brian@positron.amd.com (Brian McMinn) (10/12/90)
Partial results of the arbitration between AMD and Intel over the breach of the 1982 Technology Agreement were announced today: [condensed from an AMD press announcement] Judge Phelps' opinion described Intel's conduct as "a classic example of a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, preaching good faith but practicing duplicity." ... the Arbitrator [Phelps] characterized Intel's conduct as "extortion." ... The Arbitrator also ruled that Intel engaged in multiple breaches of the agreement when it failed to transfer to AMD updates on manufacturing packages on the 80286 microprocessor in the mid-1980s. Judge Phelps concluded that information transferred by Intel during 1986 was "deliberately incomplete, deliberately indecipherable and deliberately unusable by AMD engineers." ... Notable among the [issues where AMD failed to make its case] was the Arbitrator's ruling that Intel had no obligation to accept five specific products either proposed of developed by AMD. For more info: John Greenagel (408) 749-3310 --- Brian McMinn brian.mcminn@amd.com Advanced Micro Devices N5PSS Austin, Texas 1-(512)-462-5389 "You can't leap a chasm in two jumps."
sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) (10/12/90)
In article <1990Oct11.214112.1392@mozart.amd.com>, brian@positron.amd.com (Brian McMinn) writes: >Partial results of the arbitration between AMD and Intel over the >breach of the 1982 Technology Agreement were announced today: > >Notable among the [issues where AMD failed to make its case] was the >Arbitrator's ruling that Intel had no obligation to accept five >specific products either proposed of developed by AMD. This does NOT answer the $64000 question: Does AMD have the right to make the '386 ?
feustel@netcom.UUCP (David Feustel) (10/13/90)
You forgot about the Judge's reference to AMD's "unremitting vindictiveness". -- David Feustel, 1930 Curdes Ave, Fort Wayne, IN 46805, (219) 482-9631
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (10/17/90)
First of all, a disclaimer: I DO NOT SPEAK FOR THE COMPANY, BUT MERELY AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN. Well, I've been trying to restrain myself, but what the heck, here goes (all quotes from Judge Phelps (retired)): "...Intel's attitude caused Intel to act unworthily, in a manner entirely unbecoming to a company which occupies a position of the first magnitude in the industry: It permitted Intel to allow itself to decide internally to ditch the relationship with AMD and, at the same time, to pretend externally to AMD that the relationship still existed, to hold out a carrot for AMD - not for the purpose of extending or nurturing the relationship, but for the self-serving purpose of keeping AMD in the Intel 'camp', of keeping AMD away from some sort of a partnership with another company - say NEC or Fujitsu - where AMD's talents might be used in effective competition against Intel." "This action is a classic example of a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, preaching good faith but practicing duplicity." "AMD refused to give in to what it correctly perceived to be extortion on the part of Intel..." "Suffice it to say that Intel's conduct in this regard was inexcusable" "I note the enigma at Intel: On the one hand it didn't want AMD to go to another competitor because AMD would, with its talents, damage Intel; on the other hand, Intel thought AMD had no talents which merited a continuation of the relationship. If it had no product for Intel, why would it have product for any other competitor?" "Intel's failure to transfer the 8087 as required by the Contract was a knowing, deliberate and unjustified breach of contract ordered or approved by the most senior officials at Intel." "Intel's conduct in this regard (failure to transmit the 80286 E sStep) was inexcusable and unworthy of a company whose announced standards (announced and acknowledged) in respect of responsibility and good faith are as high as those of Intel." "The Arbitrator may award money damages in a relief module for two reasons: First, the contractual limitation on money damages has not survived termination of the Contract, and, second, even if it has those limitations are against public policy and void." "Intel may not profit from its own wrong. It may not breach a contract and then escape without compensating AMD for whatever damages flowed from the breach according to AMD's proof. Neither law nor equity can countenance such a result and the Arbitrator has the jurisdiction to prevent it." -- The Bill of Rights isn't perfect, but it's better than what we have now.
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (10/17/90)
I DO NOT SPEAK FOR THE COMPANY. In article <14616@netcom.UUCP> feustel@netcom.UUCP (David Feustel) writes: |You forgot about the Judge's reference to AMD's "unremitting |vindictiveness". Could you reference this, please? The Judge wrote: " Throughout this case, I have observed that Intel always thought the worst of AMD, that, if there were more than one way to view, weight or evaluate an AMD action, Intel would adopt the negative, the critical, the one most likely to attribute to AMD an evil motive or duplicity or deceit or lack of what Intel considered proper engineering discipline or expertise in design, production or marketing. This has always puzzled me, because AMD is not evil or duplicitous nor deceitful; and I have been impressed by its engineering standards and abilities equally with those of Intel; and I was most favorably impressed with the forthright honesty, ability and expertise of some of the principal AMD players who testified... By and large AMD was never deserving of the general Intel attitude. Nor did the attitude become Intel." -- The Bill of Rights isn't perfect, but it's better than what we have now.
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (10/17/90)
In article <0093E147.DAED9F80@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU> sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) writes: |This does NOT answer the $64000 question: Does AMD have the right to make the |'386 ? Whether Intel has to transfer the 386 to AMD will be decided in the "penalty" phase of the proceedings, which will begin no sooner than 11/15/90.. We have only just completed the "liability" phase, contrary to what some of the articles you may have read would lead you to believe. Independent of whether Intel has to transfer the 386 is whether AMD has the right to use the 386 microcode in a reverse engineered 386. That is the subject of another lawsuit which will begin trial next year. A third issue is whether anyone but Intel can even use a "386" designation, since Intel is claiming a trademark status on it. -- The Bill of Rights isn't perfect, but it's better than what we have now.
feustel@netcom.UUCP (David Feustel) (10/18/90)
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: =I DO NOT SPEAK FOR THE COMPANY. =In article <14616@netcom.UUCP> feustel@netcom.UUCP (David Feustel) writes: =|You forgot about the Judge's reference to AMD's "unremitting =|vindictiveness". =Could you reference this, please? I read two accounts of the arbitration result: one in the NYTIMES, the other in the Wall Street Journal (both on the same day). Only one of the two articles (WSJ, I think) mentioned the quote above. I've not seen it mentioned in any other articles about the suit since. -- David Feustel, 1930 Curdes Ave, Fort Wayne, IN 46805, (219) 482-9631
torre@msa3b.UUCP (Patrick Torre) (10/18/90)
pardon me for being naive, but what has intel gained
from this partnership? Improved design, does intel get
all the improvements AMD may have made?
Does anyone think that a i386 compatible chip
will sell if it is called something like lxmn757 (or anything
else that does not have "386" in it) ?
--
Patrick Torre @ Dun and Bradstreet Software, Inc (404) 239-2061
{emory,gatech}!nanovx!msa3b!torre davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (10/19/90)
In article <1416@msa3b.UUCP> torre@msa3b.UUCP (Patrick Torre) writes: | Does anyone think that a i386 compatible chip | will sell if it is called something like lxmn757 (or anything | else that does not have "386" in it) ? The big market for CPUs is OEM. These guys are interested in price and performance, not names. I doubt that you would hurt sales even a little bit with any other number other than possibly 666. As I recall some of the 80[23]87 clones don't have 87 in their parts number, and the popular V20 and V30 chips don't obviously relate to Intel part numbers, either. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) VMS is a text-only adventure game. If you win you can use unix.
ccplumb@spurge.uwaterloo.ca (Colin Plumb) (10/19/90)
In article <1416@msa3b.UUCP> torre@msa3b.UUCP (Patrick Torre) writes: >Does anyone think that a i386 compatible chip >will sell if it is called something like lxmn757 (or anything >else that does not have "386" in it) ? Well, there's that serial chip with a FIFO that replaces the one usually found in IBM PC's and has a part number approximately twice that of the part it replaces, and it seems to be pretty popular. And the number of vt100 clones with totally unrelated names is astounding. Apparently, they're called "longhorn" and "shorthorn," which are pretty catchy of themselves. I wonder if those are strictly internal names or they'll make it through the marketing morass. (At Cogent Research, we named boards for the noble houses in Steven Brust's books. Phoenix, Lyorn, Dragon, Tiassa, Jhereg, etc. I rather liked them. Then we ended up selling it as the XTM because it "sounded like XMP". Hopefully, rabid trademark lawyers don't read comp.arch.) -- -Colin
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (10/20/90)
In article <1416@msa3b.UUCP> torre@msa3b.UUCP (Patrick Torre) writes: | |pardon me for being naive, but what has intel gained |from this partnership? To begin with, IBM would not use a single sourced uP in the IBM PC. Suppose IBM had chosen the Z8000 or better yet, the 68K? Where would Intel be today? |Improved design, does intel get |all the improvements AMD may have made? If they had something worth trading, AMD might be willing to talk about it. Or they might not, I certainly don't know. -- The Bill of Rights isn't perfect, but it's better than what we have now.
gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu (10/21/90)
> pardon me for being naive, but what has intel gained > from this partnership? Improved design, does intel get > all the improvements AMD may have made? In the old days, fab lines would go down so easily that no american OEM was willing to design with a part offered by only one supplier. There are many stories of start-ups or even large companies getting burned when their single-source choked (either financially, or because an employee lit a cigarette in the clean room). I don't know what has happened to this tradition? How does Intel guarantee not to choke? Do they have so many fab lines producing '386s that they are guaranteed not to encounter problems? Frankly, I think Intel's conduct in the '386 matter rivals IBM's heinous attempt to corner the computer market in the 1960's. AMD's suit strikes a blow for the american way of life, in the computer industry.
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (10/22/90)
In article <1990Oct19.232725.4421@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: | To begin with, IBM would not use a single sourced uP in the IBM PC. | Suppose IBM had chosen the Z8000 or better yet, the 68K? Where would | Intel be today? a) Intel has more than one fab line if one fails b) Intel is not likely to fold financially c) IBM has the right to manufacture the 386. Interestingly I have not seen a published the IBM has the right to manufacture the 486. That doesn't mean it doesn,t however. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) VMS is a text-only adventure game. If you win you can use unix.
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (10/23/90)
In article <2780@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes: |In article <1990Oct19.232725.4421@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: || To begin with, IBM would not use a single sourced uP in the IBM PC. || Suppose IBM had chosen the Z8000 or better yet, the 68K? Where would || Intel be today? | | a) Intel has more than one fab line if one fails All that would be moot if IBM had refused to use a single sourced 8088 in the original IBM PC. -- The Bill of Rights isn't perfect, but it's better than what we have now.
dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) (10/23/90)
>| To begin with, IBM would not use a single sourced uP in the IBM PC. >| Suppose IBM had chosen the Z8000 or better yet, the 68K? Where would >| Intel be today? > a) Intel has more than one fab line if one fails > b) Intel is not likely to fold financially > c) IBM has the right to manufacture the 386. I think that back in 1980 or 1981, when IBM began designing the PC, Intel was a much smaller and less wealthy company. In fact, if IBM hadn't picked the 8086 then, it's quite possible Intel would be a much smaller and less wealthy company today too - the 80x86 series accounts for something like 85% of Intel's income (vague figure got from some TV program I once saw). I'm sure that at that time it made sense for IBM to insist on some sort of second sourcing. (Actually, back in those days, AMD was running lots of ads making fun of the 8086 and espousing the Z8000. Technically speaking, this was sound, because the 8086 was a fairly flaky design, while the Z8000 had a much more powerful and elegant instruction set. The real problem with Zilog was that it wasn't able to deliver debugged chips in quantities, and perhaps that its marketing wasn't as good as that of Motorola. The smart designers picked the 68000, the dumb designers picked the 8086, and nobody picked the Z8000. Some time later AMD switched to the 8086 camp, and the Intel vs AMD fiasco began later.) -- Rahul Dhesi <dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com> UUCP: oliveb!cirrusl!dhesi
croft@csusac.csus.edu (Steve Croft) (10/23/90)
Second sourcing also insulates board manufacturers from a chipmaker's marketing decsions; e.g., chipmaker ABC decides they would rather turn their CPU facilities into RAM manufacturing... without a second source, the board manufacturer is SOL... Steve
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (10/25/90)
In article <1990Oct22.213529.21911@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: | All that would be moot if IBM had refused to use a single sourced | 8088 in the original IBM PC. IBM wanted to be sure that there was acceptance of their system, so they allowed it to be reasonably compatible with the best PC operating system of the time, CP/M. Many applications could be mechanically rewritten from 8080 assembler to 8088 assembler, and gotten running in a very short time. If it were not for Digital Research letting IBM get away as a customer CP/M would have been the one. And if a programmer at Seattle Computer (RIP) had not written QDOS (Quick and Dirty OS) for the 8086, Microsoft probably would have done something completely diferent. And if someone had been smart enough to port UNIX to the PC *early* in the game, at a very low price, and push it like crazy, then UNIX might be the o/s of choice for PCs, too. Of course AT&T didn't do that, even though they could have marketed a $100 version of SysIII with compiler and tools. And by the time INteractive wrote VP/ix for IBM, IBM was more interested in keeping their proprietary o/s going and sold the UNIX port at a high enough price to keep PC-DOS popular. There was a window of opportunity, and no one grabbed it. Pity. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) VMS is a text-only adventure game. If you win you can use unix.
clc5q@shamash.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman) (10/25/90)
> a) Intel has more than one fab line if one fails Irrelevant. > b) Intel is not likely to fold financially Irrelevant. > c) IBM has the right to manufacture the 386. Irrelevant. The quoted poster seems to have no understanding of the second sourcing issue that was raised concerning the choice of the 8088 for the IBM PC. The primary problem is the threat of monopoly pricing. The 80386 rights were obtained by IBM as a hedge against this threat. But this was years after the IBM PC was introduced. The AMD second sourcing was a valuable assurance to IBM and all future clone makers. Intel having multiple fabs and being in good health say nothing about the fear of Intel monopoly pricing. Which we see today with the 80386 and 80486, by the way, which are not second sourced. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "We cannot talk of freedom unless we have private property." -- Gavriil Popov, Mayor of Moscow, September 11, 1990. ||| clc5q@virginia.edu
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (10/25/90)
In article <1990Oct25.141449.420@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> clc5q@shamash.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman) writes: | The quoted poster seems to have no understanding of the second sourcing | issue that was raised concerning the choice of the 8088 for the IBM PC. Let me stop here and say that if you understand how the economy works you know this isn't true. In the future please take irrelvant flames to mail, as few people care if you understand economics, or if you dislike what I said. Intel has a monopoly the same way Ford does. Intel makes the 386, Ford makes Ford cars. In both cases the big buyers have price contracts before the buy decision is final, and Motorola and Chevy are still in business. Monopoly pricing only applies if you have no competion with similar products. And who else makes the 680[34]0 to protect Apple? Not even Motorola if they don't settle with Hitachi (or have they). -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) VMS is a text-only adventure game. If you win you can use unix.
clc5q@shamash.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman) (10/26/90)
In article <2791@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes: > > Intel has a monopoly the same way Ford does. Intel makes the 386, >Ford makes Ford cars. In both cases the big buyers have price contracts >before the buy decision is final, and Motorola and Chevy are still in >business. Monopoly pricing only applies if you have no competion with >similar products. And who else makes the 680[34]0 to protect Apple? Not >even Motorola if they don't settle with Hitachi (or have they). Brilliant. You have just proven that the MUCH higher profit margin that Intel enjoys on the 80386 as compared to the 80286 is an illusion, or that its apparent correlation to the competition from AMD and Harris on the 80286 is an illusion. Better inform all those writers across the financial and electronics industries (Wall Street Journal, EE Times, you name it) who think that the 80386 pricing reflects the fact that Intel is the sole source. Your confusion seems to result from the apples to oranges comparison you made with cars. There is no compatibility issue with cars. I can trade in my old Ford for a Chevy when it is time to upgrade -- no big deal. If I am purchasing computers for a large corporation and we need to upgrade our CPU power from our current 80286 machines, changing to a different proprietary system (Apple Macintoshes) is not justified by the fact that Intel charges, say, $125 for a certain 80386 chip that they would sell for $50 and still make a profit IF there was an AMD that forced them to do so. That extra $75 wholesale adds a couple of hundred dollars to my system cost, but the cost of conversion to an Apple is pretty high. Your definition of "monopoly pricing" seems to be so extreme that you think that Intel doesn't enjoy monopoly pricing on the 80386, because they can't charge $2000 apiece instead of $125, as the market share loss would make it a self-defeating move over the long run. By the same extreme definition, OPEC pricing of oil is not an example of monopoly pricing, as there are alternative energy sources that become viable at some oil price level. Can you give a single example in the history of the world that fits your definition of monopoly pricing? P.S. Don't argue economics with me on the net and then tell me to take it to email. If you want to keep embarrassing yourself on the net by posing as an economist, go right ahead. If you can't take the heat, don't start the thread in the first place by claiming that AMD's second sourcing of the 8088 wasn't significant in the early 80's when IBM designed the PC. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "We cannot talk of freedom unless we have private property." -- Gavriil Popov, Mayor of Moscow, September 11, 1990. ||| clc5q@virginia.edu
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (10/26/90)
In article <2592@cirrusl.UUCP> dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) writes: |The real problem with Zilog was that it wasn't able |to deliver debugged chips in quantities, and perhaps that its marketing |wasn't as good as that of Motorola. The smart designers picked the |68000, the dumb designers picked the 8086, and nobody picked the |Z8000. Some time later AMD switched to the 8086 camp, and the Intel vs |AMD fiasco began later.) You write this as though the Z8000 had died and then AMD went looking for something else and picked the 8086. In fact, Intel came to AMD seeking help because of IBM's demand for a viable, high volume second source. -- The Bill of Rights isn't perfect, but it's better than what we have now.
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (10/26/90)
In article <2787@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes: | IBM wanted to be sure that there was acceptance of their system, so |they allowed it to be reasonably compatible with the best PC operating |system of the time, CP/M. Many applications could be mechanically |rewritten from 8080 assembler to 8088 assembler, and gotten running in a |very short time. Intel's own Andy Grove said they were "lucky" to get the IBM PC. They did not have a sure design win just because of CP/M. -- This article contains my opinions and does not represent the views of the company.
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (10/26/90)
In article <2791@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes: > Intel has a monopoly the same way Ford does. Intel makes the 386, > Ford makes Ford cars. Right, but you can take a $40,000 camper off the back of your Ford Taurus and stick it on a Olds Cutlass. You can't do that with software. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (10/30/90)
Intel has said that they will ask the Santa Clara County Superior Court to review the power of Judge Phelps, the arbitrator in the iAPX86 technology dispute with AMD. Translation: based on the results of the just concluded liability phase, Intel is worried the arbitrator will award big damages in the forthcoming penalty phase. Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not for the company. I do own some stock in both companies. Source: EET 10/29. -- I voted. Did you?
brett@cayman.amd.com (Brett Stewart) (10/31/90)
In article <1990Oct30.011848.5470@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: >Intel has said that they will ask the Santa Clara County Superior >Court to review the power of Judge Phelps, the arbitrator in the >iAPX86 technology dispute with AMD. > Well, I may be one of the few commentators who has actually READ the WHOLE decision from cover to cover, being, as I am, employed by one of the litigants. There was an 'interlocutory' (which I understand means nonbinding) decision last February. Judge Phelps, on the last page of the decision, basically said 'Intel, if you think I cant award money damages to AMD, NOW would be a real good time to file briefs with your argument to that effect, because I dont want to go through all this hassle to have it claimed that I have exceeded my authority as arbitrator when I award damages.' Then, in the recent decision, Judge Phelps said he considered the previous 'interlocutory' decision to be considered as a part of the final decision. Being, again, an interested party, I asked my sister who happens to be a judge, what this means, and she said it sounds like Intel is going to pay in the end. > >Translation: based on the results of the just concluded liability >phase, Intel is worried the arbitrator will award big damages in >the forthcoming penalty phase. > >Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not for the company. I do >own some stock in both companies. > Same here, just my opinion, I own both stocks. > >Source: EET 10/29. > My source was the decision itself and the words of my sis the judge. > >-- >I voted. Did you? > Yes Best Regards; Brett Stewart Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. 1-512-462-5321 FAX 5900 E. Ben White Blvd MS561 1-512-462-4336 Telephone Austin, Texas 78741 USA brett@cayman.amd.com