AMD
With AMD, we've analyzed the structure that they have quite extensively. They published all the documents associated with the contract with the [Mubadala] guys. So it was very clear in terms of the way the structure was being put together and the way the ownership was really financially versus the voting stock, and what events happened and triggered certain changes in the ownership of the company.
As we looked at that, we feel very strongly that what they did is they violated certain terms of the cross license that we have between us and AMD. We talked to them privately about that. We were unable to revolve our differences. The cross license we have with AMD requires we go to arbitration and that we give notice of arbitration as the first step. Subsequent steps would be to go to trial somewhere on a lawsuit if we can't settle through arbitration.
And the notification by Intel to AMD of the intent to arbitrate was a material event for AMD, so they had to disclose it. And that's why everything kind of came out publically. It was not a material event for us. We wouldn't have disclosed it otherwise. So we only disclosed it in response to their disclosure. Okay?
How do I what? I can't give you that. How do I see it playing out? Through the courts. But needless to say, we wouldn't have done this if we didn't think we had a really strong position. Why pick a fight if you can't win? Anything else?
