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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Windsock who wrote (66142)7/19/1999 10:26:00 PM
From: Elmer  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1585451
 
Re: "For sure, it was not disputed in the 486 case that AMD had copied the Intel 486 microcode. The court ruled in the 386 case that AMD had a contract right to copy Intel microcode in the 386 and by extension this right to copy applied to the 486 too. In the 486 case, the court ruled that the AMD right to copy did not include the ICE microcode."

Your facts are all mixed up. In the 386 case, an arbitrator awarded AMD the rights to Intel technology, despite the arbitration agreement which expressly forbad him from doing so. An appeals court unanomusly ruled the arbitrator had exceeded his authority and reversed the award. Again on appeal, the Calif supreme court ruled that an arbitrator must be allowed to (basically make things up), no matter how bad his decision as long as it is remotely argueable that it is related to the case.

AMD in the mean time had decided to use Intel microcode in copying the 80287 NPC and Intel sued, winning in court. AMD appealed arguing that Intel had not provided all the available documents (3 documents in the public record) and won a retrial which they won, gaining the rights to Intel microcode but not including the ICE code. Jerry claimed the AMD486 contained no Intel microcode whatsoever. He was proven a liar in court and AMD was forced to pay a large award to Intel for copyright violation, I believe it was $40 million.

EP