news: Intel to pay AMD $1.25 billion, settle disputes

Del Cecchi wrote:
The club Intel had to force a settlement was the dispute as to whether
the cross licensing agreement AMD and Intel had could be used by third
parties like the spun off fab. All it would take is a little luck in
choice of judge and Intel gets an injunction prohibiting Global
Foundaries from making x86 chips using Intel patents until the case is
resolved.


There was some worry about whether the existing GlobalFoundries
structure would be deemed permissible under the pre-existing AMD/Intel
crosslicense. However, GF's new parent company, ATIC of Abu Dhabi, was
interested in also purchasing Chartered Semiconductor or Singapore, and
it wanted to fold it into GF's structure. If it did that, AMD's
percentage ownership of GF would have gone down as assets would be
brought in from outside which is what AMD's share is based on: assets
contributed to the venture. This would've probably made it difficult for
ATIC to buy Chartered. So it's possible that ATIC asked for a speedy
resolution of the issue, with an agreement allowing outsourcing the
manufacturing.

Yousuf Khan

On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:23:43 -0800 (PST), Robert Myers
wrote:

On Nov 16, 11:09*pm, krw wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:33:45 -0800 (PST), Robert Myers

wrote:
On Nov 16, 8:54*pm, krw wrote:

So IBM buys GF and makes a pile more money. *;-)

Leaving aside the pile of money that IBM doesn't have that it would
take to do that, it's hard for me to understand why or how IBM would
suddenly become competent (and profitable) as a manufacturer of mass
market chips.

I see you're still as dumb as ever, Robert.


If there is some chapter in the history of IBM successes I have failed
to notice, please let us know. They were very profitable as a
manufacturer of punch cards between the two world wars, but they sold
even those at an obscene markup before it became illegal as trading
with the enemy.

Right. IBM has been such a failure. You are an idiot, Robert. Not
that this is news to anyone here. You do know that it was IBM who
showed AMD how to do it. ...and Intel how to design systems a couple
of decades before. Of course you don't. You're too stupid, Robert.

On Nov 17, 6:36*pm, krw wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:23:43 -0800 (PST), Robert Myers





wrote:
On Nov 16, 11:09*pm, krw wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:33:45 -0800 (PST), Robert Myers

wrote:
On Nov 16, 8:54*pm, krw wrote:

So IBM buys GF and makes a pile more money. *;-)

Leaving aside the pile of money that IBM doesn't have that it would
take to do that, it's hard for me to understand why or how IBM would
suddenly become competent (and profitable) as a manufacturer of mass
market chips.

I see you're still as dumb as ever, Robert.

If there is some chapter in the history of IBM successes I have failed
to notice, please let us know. *They were very profitable as a
manufacturer of punch cards between the two world wars, but they sold
even those at an obscene markup before it became illegal as trading
with the enemy.

Right. *IBM has been such a failure. *You are an idiot, Robert. *Not
that this is news to anyone here. *You do know that it was IBM who
showed AMD how to do it. *...and Intel how to design systems a couple
of decades before. *Of course you don't. *You're too stupid, Robert.

And you have missed the point.

Neither of the examples you cite demonstrate an ability actually to
manufacture into an x86 size and style market profitably. Being able
to teach AMD about process or Intel whatever about design has
absolutely no bearing on whether or not IBM can do what it would need
to do to make an operation like Global Foundries profitable. The
evidence so far is that it can't. Apple ostensibly didn't end its
relationship with IBM as a supplier of chips because of the delivery
problems they did experience, but they did have delivery problems.

Did they let you take your desoldering station with you?

Robert.

On Nov 17, 9:25*am, Robert Redelmeier wrote:

Chip margins are composed of two separate things -- manufacturing
efficiency and product market dynamics. *You can be as good as you
like, but if you're not printing the right masks, you'll wind up
like DRAM or flash. *Intel has both.

To repeat:

If Global Foundries can make high end chips with the same gross
margins as Intel, that will be the real development.

As to yet another chapter in your pedantry, the marketing you sneer at
is about managing market dynamics.

As to any claims about Intel's incompetencies, those claims have been
made by others, not by me.

Robert.

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:32:18 -0800 (PST), Robert Myers
wrote:

On Nov 17, 6:36*pm, krw wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:23:43 -0800 (PST), Robert Myers





wrote:
On Nov 16, 11:09*pm, krw wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:33:45 -0800 (PST), Robert Myers

wrote:
On Nov 16, 8:54*pm, krw wrote:

So IBM buys GF and makes a pile more money. *;-)

Leaving aside the pile of money that IBM doesn't have that it would
take to do that, it's hard for me to understand why or how IBM would
suddenly become competent (and profitable) as a manufacturer of mass
market chips.

I see you're still as dumb as ever, Robert.

If there is some chapter in the history of IBM successes I have failed
to notice, please let us know. *They were very profitable as a
manufacturer of punch cards between the two world wars, but they sold
even those at an obscene markup before it became illegal as trading
with the enemy.

Right. *IBM has been such a failure. *You are an idiot, Robert. *Not
that this is news to anyone here. *You do know that it was IBM who
showed AMD how to do it. *...and Intel how to design systems a couple
of decades before. *Of course you don't. *You're too stupid, Robert.

And you have missed the point.

Hardly. It's between your shoulders.

Neither of the examples you cite demonstrate an ability actually to
manufacture into an x86 size and style market profitably. Being able
to teach AMD about process or Intel whatever about design has
absolutely no bearing on whether or not IBM can do what it would need
to do to make an operation like Global Foundries profitable. The
evidence so far is that it can't. Apple ostensibly didn't end its
relationship with IBM as a supplier of chips because of the delivery
problems they did experience, but they did have delivery problems.

You haven't a clue, but I'm not telling anyone anything new here,
either.

Did they let you take your desoldering station with you?

Like I said, you forever go out of your way to prove that you haven't
a clue.

On Nov 17, 11:04*pm, krw wrote:


Did they let you take your desoldering station with you?

Like I said, you forever go out of your way to prove that you haven't
a clue.

My, but you are unhappy.

As for me, I'm a pretty happy camper these days, at least as far as
chips go. The future belongs to vector processors or some natural
equivalent, after all.

Interconnect is another story. Can't have it all.

Robert.

krw wrote:
So IBM buys GF and makes a pile more money. ;-)

It's a moot point, GF is owned by ATIC of Abu Dhabi now. AMD owns a
portion too, but that's likely to go away now that the crosslicense says
that AMD no longer needs to own their own fabs anymore.

Besides, wasn't IBM going the other direction recently? They were
considering selling off their semiconductor division, rather than adding
on to it?

Yousuf Khan

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:53:57 -0800 (PST), Robert Myers
wrote:

On Nov 17, 11:04*pm, krw wrote:


Did they let you take your desoldering station with you?

Like I said, you forever go out of your way to prove that you haven't
a clue.

My, but you are unhappy.

No, Robert, you're projecting your lousy life on others again.

As for me, I'm a pretty happy camper these days, at least as far as
chips go. The future belongs to vector processors or some natural
equivalent, after all.

You're one of the grimmest people on the Usenet.

Interconnect is another story. Can't have it all.

You have nothing.

On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:42:34 -0500, Yousuf Khan
wrote:

krw wrote:
So IBM buys GF and makes a pile more money. ;-)

It's a moot point, GF is owned by ATIC of Abu Dhabi now. AMD owns a
portion too, but that's likely to go away now that the crosslicense says
that AMD no longer needs to own their own fabs anymore.

Note the smiley. If there was money to be made, though...

Besides, wasn't IBM going the other direction recently? They were
considering selling off their semiconductor division, rather than adding
on to it?

There are always such rumors. The fact is that they need a fab as
long as they make hardware. The question is that of accounting.

Robert Myers wrote:

Neither of the examples you cite demonstrate an ability actually to
manufacture into an x86 size and style market profitably.

A market need not be as large as X86 to be "mass market".

Being able
to teach AMD about process or Intel whatever about design has
absolutely no bearing on whether or not IBM can do what it would need
to do to make an operation like Global Foundries profitable. The
evidence so far is that it can't.

Intel demonstrates considerable manufacturing prowess. However, their
ability to do what they have done is largely due a proprietary
advantages - patents, licenses, etc.