Don't hurt us
Meyer said the agreement would likely "reset the relationship between AMD and Intel," adding that "that relationship has been intense and emotional, and at times acrimonious for all too many years."
Furthermore, said Meyer, the agreement puts both companies on a "level playing field" and on the path to a "free and open market in the processor world."
The AMD chief said Intel "doesn't have an obligation to help us; they do have an obligation not to do things that are intended to hurt us." Bless.
The smaller chip maker said it still had certain concerns over Intel's pricing and would continue to pursue those with the relevant regulatory bodies, as it would be illegal for the firms to directly engage in conversations about such issues.
On Intel's phone call, Otellini persisted with his track that Intel had "not violated any laws" and had no problem agreeing to AMD's business agreement demands as he explained Intel did not need to stop doing something it wasn't doing anyway.
Otellini said the settlement deal had been under discussion since April and that he hoped the new five year cross license would bring "patent peace."
So, if Intel is innocent, why cough up $1.25 billion to AMD? "Anti-trust cases are incredibly complex," Intel CEO Paul Otellini said, "and it's a jury trial, which has its own vagaries ... While it pains me to write a cheque at any time, in this case, I think it made for a practical settlement. It was a good compromise between the two companies. In many ways, it was a small multiple of the potential damages that could be awarded in a jury trial."
Andy Grove, previously an Intel CEO and Chairman of the firm's board and now a senior advisor to Intel's executive management of Intel, added that paying a settlement was "better than taking a risk with a jury trial in a complex case."
