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: dale_laroy who wrote (70090)	2/2/2002 12:49:01 AM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

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. Good God, I hope I'm not going to have to dig all this up. AMD failed to produce a graphics chip that they were obligated to supply Intel. Intel canceled their second source agreement based on AMD's failure to perform. AMD and Intel went into arbitration in which AMD specifically agreed that the ruling could not grant them the right to the 386. Intel won, however AMD pointed out that the judge had a mutual fund which held some shares in Intel so the ruling was thrown out. The next arbitration ruled in AMD's favor and granted them the rights to the 386, even though AMD had agreed that the arbitration couldn't grant such an award to AMD. On appeal the decision was thrown out by the appeals court. On appealing to the Calif Supreme Court, the court ruled that they must support the arbitration process no matter how bad the decision as long as there was some connection between the case and the award. Thus AMD won the rights to steal err copy the 386. Other fiascos involved the i287 where AMD once again stole Intel's designs and wound up in court. Intel sued and won but the decision was thrown out when it was found that Intel failed to produce 2 press releases during discovery. The retrial resulted in Intel failing to prove AMD had stolen the rights to the i287. There were more suits perhaps one or the more notable was one of the many times Jerry was caught in a bold faced lie. "We're not using any Intel microcode in the i486" was proven to be a lie by the California courts when looking at the AMD486 ICE code and AMD was forced to pay a large award to Intel. Jerry has lied many times and this was just one of them but there is no denying that the court ruled Jerry Sanders was a liar. Don't count on that being that last time Jerry is ruled a liar by a court of law. EP

To: dale_laroy who wrote (70090)	2/2/2002 9:46:56 AM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: when the 8088 was chosen as the processor for the IBM PC, IBM demanded a second source... ...The trouble started almost from day one, as AMD produced a faster version of the 8088 than Intel's own These are the key points - Intel hasn't been a company of engineers, it's been a company of lawyers and marketeers. The deal was, IBM would let them have the PC market on the condition that they allowed a second source. Intel's lawyers were able to sneak enough weasel wording into the agreements that they were later able to cheat their partners, IBM and AMD and steal a monopoly to produce the chips for IBM PC compatible systems. The two companies do go back and forth some, but on average, AMD's engineering has been ahead of Intel's engineering for most of the past 30 years. AMD's parts were usually faster, but more expensive to produce, and lower volume. Intel's cheating lawyers and sleazy marketing have been able to overcome AMD's advanced engineering - so far.

To: dale_laroy who wrote (70090)	2/2/2002 10:49:12 AM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Dale Re..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. <<< About a yr and a half ago, the other AMD thread discussed this and at that time one of the menbers posted the final court agreement summary. The court did rule that AMD and Intel had an agreement to produce X86 processors, and did rule that the main reason Intel rejected AMD's design for the chip, ( I believe PE said the chip was for running a monitor.) was to abrogate the agreement, not because the chip didn't meet the design and the contracts requirements. Thus Intel couldn't abrogate the agreement for that reason. However the judge also ruled that the agreement wasn't good enough, (after all it was mostly a gentlemans agreement) and that AMD should have done more during the lawsuit, which took a long time, to bring out their own designs; and therefore didn't award much in damages. In the end, while AMd won the lawsuit, Intel actually won, because Intel won the right to terminate the agreement,(Intel purposely didn't give the pentium a x86 name, so AMd could claim rights to copy it.)and didn't award AMD damages.