Replies to post #21983 on Advanced Micro Devices Inc (AMD)

[Jules2]

Posted by: Jerry R
In reply to: sgolds who wrote msg# 21942 Date:1/3/2004 4:16:05 PM
Post #of 21982


sgolds - It made interesting reading, but in the final analysis there is too much blanked to really tell what was cross-licensed and what was protected.

I agree, too much was hidden from the public to make an detailed observations. But standing back, I believe it is clear that the overall intent of the agreement is to allow AMD to do pretty much whatever it wants, and Intel is allowed to do the same.

But AMD has to pay Intel for this.

On Mr. Ruiz & royalty checks: It makes an interesting visual, but I suspect Hector has better things to do during his work day, and there are competant accountants for that sort of thing.

It was more allegory than factual, but I wanted to make a point to Jules2 that regardless of the competitive constraints, Intel held the upper hand in these negotiations, as indicated by the existence of the royalty payments.

sgolds, I am/was fully aware that intel owned x86. And due to that fact they deserve royalty payments from any licensee. I may be an AMD fanboy but I'm not dishonest.
By the same token, can it not be said that AMD ownes the extentions to x86? Having said that, how many companies enjoyed succes building on someone elses technology?
I remmember very well when "Mosaic" came out, wow! a graphical IU interface to the net. My 300buad modem could hardly handle it!
It's PCDOS err, no it's MSDOS.
"But they look the same?"
Can intel pull the same kind of trickery as M$?
Perhaps, however if you notice AMD filed and received many more patents than intel over the past few years. Kind of unprecedented for a co. 1/25 the size of it's competetor to aquire as many as they have.

Patents and Copyrights have become the life blood of high tech companies today, not at all like the early years.

Jules

[Elmer Phud]

Jerry -

I agree, too much was hidden from the public to make an detailed observations. But standing back, I believe it is clear that the overall intent of the agreement is to allow AMD to do pretty much whatever it wants, and Intel is allowed to do the same. But AMD has to pay Intel for this.

I read it much the same way but all the sections covering royalty basically said AMD pays Intel. I didn't see any place where AMD gets to have Intel's books audited and I didn't see any penalties applied to Intel in the event that such and such does or doesn't happen. Looks to me like the money flows in one direction.