Intel wants AMD dead, claims lawyer

Samantha Rose Hunt
19 March 2009, 4:00 PM


Companies will constantly battle over patent issues, agreement breaches, and anything which allows them to collect a higher profit. This time it is Intel and AMD.


AMD and Intel are locked in battle over Intel's claim that AMD is in breach of a cross licensing agreement over x86 processor technology.

Earlier this month, AMD and its partner Advanced Technology Investment Company (ATIC, not to be confused with AMD's graphics subsidiary ATI) established GlobalFoundries, a joint venture for the physical manufacturing of AMD CPUs. GlobalFoundries is intended to also be responsible for producing other chips with AMD technologies inside.

According to Intel, GlobalFoundries’ use of the equipment for the production of x86 chips breaches an agreement between AMD and Intel over x86 technology sharing.

Put simply: Intel doesn't want AMD do have a chip fabrication facility that can make x86 processors alongside chips for other people, because that makes running the fab a much more affordable proposition for AMD.

The most recent argument between the two corporations stems from an AMD claim that Intel would love to see their business fail. “I think they would absolutely like us dead. […] In their perfect world, we wouldn’t exist. If they had to deal with the government every now and then, that’s fine, and they’re still extracting monopoly profits from the industry,” said AMD general counsel Harry Wolin in an interview with Cnet.



Intel, as any mega-corporation with a well resourced PR team would, has denied all accusations that it wants to see AMD fail, claiming it simply wants to protect its intellectual property from third parties.

“It’s nice of them to try to speak for us. AMD has been a competitor for almost 40 years in one form or another. This is not about AMD going away. This is about our rights and AMD's rights under the patent cross-license agreement,” said Chuck Mulloy, a spokesperson for Intel.

There is a logical counter-argument to AMD's argument that Intel wants it dead: that Intel actually needs AMD to be around to avoid government scrutiny over having a monopoly on x86 CPU manufacturing. Currently only three companies share the market for x86 microprocessors, AMD, Intel and small-time competitor Via Technologies.  Intel needs the competition of AMD, as Via Technologies has such a minor share of the market that it's of no threat to Inetl. Without AMD in operation, Intel faces the possibility of antitrust accusations.

Post your comment



Comments

RSS feed Email alert

The Big Baboo (User):

Oooo geeee golly I've had AMD chips in my pc's since I first bought one back in the dim dark days of 1998. By now I've made up my mind that if I couldn't get AMD I wouldn't bother having a computer. In fact that would probably get me outdoors a bit more than I do now but I doubt it.

19 March 2009, 4:19 PM (3 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

gankul (New user):

isn't that called blind faith and not looking at the actual product?

if amd and intel has a chip at the same price out, and intel was better all over, would you still get amd?


19 March 2009, 5:05 PM (3 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

The Big Baboo (User):

Quoting gankul:
Isn't that called Blind Faith and not looking at the actual product? If AMD and Intel has a chip at the same price out, and Intel was better all over, would you still get AMD?

Speaking of "Blind Faith" :) Great band even tho' they only released one album and yes "gankul" I'm thinking of upgrading shortly and getting one of the new Phenom 3 chips with about 2Gb of RAM and will then maybe see this thing fly a bit more. Possibly give Vista a miss and check out WIN7 when it gets to SP1 or later tho' :)




16 April 2009, 10:16 AM (3 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

NetR@nger (New user):


if I couldn't get AMD I wouldn't bother having a computer


If AMD doesnt get it finger out and start taking the CPU game seriously,i guess your not going to have a computer for much longer.

19 March 2009, 10:47 PM (3 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Halcon (User):

What a childish behaviour has Intel against rival AMD!
I liked always the use of Intel processors in my computers, but this situation is the most ridiculous!
Is good to see there is competition, thanks to AMD people that wanted to buy Intel processors that were sky high priced, got the opportunity to buy at better prices.
Thanks to AMD, Intel has been grounded, slowing down the monopoly in the CPU processors.
Although I am not fan of AMD, I congratulate this company for keeping the bastard of Intel honest, so your choice as a consumer of either brands is only yours!

19 March 2009, 6:29 PM (3 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Sp33d d3mon (User):

Ohhhh, I'm so scared! I've been using AMD Radeons GPUs and CPUs in my systems for ages, they don't crash halfway through Crysis or GTA4 sessions like my mates' Nvidia + Intel combos!

19 March 2009, 7:17 PM (3 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

SLi (New user):

Quoting Sp33d d3mon:
they don't crash halfway through Crysis or GTA4 sessions like my mates' Nvidia + Intel combos!

This isn't necessarily a hardware problem, it could be a variety of things wrong with your mates computers. It could be driver problems, or compatibility issues; please find further evidence that it is hardware problems before making arguments like that...


19 March 2009, 7:48 PM (3 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

NetR@nger (New user):

Ive been playing crysis since it came out,with a gtx 280 and a intel e8500,and its never crashed once on my rig,it could be just the way your mates has been setup.Fixing computers is like playing golf:no 2 games/computers are ever the same.

19 March 2009, 10:43 PM (3 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

TheKLF99 (New user):

I'll back you up on this one.

In the past I've tried a mix of both AMD's and Intel's with a mix of ATI and nVidia GPU's. I've found myself the Intel processors were always quite good but overpriced compared to the AMD's, and for some reason no matter what I try nVidia cards in I always seem to get the damn things to crash constantly. My main suspicion is not the nVidia chipset that causes the crashing though, it is more the amount of cooling (or lack of) on nVidia based cards that cause the problem. I am quite sure that this is the case as I have had a few ATI graphics cards where the fan fails on them and they start doing exactly the same crashing/screen distortions as the nVidia's. I also have found that the main company that fails with the cooling is Sapphire. I used to buy Sapphire cards all the time because they were cheap, but after having 3 of them fail due to overheating I am now sticking to Gigabyte, bit more expensive but at least the fan lasts longer than 12 months!

23 June 2009, 8:30 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

agami (New user):

I too have been a fan of AMD from the K5 days through to my current gaming rig which incidentally has AMD CPU, AMD Chipset and 2 ATi (AMD)Radeon GPUs in Crossover.

Even though I'm an alternative platform guy with most of my computing (and soon gaming)done on PowerPC chips I still would hate to see AMD go away. I'd be just as crushed as when Apple moved to intel.

20 March 2009, 5:32 PM (3 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Ash (New user):

It's a wonderful thing that AMD does exist. Without competition, there is no need for innovation. We could be on some single core Pentium 6 today if AMD didn't smash intel during P4, and if i7 did exist, the price would be sky high if not for the counter-balancing Phenom II. Rivalry is the lifeblood of the IT industry.

21 March 2009, 3:45 PM (3 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

 x  (User):

"AMD claim that Intel would love to see their business fail"

No one is going under. I expect there is a genuine breach of contract here, trivial as it may be.

Intel are doing what little the can to see they stay ahead (rather than actually getting further ahead).
AMD are exagerating and playing the underdog. They will probably just take control of GlobalFoundries so there is no contract issue resulting from ATIC's involvement, or whatever slight of hand may be required.

25 March 2009, 1:31 PM (3 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

anonymous user Anonymous user