news: Intel to pay AMD $1.25 billion, settle disputes
Yousuf Khan
another 5 years, and drops any breach-of-contract lawsuits against AMD
(for spinning off its manufacturing arm into Global Foundaries). AMD is
now free to become completely fab-less. Some sort of private dispute
arbitrating mechanism has been setup between Intel and AMD.
However, government regulators might still go after Intel with their own
anti-trust cases.
Yousuf Khan
Intel to pay AMD $1.25 billion, settle disputes - washingtonpost.com
"SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Intel Corp will pay rival chipmaker Advanced
Micro Devices Inc $1.25 billion to settle all outstanding legal
disputes, in a move that can hasten the resolution of Intel's antitrust
troubles."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/12/AR2009111207822.html
Robert Myers
Or
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20091112-711668.html
It's subscription-only, but I'm sure that everyone here has a
subscription.
Same news, really, but from a source unlikely to be sympathetic to
anti-trust regulation.
Intel just bought off AMD. Without AMD's cooperation, government
regulators will have a much harder times making their cases. Good
deal for both companies. Lots of insider trading on this one, I'm
sure.
I'm relieved, Yousuf, I wondered how long you'd be able to contain
yourself.
Dell no longer offers really good deals on really good Intel
processors. You have to wade through crap, only to find out you can
get the good stuff at a lower price elsewhere.
Maybe AMD can now make something real out of the ATI connection.
That's the really bad news for Intel.
Robert.
Yousuf Khan
> Same news, really, but from a source unlikely to be sympathetic to
> anti-trust regulation.
>
> Intel just bought off AMD. Without AMD's cooperation, government
> regulators will have a much harder times making their cases. Good
> deal for both companies. Lots of insider trading on this one, I'm
> sure.
Where do you get the idea that AMD won't cooperate anymore? Just because
they got some pocket change, they're going to be sympathetic to Intel
now? The Wall Street Journal would have to be pretty delusioned if they
think this is the end for Intel. They already have guilty convictions in
Japan, Korea and the EU that will never go away.
Yousuf Khan
Robert Myers
That's part of the payoff deal, Yousuf. It settles "outstanding
complaints," which would include Japan, Korea, and the EU. US anti-
trust regulators will continue to pursue Intel, because they aren't
part of the "outstanding complaints." Just how much enthusiasm the US
will have for such an enterprise is another matter. No one lost most
of their 401(k) because of Intel, and the US has lots more important
regulatory issues on the stove.
The snarky comment about subscriptions to the wsj was about arguing
about business issues with people who don't read the financial press.
Robert.
Del Cecchi
"Robert Myers" <rbmye...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:723eea8f-cacc-4838...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
Robert.
-----------------
Me, I read it for the political commentary and coverage. The text
of the press release about the settlement should be widely available.
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.
krw
So IBM buys GF and makes a pile more money. ;-)
Robert Myers
> 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.
No matter how incompetent (stubborn, hidebound, bumbling, whatever)
Intel may have been on the computer architecture/electrical
engineering front, it knows how to make lots of cutting edge chips at
a decent gross margin. That's apparently what's important to the
company, and that, aside from marketing, is what they apparently do
well. Their success at keeping that gross margin up is also what Wall
Street watches closely.
It isn't obvious to me what there is in any of these financial shell
games that will change any of that fundamental reality. If Global
Foundries can make high end chips with the same gross margins at
Intel, that will be the real development. There's a reason why IBM is
reduced to the role of R&D lab/technical adviser rather than
manufacturer.
Robert.
krw
<rbmye...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 16, 8:54�pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> 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.
<snip more bullshit>
Robert Myers
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:33:45 -0800 (PST), Robert Myers
>
> >On Nov 16, 8:54 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> 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.
Robert.
Robert.
Robert Redelmeier
> No matter how incompetent (stubborn, hidebound, bumbling, whatever)
> Intel may have been on the computer architecture/electrical
> engineering front, it knows how to make lots of cutting edge chips
> at a decent gross margin. That's apparently what's important
> to the company, and that, aside from marketing, is what they
> apparently do well. Their success at keeping that gross margin
> up is also what Wall Street watches closely.
Your creative misinterpretation never ceases to amaze!
AFAICS (I'm not inside Intel, nor are you), their main
disasters (iAPX432, i860/960, IA-64, P4) have been marketing
driven ("gee, we see a market for these"), not from engineering
("how could we ever do that, why would we bother?")
Intels architecture, EE and process have been nothing less than
consistantly (30+ years) outstanding, rising to even the most
lunatic challenges from marketing, endorsed by management.
Which pulled them through their disasters. It is marketing
who has been as you describe "incompetent, stubborn, hidebound,
bumbling" and I would add illegal.
> It isn't obvious to me what there is in any of these financial
> shell games that will change any of that fundamental reality.
> If Global Foundries can make high end chips with the same gross
> margins at Intel, that will be the real development. There's a
> reason why IBM is reduced to the role of R&D lab/technical adviser
> rather than manufacturer.
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.
-- Robert R
Yousuf Khan
> 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
krw
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.
Robert Myers
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:23:43 -0800 (PST), Robert Myers
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 16, 11:09 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:33:45 -0800 (PST), Robert Myers
>
> >> <rbmyers...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Nov 16, 8:54 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> 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.
Robert Myers
>
> 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.
krw
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.
Robert Myers
>
> >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.
Yousuf Khan
> 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
krw
<rbmye...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 17, 11:04�pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> 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.
krw
<bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> 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.
chrisv
>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.