facebook rss twitter

Intel speaks out on AMD cross license dispute

by Scott Bicheno on 17 March 2009, 16:04

Tags: Intel (NASDAQ:INTC), AMD (NYSE:AMD), GLOBALFOUNDRIES

Quick Link: HEXUS.net/qarhl

Add to My Vault: x

Define 'subsidiary'

So it still comes down to the definition of a subsidiary under the terms of the cross license agreement and whether GLOBALFOUNDRIES qualifies.

For the record, here's the full text of clause 1.22 of the redacted version of the agreement, which is the only one that's publicly available:

 

 

AMD owns 50 percent of the voting shares of GLOBALFOUNDRIES but only owns 34.2 percent of it on a fully converted to common shares basis. According to the above clause, it seems to qualify as a subsidiary under point (b), but it's not so clear if it does under point (a).

We have to assume that AMD is in no doubt about point (a), otherwise the formation of GLOBALFOUNDRIES would have been a gigantic, high-stakes bluff.

 


« PREVIOUS PAGE

HEXUS Forums :: 4 Comments

Login with Forum Account

Don't have an account? Register today!
Posted by Stoo - Wed 18 Mar 2009 08:30
It's all a big bluffing game tbh, if Intel rescinds the x86 license, then Intels rights to AMD's IP are also rescinded..

Goodbye x64 instruction set, integrated memory controller, quad core method, etc etc.

AMD wouldn't have spun off globalfoundries if it didn't think it had a bulletproof answer to the ancient cross-license agreement (the origins of which stretch back to the 486 days iirc..).

As for the agreement itself, it seems as though there is enough leeway in the wording - ie although it only owns 34.2% when converted to common shares, does it control more via indirect means?

Would it not have also originally contributed to more than 50% of the assets of the new company anyway?
Posted by scaryjim - Wed 18 Mar 2009 10:38
Stoo
Would it not have also originally contributed to more than 50% of the assets of the new company anyway?
For me, this has to be AMDs answer to point a). Isn't GLOBALFOUNDRIES basically AMDs fab assets with different ownership? In which case you'd assume that they have “originally contributed (…) at least fifty percent (…) of the tangible and intangible assets of such entity”, no?

Besides, will GF actually hold any IP? I thought AMD were going to design the chips and GF was basically going act as a prefered fab contractor, and simply stamp out the dies? It seems to me that that wouldn't involve any transfer of x86 IP to GF… or have I misunderstood that part?
Posted by Stoo - Wed 18 Mar 2009 17:52
No - that's what I thought as well..

Any chance of an email into AMD/GLOBALFOUNDRIES to clarify that point?
Posted by DataMatrix - Fri 20 Mar 2009 13:23
What were AMD thinking when they created GLOBALFOUNDRIES? That is:
1) One of the worst company names I've ever seen.
2) Capitalised for some strange reason

Did someone type AMD and GLOBALFOUNDRIES out on a PC with the Caps Lock stuck on?