Replies to post #83954 on Advanced Micro Devices Inc (AMD)

[pgerassi]

Windsock:

More revisionist history. Here is the real deal:

"February 1992 Arbitrator found that Intel had breached 1982 technology exchange contract, awarding AMD a license to Intel IP embodied in AMD's reverse-engineered 386 and a two-year extension of the copyright and patent rights granted to AMD under the 1982 technology exchange agreement."

"December 30, 1994 The California Supreme Court decided that the award was correctly confirmed by the superior court, rejecting Intel's arguments that the arbitrator exceeded his authority. The decision reversed an earlier judgment of the Court of Appeal. This AMD victory was important because of the arbitrator's detailed findings of how Intel intentionally violated AMD's rights, and because it affirmed AMD's intellectual property rights in its highly competitive Am386 processor."

http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/DownloadableAssets/AMD_-_Intel_Litigation_History.pdf

You are corrected with the real history.

Arbitrator found Intel in violation and awarded rights. Appeals Court disagreed. California Supreme Court overruled Appeals Court.

"suits between microprocessor giants Intel and AMD. Intel invented the ... of its version of the 386 chip and barred Intel. from further litigation."

http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v09/09HarvJLTech219.pdf

Intel lost so bad that they were barred from further litigation. Of course, Intel would like to remember it differently, hence the revisionist tendencies.

Pete