Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (70080)	2/1/2002 11:20:11 PM
From: AK2004	Respond to of 275872

combjelly re: Apparently Grove, who took over from Noyce by the time the 80286 came out, decided that AMD was more of a nuisance than an advantage. right before that occurred x86 finally became a popular platform. It sounds like hungry intel worked with amd (ibm condition) but when x86 took off Andy decided to push Jerry out. No wonder Jerry refers to intel as bad guys...... Regards -Albert

To: combjelly who wrote (70080)	2/1/2002 11:58:01 PM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

. Intel sued AMD over the 80386 when AMD went ahead and copied it. AMD's defense was that they had a second source agreement with Intel that allowed them to copy their chips. The judge agreed, and Intel retreated and licked it's wounds. Combjelly you are hardly capturing the events that transpired and this is far more complicated that you think. I don't want to go into the detains here but to present Intel's perspective let me just say this, who would happily continue to give their designs to a deadbeat partner who makes 100s of $millions$ off your work and has nothing to give in return? Would you continue to do this forever or do your think there might come a time when you questioned the wisdom of continuing such a lopsided relationship? EP

To: combjelly who wrote (70080)	2/2/2002 12:16:16 AM
From: dale_laroy	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 275872

>Back in the early mists of the industry< In truth, there was a lot of bad blood between AMD and Intel prior to the IBM PC. But when the 8088 was chosen as the processor for the IBM PC, IBM demanded a second source. Intel initially attempted to meet this requirement by providing Harris Semiconductors with the design specifications and a license so that Harris Semiconductors could design clones of x86 processors. IBM rejected this, demanding a legitimate second source, that could be an alternative supplier on short order, not years down the road. Thus Intel licensed NEC as a second source. Even this did not satisfy IBM, who demanded a domestic second source. Unfortunately for Intel, with the exception of TI, who had signed on as a second source for National Semiconductors, the only suitable domestic second source without their own processor or a license to produce the Motorola 68000 processor, was AMD. Thus Intel grudgingly granted AMD a license to produce clones of Intel processors using masks provided by Intel. In exchange, Intel gained access to AMD's trade secret stack based FPU architecture, which Intel subsequently patented as the x87 and denied AMD the right to produce. The trouble started almost from day one, as AMD produced a faster version of the 8088 than Intel's own. AMD increased their speed grade lead with an 8 MHz 80286 versus Intel's own 6 Mhz 80286. By the time Intel introduced the 386 and 14 and 16 Mhz, AMD was marketing 10 Mhz 80286 processors. Intel had had enough, and proclaimed that AMD had breached the licensing agreement by not meeting their obligation to produce support chips for the 80286. Actually, AMD had designed the support chips requested by Intel, but Intel rejected the chips designed by AMD, using their own in house designed support chips instead. However, the licensing agreement specified that the chips designed by AMD had to be approved by Intel to meet the licensing obligation. Thus did Intel justify their denial of the right to produce the 386 to AMD. It was not until Intel denied AMD the right to produce 386 processors that AMD decided they would settle for dominating the low end of the market. The courts actually ruled more or less in Intel's favor, stating that AMD did not meet their contractual obligations. However, they also ruled that Intel had dealt in bad faith by not accepting AMD's designs, and thus granted AMD the right to produce 386 and derivative processors.

To: combjelly who wrote (70080)	2/2/2002 11:41:56 AM
From: Epinephrine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

RE:<That is how the jihad started...> And what is the #1 goal in the jihad?... to get 30% market share. No matter how far away they are they always mention 30%. I think I read in the book 'Inside Intel' that 30% was about the market share that AMD had as a second source to Intel before Intel terminated the agreement. Jerry felt the termination of the agreement and the way that it was handled was unfair and it has always seemed to me after reading that that to him getting back to 30% is a quest of redemption and justice... thus his obsession with it. Epinephrine