SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Dan3 who wrote (98117)3/11/2000 10:53:00 PM
From: Elmer  Read Replies (1) of 1580627
 
Re: "Elmer, this was brought to court, tried under the rule of law, and Intel pretty much lost its case. AMD offered up a variety of valuable designs for successful products that Intel refused to use, perhaps in an effort to get out of its agreement - at least that's what the Judge decided happened."

Dan, the case was arbitrated, not tried in a court of law, and the Arbitrator ruled that AMD did not come up with suitable designs in return. Intel won the arbitration and AMD was denied the rights to the i386, however AMD showed that the Arbitrator held 5 or 6 shares of Intel stock indirectly and the award was thrown out. The new Arbitrator eventually awarded AMD rights to Intel's 386 despite the written agreement between Intel and AMD which specifically forbid the award of the 386 (AMD signed that agreement). It was quite involved and eventually ended up in the Calif Supreme court where it was ruled that the Arbitrator must be granted power to make up an award regardless of how bad his decision may be. That comment was directed directly at the decision made in this case.

AMD used Intel microcode in the AMD486 as well where they made $100s of $Millions more until it was discovered that AMD had used Intel ICE microcode which had been specifically excluded from AMD's court ordered grant of Intel microcode. Incidently this is the most famous case of Jerry being caught lying (there are many more) when he had previously claimed that AMD wasn't using any Intel microcode beyond that granted to AMD by court order. The court subsequently exposed his lie and awarded Intel $42 million. As a result AMD and Intel entered an agreement whereby AMD agreed to stop ripping off Intel microcode beyond the 486 generation. At a later date AMD attempted to use Intel intellectual property in the form of the MMX extensions, claiming they had a right to. Intel threatened suit and AMD backed down and agreed to purchase a license.

Another case involved AMD stealing Intel patents for the 80287 numeric processor extension. Intel sued and won the case however AMD appealed claiming Intel had witheld evidence (3 documents which had been issued in press releases). AMD won a retrial and subsequently won out. Intel was in the process of appealing when AMD and Intel settled out or court.

There is not a single case of Intel making anything off AMD intellectual property. AMD continues to portray themselves as the victim.

Now you know why I have no respect for AMD management.

EP
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News