Advanced Micro Devices Inc (AMD)

[Windsock]

Reverse engineering is a strange way to describe what AMD did to develop its 386 design. A contractor in Hong Kong literally copied every transistor in the Intel 386, including all of the microcode. Some theorize that the work was done in Hong Kong by a contractor because Hong Kong had virtually non-existent copyright protection and AMD had serious doubt on whether it had a legal right to copy the Intel 386.

The original License Agreement was signed in the late '70s when microprocessors did not have microcode. The 8086 was the first Intel microprocessor to have microcode and it was introduced circa 1981, IIRC.

After AMD introduced a transistor-by-transistor copy of the 386, Intel filed a law suit and challenged AMD’s right to copy the 386 microcode. Intel argued that the word "microcode" was understood at the time the License Agreement was negotiated to mean the code that was used in the micro-systems that were specifically discussed and licensed in the Agreement. AMD argued that “microcode” meant microprocessor microcode.

The first trial resulted in a jury verdict for Intel. AMD requested a new trial by arguing that Intel did not give AMD a copy of a press release during pretrial discovery. Intel argued that the document was public and was in fact contained in a file in AMD’s press department. Intel also argued that both parties followed the normal practice of not producing public documents that were equally available to both parties. AMD also made other, more usual arguments for granting a new trial. The judge, among other reasons, found the failure to produce the press release significant and granted a new trial for AMD.

In the second trial, AMD used trial new counsel and spent very little time using the press release, giving strength to Intel’s view that the press release was basically irrelevant to the real issues in the case. The second trial in 1994 resulted in a decision that AMD had a license to copy Intel’s microprocessor microcode.

The ironic part is that it took 4 years of intense litigation and 2 jury trials to determine the meaning of a single word in a contract. The legality of billions of $$ in revenue was at risk over the meaning of the single word – “microcode”.

However, the 1994 decision was not the end of the story. AMD had copied all of the microcode in the 386 and also in the 486. The copyists did not know how the microcode worked or what was contained in the code -- they were just copying transistors -- so it was necessary to copy everything and assure that the processor would function properly.

The Intel License Agreement contained a specific exclusion – added by amendment in the 1980’s – to prevent AMD from obtaining rights to produce In Circuit Emulation (ICE) processors. The exclusion removed any right in the License Agreement for AMD to copy the ICE microcode contained in all Intel 386 and 486 processors.

Intel filed a law suit and challenged AMD’s use of ICE microcode in AMD’s 486. A Court decision in Jan 1995 (or perhaps late 1994) held that AMD had no license for the ICE microcode that AMD had copied and embedded in every 386 and 486.

Big problem for AMD !!

In February of 1995, Intel and AMD reached a Settlement Agreement that ended the almost 10 year litigation war that was started by AMD when it filed its arbitration. All of the pending law suits and appeals were dismissed.

http://www.eetimes.com/editorial/1995/inthenews9503.html

Thanks to Elmer for finding the link on the 1995 settlement and citing it some time ago in a post.