Intel, AMD Form New Cross-License, Graphics Included

[patrickjp93]

http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/anton-shilov/amd-clarifies-cross-license-with-intel-change-of-control-terminates-agreement-for-both/

 

It seems Intel is double-dipping in IP as of this month. Between the 1.5 billion agreement with Nvidia and this new access to every single patent in AMD's possession (including all designs related to Zen, Fiji, and Greenland), Intel has access to not only the more nuanced pieces which have grown to be the linchpins on which the more advanced APIs are built, but also the fundamental ones which have blocked Intel from being able to link them together in a meaningful way. Nvidia did not include its fundamental IP in the $1.5bn agreement, but this could throw a monkey wrench into Nvidia's attempt to move into the SOC market.

 

Best of AMD + Best of Nvidia built on 14nm FF with HDL and a CUDA license sounds quite nice to me. I just can't believe Intel managed to squeeze that out of AMD. What's next, poaching Keller and Koduri? It also lets Intel join the HSA Foundation at any time if the idea actually takes off.

[TwistedDictator]

Atleast get a qoute from the source, it it really that hard? Dont worry, Ill do it....

 

Advanced Micro Devices has clarified terms of the cross-license agreement with Intel Corp. on Thursday. As it appears, if either AMD or Intel change their control (i.e., gets acquired), the cross-license agreement between the two companies is automatically terminated for both parties.

 

AMD and Intel have a cross-licensing agreement, which guarantees that the companies will not pursue litigation for any potential patent infringements. The agreement covers entire patent portfolio for both companies, which includes general-purpose processors, graphics adapters and other intellectual property. For example, AMD can design and sell microprocessors compatible with Intel’s x86 instruction set architecture and featuring a variety of extensions, whereas Intel can develop and ship central processing units that utilize IP and extensions initially created by AMD . The cross-licensing agreement has a number of terms and limitations. For example, the chip designers are not allowed to build processors that are compatible with competitor’s infrastructure (e.g., sockets, mainboards, etc.). Besides, if AMD and Intel change their ownership , the agreement terminated.

 

[AlexGoesHigh]

so intel now has the playbook of every piece of silicon tech that matters? neat, i assume they will try and use as much as radeon tech possible to boost their iGPU design 

[patrickjp93]

Atleast get a qoute from the source, it it really that hard? Dont worry, Ill do it....

-snip-

Oh who cares? You can read the original source. I provided the news and my short opinion on it. There's not much to say beyond this anyway.

[Notional]

They have access to each others instruction sets, like x86, x64, and stuff like that. NOT actual architectures. AMD cannot make a haswell processors, if they choose to.

 

This cross license deal has been known for a long time. It is true that AMD loses licenses for x86 if sold/acquired, but Intel also loses their access to AMD licenses. So IF AMD was to be acquired, they would re do the contracts/licenses instantly. Neither can survive without access to the others licenses.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

Oh who cares? You can read the original source. I provided the news and my short opinion on it. There's not much to say beyond this anyway.

I think that's in the coc? Might be wrong though :B

[MageTank]

This information should quell the reports that AMD is going to be acquired by a larger entity soon, right? To make this kind of agreement when your company is about to be obtained by another company would be rather pointless. As confusing as this is, i really can't wait to see what comes out of it.

[patrickjp93]

They have access to each others instruction sets, like x86, x64, and stuff like that. NOT actual architectures. AMD cannot make a haswell processors, if they choose to.

 

This cross license deal has been known for a long time. It is true that AMD loses licenses for x86 if sold/acquired, but Intel also loses their access to AMD licenses. So IF AMD was to be acquired, they would re do the contracts/licenses instantly. Neither can survive without access to the others licenses.

Actually they can do that, but what they can't do is put it on an Intel-compatible socket.

 

The key here is Intel gained much more than x86_64. They now get ALL the graphics IP AMD has accumulated.

[Notional]

Actually they can do that, but what they can't do is put it on an Intel-compatible socket.

 

The key here is Intel gained much more than x86_64. They now get ALL the graphics IP AMD has accumulated.

 

I don't know why you think, they have access and rights to each others architectures. It states that no where anywhere. It makes no sense for them to allow that for each other. They are just allowed to make products using each other patents. So AMD can make x86, Intel can make x86-64 and integrated graphics. AMD cannot make Skylake, anymore than Intel can make ZEN.

[patrickjp93]

I don't know why you think, they have access and rights to each others architectures. It states that no where anywhere. It makes no sense for them to allow that for each other. They are just allowed to make products using each other patents. So AMD can make x86, Intel can make x86-64 and integrated graphics. AMD cannot make Skylake, anymore than Intel can make ZEN.

They can make anything and everything that is possible using each other's IP, just as long as they are not infrastructure-compatible (as per the article). In effect, AMD, could very much make Broadwell but with HDL included.

[ForsakenLive]

Oh who cares? You can read the original source. I provided the news and my short opinion on it. There's not much to say beyond this anyway.

I had issues accessing the website on my phone (there are lots of forum users on mobile devices). When I'm not home I browse the forum with Tapatalk (forum app), that gives me control and little trouble, compared to the phone browser. So getting a glance of the article is pretty nice.

[CTR640]

Lol, this sounds like the ongoing fights between Harry Potter and voldemort. "One shall not live if other lives" Or something like that.

[Opcode]

How the hell do you even come up with this bogus? This license is only to renew their x86 and x64 cross-license agreement if you actually bothered to read it.

 

Sections 3.1, 3.2 and then 3.4 and 3.5 tells you what its for.

[patrickjp93]

How the hell do you even come up with this bogus? This license is only to renew their x86 and x64 cross-license agreement if you actually bothered to read it.

 

Sections 3.1, 3.2 and then 3.4 and 3.5 tells you what its for.

According to KitGuru, and the license itself, you're wrong. Opcode, you should have learned by now I triple check everything.

 

 

1.33 “Processor” shall mean any Integrated Circuit or combination of Integrated Circuits capable of processing digital data, such as a microprocessor or coprocessor (including, without limitation, a math coprocessor, graphics coprocessor, or digital signal processor).

 

The agreement covers entire patent portfolio for both companies, which includes general-purpose processors, graphics adapters and other intellectual property.

[Opcode]

According to KitGuru, and the license itself, you're wrong.

Instead of saying "you're wrong" how about you expose where in the license does this grant AMD access to Intel IP and Intel access to AMD IP (excluding instructions).

[patrickjp93]

Instead of saying "you're wrong" how about you expose where in the license does this grant AMD access to Intel IP and Intel access to AMD IP (excluding instructions).

I just did, but for someone who clearly got caught BSing again,

 

 

1.33 “Processor” shall mean any Integrated Circuit or combination of Integrated Circuits capable of processing digital data, such as a microprocessor or coprocessor (including, without limitation, a math coprocessor, graphics coprocessor, or digital signal processor).

Now, reread the license with that definition in mind, mon frere.

[Briggsy]

I was wondering when this would happen. It's sad in one way, but having all the big players on the same page is good in the long run, especially for the consumer. 

[Opcode]

I just did, but for someone who clearly got caught BSing again,

Alright, that snippet is listed under the definitions section which are established key words that coexist in the rest of the license. I'm asking for actual terms/rights that are in the license agreement that says all of this IP is available (see section 3 of the license).

[Notional]

This is the actual license agreement. Nothing about architectures.

 

3.4 Intel Copyright License to AMD. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, including without limitation Section 5.2(e), Intel grants to AMD, for use in or with an AMD Licensed Product, licenses under Intel’s copyrights in any Processor instruction mnemonic for an instruction developed by Intel, and the related opcodes, instruction operand mnemonics, byte format depictions and short form description (not to exceed 100 words) for those instructions, to copy, have copied, import, prepare derivative works of, perform, display and sell or otherwise distribute such mnemonics, opcodes and descriptions in user manuals and other technical documentation. No other copyright license to AMD is provided by this Agreement other than as set forth in this paragraph, either directly or by implication or estoppel.

 

 

 

3.5 AMD Copyright License to Intel. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, including without limitation Section 5.2(e), AMD grants to Intel, for use in or with an Intel Licensed Product, licenses under AMD’s copyrights in any Processor instruction mnemonic for an instruction developed by AMD, and the related opcodes, instruction operand mnemonics, byte format depictions and short form description (not to exceed 100 words) for those instructions, to copy, have copied, import, prepare derivative works of, perform, display and sell or otherwise distribute such mnemonics, opcodes and descriptions in user manuals and other technical documentation. No other copyright license to Intel is provided by this Agreement other than as set forth in this paragraph, either directly or by implication or estoppel.

[patrickjp93]

Alright, that snippet is listed under the definitions section which are established key words that coexist in the rest of the license. I'm asking for actual terms/rights that are in the license agreement that says all of this IP is available (see section 3 of the license).

I think you should reread 3 again, because the word processor is used many times.

 

 

3.5 AMD Copyright License to Intel. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, including without limitation Section 5.2(e), AMD grants to Intel, for use in or with an Intel Licensed Product, licenses under AMD’s copyrights in any Processor instruction mnemonic for an instruction developed by AMD, ...

 

 

Combined with the definition of "Processor" this is all-encompassing across CPU and GPU IP as KitGuru correctly stated. Is this simple legalese too much for you?

[Agent181]

One could only dream that the 3 make a super chip from the best of all 3 too bad the companies all want more money than making the best of the best around

[patrickjp93]

 

This is the actual license agreement. Nothing about architectures.

 

3.4 Intel Copyright License to AMD. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, including without limitation Section 5.2(e), Intel grants to AMD, for use in or with an AMD Licensed Product, licenses under Intel’s copyrights in any Processor instruction mnemonic for an instruction developed by Intel, and the related opcodes, instruction operand mnemonics, byte format depictions and short form description (not to exceed 100 words) for those instructions, to copy, have copied, import, prepare derivative works of, perform, display and sell or otherwise distribute such mnemonics, opcodes and descriptions in user manuals and other technical documentation. No other copyright license to AMD is provided by this Agreement other than as set forth in this paragraph, either directly or by implication or estoppel.

 

 

 

3.5 AMD Copyright License to Intel. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, including without limitation Section 5.2(e), AMD grants to Intel, for use in or with an Intel Licensed Product, licenses under AMD’s copyrights in any Processor instruction mnemonic for an instruction developed by AMD, and the related opcodes, instruction operand mnemonics, byte format depictions and short form description (not to exceed 100 words) for those instructions, to copy, have copied, import, prepare derivative works of, perform, display and sell or otherwise distribute such mnemonics, opcodes and descriptions in user manuals and other technical documentation. No other copyright license to Intel is provided by this Agreement other than as set forth in this paragraph, either directly or by implication or estoppel.

 

Read a bit more deeply. It stretches into technologies as well.

[maazster]

Isn't this agreement old? From the document it was signed on 11/11/09 and by AMD's and Intel's former CEOs.

 

INTEL & AMD CONFIDENTIAL

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties to have caused this Patent Cross License Agreement to be duly executed on the date below written.

 

                  INTEL CORPORATION       ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.           By:   /s/ Paul Otellini       By:   /s/ Dirk Meyer       Paul Otellini       Dirk Meyer Printed Name       Printed Name       CEO       CEO Title       Title       11/11/09       11/11/09 Date       Date

 

[****] = Certain confidential information contained in this document, marked by brackets, has been omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Rule 24b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to the omitted portions.

- 28 -

[Opcode]

I think you should reread 3 again, because the word processor is used many times.

 

 

Combined with the definition of "Processor" this is all-encompassing across CPU and GPU IP as KitGuru correctly stated. Is this simple legalese too much for you?

Why would you use of the word out of context?

 

3.5 AMD Copyright License to Intel. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, including without limitation Section 5.2(e), AMD grants to Intel, for use in or with an Intel Licensed Product, licenses under AMD’s copyrights in any Processor instruction mnemonic for an instruction developed by AMD,

 

The license itself is clearly for the typical cross-licensing of each others instruction sets. I doubt the source even bothered to check the date at the bottom of the license.

 

Reading a license agreement without any legal knowledge is like reading the bible, everyone has their own interpretation of it.

[patrickjp93]

Isn't this agreement old? From the document it was signed on 11/11/09 and by AMD's and Intel's former CEOs.

Edits were made in this new one. Most of this agreement remained the same.