to the rights to any previously shared IP. That's the reality of the situation. The same would apply to Intel if anyone was to buy them out, either reach a settlement, or Intel/Newco lose the rights to any shared AMD IP.

I'm sure something would be worked out, as Intel would most likely incur the wrath of the FTC and other trade bodies, but you can be sure it would be beneficial for only one party in such an agreement.

Now, if you do with to counter anything I have said, please at least try to provide a reliable source.

 

[layte]

'These provisions compel Intel to make certain offers; they do not compel a third party to accept them. The goal is to require Intel to open the door to renewed competition'

They are under obligation to offer, though the terms could be rubbish. I doubt Intel throwing it's weight around would go down very well with regulators who've already taken legal action to slap them down for just this sort of thing

All very true, but I'm sure the regulators would take a similarly dim view of any entity trying to ignore existing contracts.

 

[N19h7m4r3]

I welcome our Intel IA64 overlords!

Linux here we come!

 

[humbug]

Nope, I base what I am saying on the contract at hand, you base what you are saying on...?



This rambling mess is a response to what exactly?

I understand you have difficulty with comprehending what other people say, but surely given the facts have been hammered onto the screen enough time that surely something must have gotten through? But just for fun, one last time, and I'll try to keep it simple for you.

If AMD get bought, either a settlement is reached, or the penalty clauses come into effect that strip AMD (or newco) to the rights to any previously shared IP. That's the reality of the situation. The same would apply to Intel if anyone was to buy them out, either reach a settlement, or Intel/Newco lose the rights to any shared AMD IP.

I'm sure something would be worked out, as Intel would most likely incur the wrath of the FTC and other trade bodies, but you can be sure it would be beneficial for only one party in such an agreement.

Now, if you do with to counter anything I have said, please at least try to provide a reliable source.

There is no penalty clause that states (under any circumstance) that Intel are entitled to AMD's IP irregardless of their will.

They might be entitled to continue to use AMD's IP for the rest of the duration of the contract if the contract stipulates AMD must remain under their own ownership.

But that would only be in effect for the duration of the contract, after it has expired Intel have no claim to X86_64 unless AMD permit it.

The contract, BTW, is about to come to an end, AMD and Intel will be as we speak negotiating a new one.

 

[Lokken86]

Utter ********. It would NEVER EVER get through competition authorities.

Please stop re-posting this cack.

This.

 

[layte]

The contract states that should AMD be bought out, and no settlement reached. AMD lose access to any previously shared IP, whilst Intel retain their rights to said IP.

5.2 Termination; Effects of Termination.

(a) Termination by Notice for Breach. Subject to the terms of, and as further set forth in, Sections 5.2(d) and 5.2(e), and upon written notice to the other Party (as used in this Section 5.2(a), the “Terminated Party”), a Party may terminate this Agreement as a whole, or the rights and licenses of the Terminated Party and all of its Subsidiaries under this Agreement, or the rights and licenses of any materially breaching Subsidiary of the Terminating Party, in the event the Terminating Party or any of its Subsidiaries commits a material breach of this Agreement and does not correct such material breach within sixty (60) days after such Terminating Party’s receipt of written notice complaining thereof.

(b) Termination in Bankruptcy. Subject to the terms of, and as further set forth in, Sections 5.2(d) and 5.2(e), and upon written notice to the other Party (as used in this Section 5.2(b), the “Terminated Party”), a Party may terminate this Agreement as a whole, or the rights and licenses of the Terminated Party and all of its Subsidiaries under this Agreement, or the rights and licenses of any Subsidiary of the Terminated Party, if (i) any Bankruptcy Event occurs with respect to such Terminated Party or with respect to any such Subsidiaries, and (ii) following such Bankruptcy Event, such Terminated Party or any of its Subsidiaries takes any Prohibited Action.
Subject to the provisions of Section 5.2(e)(ii) of this Agreement, the Parties and their respective Subsidiaries acknowledge and agree that, as further described in Section 7.2(b), this Agreement is personal to the Parties and their respective Subsidiaries; that U.S. patent law and other applicable non-bankruptcy law excuses a Party, without its consent, from accepting performance from or rendering performance to anyone other than the other Party and its Subsidiaries; and that this Agreement constitutes an executory contract of the kind specified in Section 365(c)(1) of Title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”). The Parties and their respective Subsidiaries further acknowledge and agree that Section 365(e)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code does not prevent termination of rights and licenses as set forth in this Section 5.2(b), and that Section 365(e)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code permits such termination, in each instance on the terms and subject to the conditions of this Section 5.2(b). Each of the Parties and its Subsidiaries hereby waives the protections of the “automatic stay” contained in Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code to the extent required to permit each other Party to exercise its rights of termination under this Section 5.2(b).

(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.

[****] = Certain confidential information contained in this document, marked by brackets, has been omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Rule 24b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to the omitted portions.
- 18 -
INTEL & AMD CONFIDENTIAL

(d) Effects of Termination.

(i) In the event of any termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section 5.2(a), and subject to the provisions of Section 5.2(e), the rights and licenses granted to any terminated Licensed Party(ies), including without limitation the rights granted under Section 3.8(d), shall terminate as of the effective date of such termination, 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.

(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.

(e) Rights of Licensees upon any Rejection in Bankruptcy.

(i) Generally. This Section 5.2(e)(i) is in all ways subject to the provisions of Section 5.2(e)(ii). All rights and licenses granted to any Licensed Party under or pursuant to this Agreement are, for all purposes of Section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code, licenses of rights to “intellectual property” as defined in the Bankruptcy Code, and, in the event that a case under the Bankruptcy Code is commenced by or against a Party or any of its Subsidiaries granting any right or license hereunder, each applicable Licensed Party shall have all of the rights set forth in Section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code to the maximum extent permitted thereby. Without limiting the foregoing, if any such case under the Bankruptcy Code is commenced by or against either Party or its Subsidiaries, each Licensed Party shall be entitled to a copy of any and all such intellectual property and all embodiments of such intellectual property, and the same, if not in the possession of such Licensed Party, shall be promptly delivered to it (a) upon such Licensed Party’s written request following the commencement of such bankruptcy proceeding, unless the Party or Subsidiary subject to such bankruptcy case, or its trustee or receiver, elects within thirty (30) days to continue to perform all of its obligations under this Agreement, or (b) if not delivered as provided under clause (a) above, upon such Licensed Party’s request following any rejection of this Agreement or any right or license hereunder by or on behalf of the Party or Subsidiary subject to such bankruptcy proceeding. All rights of the parties under this Section 5.2(e) and under Section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code are in addition to and not in substitution of any and all other rights, powers, and remedies that each Party may have under this Agreement, the Bankruptcy Code, and any other applicable law.

I've put the relevant bit in bold as I know you have difficulties with reading comprehension.

 

[varkanoid]

The deal intel and AMD stuck like 25 years ago that states its none transferable was overruled a couple of years ago luckily.

Unless your name is Microsoft

 

[humbug]

The contract states that should AMD be bought out, and no settlement reached. AMD lose access to any previously shared IP, whilst Intel retain their rights to said IP.

That contract is about done, its useless to Intel at this point as its about to expire.

A new one is currently being drawn up and i doubt this time AMD will agree to the same terms.

 

[layte]

That contract is about done, its useless to Intel at this point as its about to expire.

A new one is currently being drawn up and i doubt this time AMD will agree to the same terms.

Perhaps, but until such time, the existing terms are the only ones that apply.