AMD, Intel settle all antitrust, licensing disputes

With Intel now under heat from regulatory authorities in both the European Union and the United States, today’s announcement might be the last thing you’d expect. Nevertheless, AMD and Intel have settled all of their ongoing antitrust and intellectual property disputes. Here’s the skinny from the official announcement:

Under terms of the agreement, AMD and Intel obtain patent rights from a new 5-year cross license agreement, Intel and AMD will give up any claims of breach from the previous license agreement, and Intel will pay AMD $1.25 billion. Intel has also agreed to abide by a set of business practice provisions. As a result, AMD will drop all pending litigation including the case in U.S. District Court in Delaware and two cases pending in Japan. AMD will also withdraw all of its regulatory complaints worldwide. The agreement will be made public in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The phrase "claims of breach from the previous license agreement" in the announcement refers to Intel’s allegations that, by spinning off its chip fabrication business into GlobalFoundries, AMD had violated the cross-licensing agreement with Intel. In March, Intel threatened to revoke AMD’s x86 license within 60 days if it didn’t rectify that perceived breach. AMD maintained that it wasn’t doing anything wrong, and it threatened to take away Intel’s "rights and licenses" under the agreement, which would presumably have left Intel unable to make x86-64 processors.

AMD said in a conference call this morning that this agreement gives ATIC, the co-owner of GlobalFoundries, much more flexibility and could allow it to merge GlobalFoundries and Chartered Semiconductor, which ATIC acquired in September. This deal also allows AMD to produce all of its processors in third-party fabs, freeing it from the restriction of having to be GlobalFoundries’ parent company.

The two companies commented in a joint statement about today’s agreement, "While the relationship between the two companies has been difficult in the past, this agreement ends the legal disputes and enables the companies to focus all of our efforts on product innovation and development."

Comments closed
    • Vaughn
    • 10 years ago

    I don’t hate intel at all, I just built an i7 system coming from all AMD builds. However i’m not blind or stupid!

    Can either of you explain to me why intel has gotten into shit for the same thing in so many other countries??

    • Vaughn
    • 10 years ago

    I don’t need to disprove anything, Intel paid out the money cause they knew they were in the wrong. Your head is stuck so far up your own ass you can’t see the light of day. Even intel saw the light and choose to do the right thing.

    You are just delusional, I will take intels own actions and the words of the many sensible people on this site, plus all the court cases against intel over your BS.

    Now go back under your bridge!

      • nanoflower
      • 10 years ago

      Sounds like you have made up your mind to hate Intel and anyone that counters your anti-Intel feelings by attacking them. Not sure why you feel so emotionally invested in this topic.

      As to whether Intel is guilty or not I don’t know the facts and I’m pretty sure you don’t either. They may have done something wrong or they may have done something that skirted the edges of the law. One thing we can say is that Intel and AMD felt it was in their best interest to make this deal. They may have done it because they saw it as the cheapest way out of what would be a long protracted fight. Anything else gets into the area of speculation which can be made to be anti Intel and anti AMD.

        • NeelyCam
        • 10 years ago

        This^ +5

        • MadManOriginal
        • 10 years ago

        Your simple rational and nonemotional logic is not wanted here! This is FANOY FLAME WAR!

    • Vaughn
    • 10 years ago

    Can you guys stop responding to this tool and lets move on to some valid opinon’s. I just read this whole thing and honestly neely you are in some serious denial dude and I think you need help. Intel is guilty you don’t pay out 1.25 billion if your not guilty period.

    I would voteban you if I could.

    • Monopolice
    • 10 years ago

    1.25b is to less , that only covers the lawyer fees , where is the real damage payment from intel will come ? and it should be more then 6b as they can rebate to dell that much .

    AMD is to kind , just wanting intel to open up a future for them to fight , never even complain about the damage done to them and request damage fees? If AMD would continue suing intel , it would be more then 1.25b for intel to pay. and lets not forget AMD have 5b in debt .

    Lets not forget Nvidia open cases [cross license patent agreement between nVidia and Intel in regards to nVidia chipsets, Intel integrated graphics and Larrabee] against intel .

    If intel did not want to admits his wrong doings then I am certain that intel will use other evil means to try get its monopoly power back some day. Just like if your dog does not admit his wrong doing , he will continue doing it . Intel will not doing this ==> /”\(~_~”)/”\ <(I surrender)

    • Meadows
    • 10 years ago

    Congratulations, intel.
    You have improved my opinion of you.

      • MadManOriginal
      • 10 years ago

      Of course he’s saddened, he only got $$$ as his cut and billable hours instead of $$$$$$$$.

    • MadManOriginal
    • 10 years ago

    b[

    • vikramsbox
    • 10 years ago

    Seems like a good compromise- sort of like a sour divorce proceeding suddenly becoming an out of court amicable settlement.
    More than the money involved, its the qualitative terms that are of significance-
    Intel knows that the courts are going to rule against it, and AMD wants freedom in its x86 operations and non intrusive marketing by intel. If past damages were settled, then it would amount to admittance of guilt by Intel and may be a precedent for non AMD constituted suits against Intel.

    If they compete in the market (as opposed to rolling p their cuffs in the market place and slugging it out), then the best company will win.
    Intel knows now that it was too worried about competition and in fact, competition is desired by the public and the regulators. Heck, when even Via can chug along, can’t Intel make a living in a competitive market?

    So guys, its time to stop expensive law suits and exclusivity deals, and start giving us cheap i5s/i7s and Bulldozers! What say?

      • sparkman
      • 10 years ago

      Do Intel’s x86 intellectual property rights ever expire? Are they patents or what?

        • MadManOriginal
        • 10 years ago

        They’re patents so they eventually expire like all patents. Some of the earliest x86 stuff is off patent.

    • insulin_junkie72
    • 10 years ago

    #103, the NY case is up to Cuomo; I’d be pretty suprised if he dropped it for number of reasons, not the least of which is his probable 2010 NY run (and judging from the news coverage, so would everyone else – his political ambitions get mentioned in most of the coverage).

    Even if he lost the case, he still wins in terms of exposure and buttressing his “tough on business” rep.

    The FTC investigation started under the prior administration is still ongoing; given that the current administration appointed a former MPAA lobbyist to run the FTC, it may be the only time that a number of people on the internet root for a guy with “MPAA lobbyist” on his resume 😛

    • wira020
    • 10 years ago

    Hope the 1.25b will help bring the bulldozer sooner… well, maybe not.. its just nice to wish…

    btw. this doesnt means that other antitrust case has dropped right?.. the ny case still runs rite?..

    • LaChupacabra
    • 10 years ago

    Looking back AMD may have made some brilliant (or at least less ridiculous) moves. Spinning off their fab’s as Global Foundaries was against the original liscensing agreement AMD had with Intel. Looks like a billion dollars and dropping the most expensive part of their buisness may have been the plan all along.

    • Welch
    • 10 years ago

    You can give away your product as an incentive….. nothing illegal about that. The fact that manufacturers would not take that many proccessors could say a few things……

    Maybe they didn’t feel that the cost of the motherboards would be worth it… their customers might panic from not seeing the “Trusted” … “Intel Inside” symbol, or perhaps… just perhaps….. its because they feared Intels wrath over them.

    Wake the hell up, fanboys or not….. Intel got this thing with AMD off of their plate before one of the other guys who had a gun pointed at their head included AMD in on the even bigger prize. By getting rid of AMD from the list they don’t have to worry about all of those allegations (notice… foreign and domestic) being used against them in court. The 1.25Billion is what it is… 1.25 billion on today’s standards, not when the anti-trust laws were broken *shrug*.

    Because their new agreement with Intel about the previous allegations, they can no longer use this information in court to help the other people who have been affected. Smart move by AMD, a bit selfish but chances are they would have been left out to dry and dragged out for so much longer and spent plenty of time, effort and money.

    Congrats to AMD….. now you can move on with the money and put it towards making an even better product.

      • insulin_junkie72
      • 10 years ago

      NYT says that the negotiations for this between both parties have been going on since APRIL (surprised it flew under the radar this long, too).

      Geez, no wonder both companies were spending so much on legal fees 😛

      (Whoops, wasn’t really meant as a reply)

    • blastdoor
    • 10 years ago

    Wow, this is huge. What great news for AMD!

    • thermistor
    • 10 years ago

    I can’t believe someone in this thread linked to Sharikou, talk about a crank. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

    But now this agreement has been reached, can I be hopeful that Sharikou will just fade away and any nom de plume he chooses to use (Snakeoil), will also vanish?

    • jdaven
    • 10 years ago

    God I’m glad I wasn’t in your economics class.

      • NeelyCam
      • 10 years ago

      Was that a snipe at me…?

        • jdaven
        • 10 years ago

        Yes! I posted without replying. 🙂

    • BobbinThreadbare
    • 10 years ago

    How much debt is AMD carrying right now?

    • Wintermane
    • 10 years ago

    I knew something like this was comming after they fired the twit at the top.

    • ClickClick5
    • 10 years ago

    l[<...this agreement ends the legal disputes and enables the companies to focus all of our efforts on product innovation and development."<]l This is nice! Think about Intel and AMD working and playing nicely together....mmmm. AMD's Bulldozer has Intel's new AVX instruction set and -[

    • brucect
    • 10 years ago

    Finally why is so low?

      • nanoflower
      • 10 years ago

      Because neither company is served by a long drawn out law suit and it’s certain that this law suit would have gone for years.

    • Thanato
    • 10 years ago

    This is a great win for AMD! AMD existence has had a tremendously positive effect on the market and for consumers any computer.

    • beck2448
    • 10 years ago

    It’s a good deal for intel! AMD can reduce their debt level but they’re not out of the woods yet as they still owe too much and they lost market share last quarter.

      • NeelyCam
      • 10 years ago

      And they keep bleeding the market share at least until Q1/2011. But this will keep them going, regulators off Intel’s back etc. Everybody wins. Not to mention, AMD gets to keep making x86’s – that’s money in the bank in itself.

    • jdaven
    • 10 years ago

    “Intel has also agreed to abide by a set of business practice provisions.”

    This is the most important part of this settlement in my eyes. No more shaddy rebates, no one bullying companies only to sell Intel processors, etc. etc.

    This is the biggest boon to semiconductor customers that I’ve ever seen! Choice of products based on performance rather than back alley deals.

      • dpaus
      • 10 years ago

      The proof will be in the pudding as they say… Let’s see how soon 25% of all PCs available for sale on-line (Dell, HP, etc) are AMD CPUs.

        • stmok
        • 10 years ago

        Well, it does explain why Dell suddenly introduced that rather odd looking desktop/nettop solution. (Dell Zino?)

          • MadManOriginal
          • 10 years ago

          Right, because an OEM can develop a system in a few weeks. Or i[

      • indeego
      • 10 years ago

      The threat of AT legislation didn’t seem to cause Intel to change its behavior, why would some agreement with piddly AMD change anything?

      Intel completely got off Scott free on this. Some estimates had damages upwards of 7 billion. Guess AMD didn’t have as airtight a case as they thoughtg{<...<}g

        • khands
        • 10 years ago

        My guess is they needed the money /[

        • WaltC
        • 10 years ago

        Oh, but Intel’s got lots of anti-trust ahead of it. The settlement with AMD won’t change that–and besides, I think it was the pressure of the AMD suits plus all of the international AT suits that have induced Intel to settle this suit.

        Scott free? Heh…;) Intel is still howling about the $1.5B it had to pay the EU, and still trying to get it back on appeal. You don’t remember that Intel *lost money* during the quarter it had to pay the EU? Trust me, 1.25 thousand-million dollars (1,250 x$1,000,000) is not chicken feed to anybody, especially when it is plucked from your net profits…;)

        But hey, if Intel abrogates the agreement, which this time is in writing, AMD’ll just hit ’em up for $2.5B, and then $5B, and so on. Somehow, though, I think this settlement is a clear signal that Intel has finally tired of defending the game it has been playing.

        As for why AMD agreed to this settlement–first of all it’s goals were to get Intel to stop paying OEMs not to buy its products. Intel’s agreed, in writing, to do that. Second, AMD has nowhere near the money to throw away that Intel has. That’s always been true. Intel could have waited out AMD indefinitely in terms of money thrown at lawyers. What Intel could not do was avoid governments taking huge, billion-dollar slices out of its hide whenever it suited them. Intel knew it couldn’t take too many more quarters of red ink caused by paying out government judgments. This helps Intel avoid that–but far more importantly, it helps AMD into the future in perpetuity.

        You may not have noticed, but AMD is not afraid of Intel technologically. WHat they are afraid of is Intel using its huge financial advantage to pay off and threaten OEMs into not buying AMD products. Hopefully, at least for Intel, that’s now behind us

        Last, AMD has made it’s point internationally, and forcefully. AMD is, I believe, the recipient of the largest judgment Intel has ever had to pay an independent company. Intel has paid large sums to companies in the past to settle disputes, but always, IIRC, it was to *buy* those companies as a part of the settlement. AMD is still AMD, and Intel owns none of it.

        .

          • insulin_junkie72
          • 10 years ago

          >>> /[

            • WaltC
            • 10 years ago

            I agree with somewhat with this, although AMD had intentionally structured the ATIC deal from the start to avoid a problem with it. All of the analysis I read prior to this agreement being struck indicated AMD had no problem, especially because if Intel wanted to get huffy about its cross-licensing deal with AMD then that would put Intel’s x86-64 license in question–which wouldn’t have been good at all for Intel’s Core 2 and higher cpu lines. On balance, AMD came out better in the settlement because now Intel has no say-so over how AMD manufactures its x86 cpus–even theoretically…;) Intel, however, simply maintained the status-quo with respect to its cross-licensing of x86-64 with AMD.

            On balance I think think this is a big win for AMD on all points as AMD couldn’t have afforded to let this litigation percolate indefinitely, whereas Intel certainly could have.

            • insulin_junkie72
            • 10 years ago

            >>/[

      • NeelyCam
      • 10 years ago

      Intel hasn’t done this for a long time – it doesnt’ have to. Intel’s CPUs just simply outperform AMD’s, so the demand is there.

        • jdaven
        • 10 years ago

        Lol!!! Neelycam you are so funny sometimes. I love your jokes.

          • NeelyCam
          • 10 years ago

          I do my best.
          This time, though, I’m dead serious. This is a serious issue.

          My previous prediction still stands that 2010 is going to hurt AMD so bad even its mother can’t recognize it. I mean, how could they possibly compete with Clarkdale/Arrandale and Gulftown profitably? Please don’t discount the importance of the better process – that’s the reason for margin gap between Intel and AMD.

          Right now AMD has nothing profit competitive. The supposed magic bullet that’s called ‘Bulldozer’ is still a year away, and when it arrives, it has to tackle Sandybridge.

            • BobbinThreadbare
            • 10 years ago

            I would bet they’re still offering bulk rebates, I would guess they just got rid of don’t buy AMD rebates.

            • NeelyCam
            • 10 years ago

            Bulk rebates are no different from bulk discounts. I’m sure AMD is doing that too, and every other large company in the world

            • Game_boy
            • 10 years ago

            Gulftown is so highly priced it doesn’t affect AMD, and tri- and quad-core Propus products will easily compete with Clarkdale and Arrandale. AMD is already priced well relative to Lynnfield.

            Really, I don’t see much change from now in 2010. Intel will increase their margins due to the smaller die size of Clarkdale, but that’s all.

            On the server side they will be competitive with Intel at the highest levels with their new 12-core chips – they will be reasonably priced [much lower than Intel’s 8-core Nehalem EX as a platform] and AMD has a more favourable IPC ratio for server tasks.

            On the mobile side they will have gone from having no competitive products (65nm Turion X2s) to some (45nm Turion IIs). That’s also progress.

            And they continue to be strong in graphics. So, where’s the issue?

            • NeelyCam
            • 10 years ago

            /[

            • Game_boy
            • 10 years ago

            /[

            • NeelyCam
            • 10 years ago

            /[

            • balzi
            • 10 years ago

            Its probably true that AMD is up against it in the CPU business – if I take everything you’ve said at face value. You *seem* to know what you’re on about.

            But please, the whole point of this article was to show that AMD have been severely crippled in years past by Intel’s actions – you cannot deny a company billions of dollars over a 3-4 year period and expect them to keep progressing as if nothing has happened (well, unless your Microsoft).

            I don’t want you to pity AMD, I want you to realise that Intel have profitted when the market has suffered. That’s why some/most people don’t like Intel.

            Those same people probably like AMD because they have released good processors, not the best but good, in spite of the incredible disadvantages they were working under.

            Its like when Lance Armstrong won the Tour after his battle with cancer. Inspiring! (note: I’m not saying Intel are a cancer, but not far off 🙂 )

            • NeelyCam
            • 10 years ago

            How can you claim the market has suffered? Have you seen the latest PhenomII BEs and i7’s?? And have you seen their prices?

            • nanoflower
            • 10 years ago

            It’s not that the market has suffered due to a lack of innovation in processors. It’s that the market may have suffered because consumers (whether corporate or individuals) were made to pay higher prices due to the influences of Intel in the past. It has not been proven in a court of law but it’s obvious that a number of people believe it to be true.

            • NeelyCam
            • 10 years ago

            “beliefs” and “facts” are not the same thing.

            And even if that was the case back then, it’s pretty obvious that “questionable” practices haven’t been in place for years now, and the market right now is reaping continuous benefits from competition.

    • elty
    • 10 years ago

    What a for deal Intel consider some random patent holding “company” can sue for 500 million with some generic patent.

      • PrincipalSkinner
      • 10 years ago

      Hmmmm…. what?

      • khands
      • 10 years ago

      And either get crushed or settle out of court for like $10mil.

    • WillBach
    • 10 years ago

    On one hand, I’m glad to see that resolved, and I’m glad to see AMD walk off with $1.25 billion in hand. On the other hand, that’s about one fourth the amount Intel paid to Dell to maintain exclusivity, and it’s hard not to believe that AMD’s damages have been greater. I think this is the best deal AMD can get. Here’s to Bobcat!

    • StashTheVampede
    • 10 years ago

    The cross licensing deal is interesting. Each other is hedging bets on the GPU/CPU hybrid, I bet. Wonder if this agreement also covers larabee.

      • Saribro
      • 10 years ago

      So far, the cross-license has covered x86 and any of its extensions.

        • StashTheVampede
        • 10 years ago

        Right now, this is big for Intel: they get to keep x86-64. AMD keeping x86 is also in their best interest.

          • sparkman
          • 10 years ago

          Anyone care to speculate if this gives AMD rights to implement LNI? (Larrabee New Instructions, which could be considered to fall under the x86 umbrella.)

            • stdRaichu
            • 10 years ago

            AMD’s had the right to use every other extension (SSE, SSE2, PNI, SSE4…) do I don’t see why not. The cross licensing deal covers, I believe, literally everything patentable Intel or AMD do to the ISA.

    • pogsnet
    • 10 years ago
      • NeelyCam
      • 10 years ago

      In five years Intel has dropped laughabee aspirations, AMD has quit CPUs, and Nvidia has just quit. It is generally accepted that all high-power graphics come from AMD. >95% of lower-power CPUs (for cellphones, set-top boxes etc.) are ARM-based, fabricated by Intel (50%), TSMC (30%) and GloFo (20%). Intel still makes most desktop and laptop CPUs, competing with Samsung’s own offering.

      ATX cases are not made anymore; all desktops sold are MiniITX-like small boxes; mother board form factors have been replaced due to very high level of integration (desktop motherboards look a lot like laptop mobos of today). Desktops constitute only 15% of the market, whereas ‘laptops’ have 80%. MIDs never caught on, but still hold the remaining 5% .

      Today’s netbooks are completely gone (replaced essentially by cell phones), and mechanical hard drives have largely disappeared due to major reliability concerns, halting their development – SSDs own 80% of the storage market (Samsung being the supplier of choice), with various superdense optical storage options growing.

      Obama is pushing for a health care reform.

        • shank15217
        • 10 years ago

        I think you are wrong on about 100% of your predictions.. ATX cases not sold anymore.. haha thats a good one. The world will end before the ATX standard goes away.

          • MadManOriginal
          • 10 years ago

          So you’re saying the world will end in less than 5 years?? OH NOES TEH MAYANS WERE RIGHT!

            • anotherengineer
            • 10 years ago

            SWEEEEEEEET

            EARLY RETIREMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • NeelyCam
          • 10 years ago

          /[

    • ssidbroadcast
    • 10 years ago

    _[

      • LovermanOwens
      • 10 years ago

      you should have kept the faith man…i am personally holding on until 7.50 or so…

      There are plenty of other companies you might want to invest in now…

      you could short sell Gamestop…

      You could pick up some DUF ( for all the M&A’s that is going to happen in the future)

      heck you could pick up some EA and activision…

      • anotherengineer
      • 10 years ago

      ouch.

      I wish I had cash a year ago or cash in general, I would have bought a ton of AMD stock, cause it would probably only go up from where it was a year ago.

      On another note, nice to see everything resolved. 1.25 bill is only 1 quarter for intel, so in one way AMD kinda got a raw deal and the shaft for quite a few years and such a small amount, 3 to 5 billion probably would have more fair, on the other hand its good since Intel is pretty much admitting they are in the wrong and AMD is getting some revenue to put towards their debt, instead of the EU or other governing body pocketing it, and they will probably get it a lot faster this way then 10 more years through the courts, where the lawyers would eat up most of it anyway.

      All in all
      GG
      Hopefully in 5 years from now everything is still good.

      • Arag0n
      • 10 years ago

      well i gues that you can become rich with AMD. They are dancing the hula-hop arround 4.5-6$, thats a 33% margin.

      • esterhasz
      • 10 years ago

      ha, I bought your stocks !

    • cavedog
    • 10 years ago

    #1 ripping on fanbois while acting like a troll is not something to be proud about.

      • Waco
      • 10 years ago

      #6 – Reply button. 😉

        • Ryhadar
        • 10 years ago

        It’s better this way, now the trolling won’t be rewarded with a (direct) response.

    • flip-mode
    • 10 years ago

    1.25 billion seems a little low, but I guess the licensing terms are probably of equal or greater importance and value.

    I wonder what this means with respect to New York’s case and the pending FTC case – do those just go away?

    Well, Dirk can say he brought AMD back to profitability now, amirite?

      • SubSeven
      • 10 years ago

      Haha, Dirk has earned some bragging rights. The cases filed by states vs intel will not go away just like EUs fine against intel will stay. However, all civil lawsuits and claims filed by amd against intel vanish. Also, you are forgetting a big part of this deal are the so called business practice provisions that intel is agreeing to abide by. This means no more (or at least not as much) pressure on the likes of Dell to keep away from AMD. Intel is agreeing to clean up its act (question is how long this lasts?). This is huge because it allows AMD more flexibility and allows them access to a much broader market. Also, don’t forget that what happens being closed doors in meetings and what is stated to the public are often two very different things. I am certain without a doubt AMD got other perks out of this that neither company want the public to know (especially regulators) as it might be considered collusion or something of the sort.

        • NeelyCam
        • 10 years ago

        I doubt that Intel has used “questionable” business practices for a while now. But fine – since this settlement was reached, nobody can claim the marketplace is unfair in the future.

        So the real test is: how well can AMD do now that they can’t cry ‘foul’? If they can’t start making market share gains, I’d say that proves that the suit was bogus in the first place.

        My money is on Intel gaining marketshare, for the simple reason that they have the better process and better products.

          • flip-mode
          • 10 years ago

          They won’t start making respectable market share gains until they get more competitive like they were with the original Athlon and then the Athlon 64. Or until they can offer respectably better value for the dollar.

          As for Intel’s dirty business practices – I’d take a wild guess that they pretty well discontinued most of them with the launch of Conroe. At that point they didn’t need them. But while the Athlon and then Athlon 64 was busy whooping Intel’s chips for 4 or so years between 1999 and 2006, I’m pretty sure Intel’s dirty tricks were essential to preserving the company’s market share and profitability.

          I can tell you that when we ordered a bunch of workstations in 2006 we would have loved to get Athlon X2 in our Optiplex machines instead of the disgusting Pentium D, but that was not an option. We’re still stuck with several of those machines in our small business.

            • MadManOriginal
            • 10 years ago

            While the CPU advantages are not disputable I wonder if you or your company really would have approved of AMD i[

            • flip-mode
            • 10 years ago

            Nvidia chipsets would have been fine – Nforce 4 or whatever was going around at the time. CAD is all about the CPU. Our workstations don’t have very beefy disk controller requirements. AMD easily had the best CPU in April of 06. Couldn’t get them from Dell though; can’t remember who else we looked at, but the IT guy at the time was very interested in the management features of the Optiplex line, so he was pretty set on the Optiplex. Today, you can get an AMD in the Optiplex, even though Intel’s CPUs are usually the better choice; and the chipsets for the Intel based Optiplex machines has been the q45 for years now, with the BIOS conveniently locked to prevent you from upgrading your CPU from a Pentium D to a Conroe, or from a Conroe to a Wolfdale.

            • MadManOriginal
            • 10 years ago

            Ok, I was talking more about reliability and stability not performance but if you would have been fine with NV chipsets so be it.

          • SubSeven
          • 10 years ago

          You doubt that intel used questionable methods? You need to get your head out of your rectal cavity and smell some fresh air from time to time. Might do you and that flu of yours some good. It is very fortunate that it is not your “doubts” authorities are trying to validate. Intel has already been busted for multiple practices. The 1.5Bln EU fine is vivid proof of that, or do you consider their court inferior to that of other nations’? Secondly, Intel’s settlement with AMD pretty much confirms without a doubt it did some screwy stuff or else they would have gladly went to court. This is not $10 we are talking about that Intel paid to have charges against it dropped, it is $1.25Bln, that is BILLION with a B (and in my opinion a fairly low amount). I guess Intel didn’t believe it had a very good chance of getting off clean in the courtroom so they took this option. Pretty clear admission of guilt to me. Lastly, if you are so keen on proof, why don’t you read some of Dell’s internal emails stating Intel paid them as much as $400mln/period to not to buy from AMD and that Dell HEAVILY relied on this money to meet earnings estimates. What do you call this practice exactly? Intel being generous and donating money out of the goodnes of their little hearts? This is but one of dozens examples i can bring up. So with that in mind, i have no idea how you can say there is no proof Intel violated its position and engaged in unfair business practices. Clearly you are either very sick or very biased & ignorant or perhaps both. In either case, i hope you get well and get read and know all the facts before posting your highly esteemed doubts.

          Cheers.

          Sub7

            • Veerappan
            • 10 years ago

            Reading comprehension > you.

            l[

            • SubSeven
            • 10 years ago

            Do me a favor and read his post #49. He never said anything about having the flu in the above post either, he mentioned it elsewhere. I chose to reply there because he replied to my earlier post. Thank you for commenting on my reading comprehension; if you’d be so generous now, please go ahead and comment on your tendncy to make assumptions.

            • NeelyCam
            • 10 years ago

            Moreover, it still hasn’t proven that Intel has done that back then in AthlonXP days.

            My comment was a response to those who foolishly think Intel is doing such things _right_now_ – I didn’t want to get into an argument about the past, that’s why I worded it that way.

            • NeelyCam
            • 10 years ago

            /[

            • balzi
            • 10 years ago

            Hi Neely

            How is it that everyone else here can see the clear picture – that Intel is admitting fault by settling with a $1.25b lumpsum going to AMD, and you can’t?

            I don’t think your particular arguments are very important, especially when the bigger issue is that you are even trying to defend Intel at all.

            Maybe they aren’t so bad these days, but I would put that down to increased scutiny (read: accountability) more than newfound benevolence. And that certainly doesn’t mean that they have always been nice and fair and above-board.

            Please excuse me if I wonder out loud at how biased you appear. Almost blinded. Its fascinating!

            I’m sorry I don’t have stronger arguments to make other than “everybody knows Intel did a naughty”, but even you must believe that it’s likely they were employing illegal tactics. Yes?

            • NeelyCam
            • 10 years ago

            It’s possible that some funny business was going on, but I wouldn’t call it ‘likely’. I haven’t seen proof, and I want to give Intel the benefit of the doubt – something few people here are willing to do. What happend to “innocent until PROVEN guilty”?

            Settlement is not an admission of guilt, although you keep saying that. I could use similar logic and say: If AMD is so sure about Intel’s guilt, why would they agree to a settlement? If Intel is PROVEN guilty, AMD would be making some 5-10x more money. Why wouldn’t AMD pursue that? They sure could use the money, since they can’t make a profit by themselves?

            Due process hasn’t happened here, and when I’m trying to point that out, you’re practically calling me a criminal (“/[

            • balzi
            • 10 years ago

            “Fact remains: AMD didn’t have the manufacturing capacity to satisfy all the demand from Dell, IBM etc., and nobody – not even you – can dispute that. AMD was selling every chip they were making – those things were going out-of-stock even with the high prices asked.”

            Holy Falacy Batman – haven’t you read the articles about AMD apparently trying to give away CPUs? You really are in the dark sir.
            You just scuttled your own ship by showing the basis of your arguments – and its not even true. Even if AMD couldn’t satisfy Dell and IBM’s total demand – why should they? Every man and his dog diversifies! Is it so ridiculous to expect to have the option of buying a Dell Server with an AMD CPU? and especially during their period of dominance!

            and I’m not calling you a criminal – I just find it incredible. You make statements like the EU finding being driven by a monkey court, and AMD aren’t profitable so that proves they are just bad managers of their resources. Be more careful please, some of the rashness just highlights your bias.

            • SubSeven
            • 10 years ago

            l[

            • flip-mode
            • 10 years ago

            Wow. That’s like saying the staggering, slurring, glassy-eyed dude that just got pulled over for swerving is not “likely” to have been drinking. Have you seen “proof”, has there been a conviction, no, so if he just spots the cop $200 and his gold watch and the cop lets him go, sure, it’s pretty safe to assume he wasn’t drinking. Yeah…

            • NeelyCam
            • 10 years ago

            Not even a blood test! This is how you “conclusively” decide who’s guilty and who’s not?

            Even though it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, it still might be a dog – maybe it was really dark and you didn’t get a good look.

            • flip-mode
            • 10 years ago

            I was taking issue with your statement in post 92 that you think it is “possible but not likely”. Saying something is or is not likely has nothing to do with fully knowing the truth, but has to do with assessing the information at hand. Going by the information at had, it is not a little likely that Intel did some dirty deeds, it is extremely likely. Intel doesn’t pay out 1.25 billion and make sweeping agreements to any schmuck that knocks on the door.

            And since you brought up convictions – Intel HAS BEEN CONVICTED 3 TIMES IN 3 DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS over this very same issue.

            So, point blank, your stance is pretty damn daft.

            • NeelyCam
            • 10 years ago

            yeah, I must admit this settlement controversy has a negative impact on my agenda…

            • flip-mode
            • 10 years ago

            LOL

            • Anonymous Coward
            • 10 years ago

            You just claimed that Intel payed AMD $1,250,000,000 and gave them a sweet licensing change (and promised to play nice) largely because AMD was making Intel look bad on geek forums. You’re either a troll or an idiot.

      • jjj
      • 10 years ago

      Those cases are about the consumers not AMD so they shouldn’t go away (and the EU fine also stands)

      • potatochobit
      • 10 years ago

      what makes you think people who try to cheat suddenly turn into the good guys looking out for the consumer?

      perhaps you are unaware, but intel was trying to make ‘dirty’ deals with their netbook processors just recently as well

    • Ryhadar
    • 10 years ago

    Wonder how they’re going to spend the money. Also, I wonder how much money they’re saving in legal costs now.

      • insulin_junkie72
      • 10 years ago

      >> Also, I wonder how much money they’re saving in legal costs now.

      Intel was spending $100-$150 million a year (!), according to the WSJ.

      You could say both companies were spending big in legal fees.

    • Hattig
    • 10 years ago

    This should help reduce AMD’s debt, and hence their debt interest payments, and hence improve their profitability.

    It will also let them offload GlobalFoundries either partially or totally, should they wish to. No more worries about how they produce CPUs, they’re free do spread their synthesized bobcat seed around as much as they like.

    It also gets rid of a lot of pain for Intel, at a price of course, but many might say that $1.25b is cheap.

      • bdwilcox
      • 10 years ago

      Yes, $1.25 billion seems like Intel got off cheap to me. I figure with mounting legal costs and years of litigation down the road, AMD surmised a bird in the hand was worth it.

        • SubSeven
        • 10 years ago

        It is cheap. The stock price of Intel being up after a significant cash outflow confirms that even the market believes intel is getting a bargain here.

    • Vasilyfav
    • 10 years ago

    So, AMD will finally become profitable through whining. Go ahead, tear me apart, fanboys.

      • khands
      • 10 years ago

      All I’m going to say is Intel got off cheap.

        • LovermanOwens
        • 10 years ago

        I agree completely with you sir

      • anotherengineer
      • 10 years ago

      Squeaky wheel gets the grease lol

      And I cast FIR3 on thee Troll lol

        • no51
        • 10 years ago

        I thought trolls were immune or resistant to fire. You have to use ICE3.

          • anotherengineer
          • 10 years ago

          I will use that and LIT3 also, get me some XP and GP 😀

          Wonder if this crate of a pc will run nes emulator and FF1….hmmmmm

            • khands
            • 10 years ago

            Considering you could likely do that with an integrated IGP and a P2 or P3, I’d say yes.

            • MrBojangles
            • 10 years ago

            Just use a trusty old Flail of Ages on him perfect for killing trolls.Has built in fire,ice,poison, and acid damage covers all your basis in one thwack.

          • NeelyCam
          • 10 years ago

          What world are you living in? Trolls will regenerate unless they are burned; only fire works.

      • designerfx
      • 10 years ago

      antitrust is whining? wow, what planet do you live on?

        • jdaven
        • 10 years ago

        He’s trying to start a flame war. Just ignore him or have fun with him like the other posters.

        • NeelyCam
        • 10 years ago

        It’s whining until the claims are proven true.

          • Meadows
          • 10 years ago

          They have been true for more than 10 years now.

            • khands
            • 10 years ago

            … except the issues are from ’05, although that’s like 100 years in CPU time.

            • Meadows
            • 10 years ago

            Not really, intel’s naughtiness has been known longer than that.

            • NeelyCam
            • 10 years ago

            You missed the word /[<"proven"<]/...

      • Anonymous Coward
      • 10 years ago

      That was some effective whining!

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This