AMD64 outsourced to Chartered Semi

  • Thread starter Thread starter ykhan
  • Start date Start date
But maybe he thought it was a good the chance to buy a hundred million
dollars worth of AMD share before the prices go up up up and now has
at least another $15M worth on his paper? :pPpP
Click to expand...

WHAT?? You mean insider trading?<shudder>:-)

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
 
George Macdonald said:
Given that in the space of <3 months he went from buy to neutral to sell on
it and in the later one, also made Intel a top tip buy, you have to ask:
stupid or crooked??
Click to expand...

Heh, I won't touch that one, it's too easy. :-)
I'm not aware of any renegotiation of the quota on AMD outsourcing... the
number for which is not in the publicly available version of the 2001
AMD/Intel cross license agreement anyway. Unless it's on the cards for AMD
to buy the Chartered plant if needs be, something which might suit the
Singapore govt., I don't see how this plays out in the long run.
Click to expand...

I've heard somewhere that Chartered has its own x86 license. I don't
know how or where they got it for sure, but I think it might have
something to do with the partnership that Chartered has with IBM. If
Chartered has its own x86 license, then AMD is free and clear to
produce as many x86 processors there as they want.

Same goes for production at the IBM plant, since we all know that IBM
definitely has its own x86 license.

Yousuf Khan
 
I've heard somewhere that Chartered has its own x86 license. I don't
know how or where they got it for sure, but I think it might have
something to do with the partnership that Chartered has with IBM. If
Chartered has its own x86 license, then AMD is free and clear to
produce as many x86 processors there as they want.

Same goes for production at the IBM plant, since we all know that IBM
definitely has its own x86 license.
Click to expand...

Are you sure about that. The actual agreements I've seen have the critical
"confidential" sections removed on such things and I'd be surprised if
Intel had been so loose in their framing of them.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
 
George Macdonald said:
Are you sure about that. The actual agreements I've seen have the critical
"confidential" sections removed on such things and I'd be surprised if
Intel had been so loose in their framing of them.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that this is necessarily a loose framing of their
agreement, it is probably just the best they could do under the
contract laws. I'm sure both sides totally envisioned that perhaps if
AMD started fabbing at another x86 licensee's fabsite, that those
agreements would supercede the AMD/Intel agreements. Intel envisioned
it, but there was little that they could do to prevent it, as this
would mean two separate Intel contracts would conflict with each other
(i.e. one with AMD vs. the other with the alternate x86 licensee) and
it would end up in court, and the court would have to strike down
portions of one agreement or another.

Intel probably just surmised that there aren't too many companies in
the world with x86 licenses, and those that do have it, usually have
to pay a lot to Intel for them, so it makes them somewhat less
competitive against Intel's own manufacturing costs. Any fab with an
x86 license also has to factor in the cost of royalty payments for
every part that they produce.

The most intriguing aspect of this is not AMD sneaking around the
agreement, but IBM's agreement with Intel. IBM probably has a
super-license with Intel, probably dating back to the days when they
used to own part of Intel. They are probably the only ones allowed to
license other companies to produce x86 besides Intel.

Yousuf Khan
 
I wouldn't say that this is necessarily a loose framing of their
agreement, it is probably just the best they could do under the
contract laws. I'm sure both sides totally envisioned that perhaps if
AMD started fabbing at another x86 licensee's fabsite, that those
agreements would supercede the AMD/Intel agreements. Intel envisioned
it, but there was little that they could do to prevent it, as this
would mean two separate Intel contracts would conflict with each other
(i.e. one with AMD vs. the other with the alternate x86 licensee) and
it would end up in court, and the court would have to strike down
portions of one agreement or another.
Click to expand...

I'm not intinately familiar with contract law on how that works - IOW how
having a part made by someone else who also has a license. It *is*
explicitly stated in the Intel-AMD agreement but that section is not
publicly available
Intel probably just surmised that there aren't too many companies in
the world with x86 licenses, and those that do have it, usually have
to pay a lot to Intel for them, so it makes them somewhat less
competitive against Intel's own manufacturing costs. Any fab with an
x86 license also has to factor in the cost of royalty payments for
every part that they produce.
Click to expand...

And of course AMD's cross-licensing agreement includes the payment of
royalties to Intel based on a % of net income.
The most intriguing aspect of this is not AMD sneaking around the
agreement, but IBM's agreement with Intel. IBM probably has a
super-license with Intel, probably dating back to the days when they
used to own part of Intel. They are probably the only ones allowed to
license other companies to produce x86 besides Intel.
Click to expand...

IBM has broad patent cross-licensing agreements with many companies -
they're basically in the catbird seat when it comes to that kind of thing.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
 
I'm not intinately familiar with contract law on how that works - IOW how
having a part made by someone else who also has a license. It *is*
explicitly stated in the Intel-AMD agreement but that section is not
publicly available
Click to expand...

It's not public, yet you *know* this?
And of course AMD's cross-licensing agreement includes the payment of
royalties to Intel based on a % of net income.
Click to expand...

You know this? Forgive me for being obteuse here...

I don't see anythgin nearly as sinister as either of you pretend. I
simply see AMD out-playing Intel's hand (noticing the nature of Itanic's
anchor on Intel's marketing plan).
IBM has broad patent cross-licensing agreements with many companies -
they're basically in the catbird seat when it comes to that kind of thing.
Click to expand...

Thar's money to be made in them thar hills. ...and patents are "free",
once the engineering is done (actually that's an understatement).
 
It's not public, yet you *know* this?
Click to expand...

There is a version of the 2001 cross licence agreement here:
http://contracts.corporate.findlaw.com/industries/technology/semiconductors.html
which has "confidential" clauses stripped, most of which cover the nitty
gritty of restrictions on oursourcing and things like $$ amounts. The
placement of the *****'d sections on outsourcing indicates to me that the
exact terms are specified but only in the full official, unexpurgated
version which would be lodged with the S.E.C.
You know this? Forgive me for being obteuse here...
Click to expand...

Yes, it's in the above agreement.... net income from processor sales of
course and the actual number is "confidential".
I don't see anythgin nearly as sinister as either of you pretend. I
simply see AMD out-playing Intel's hand (noticing the nature of Itanic's
anchor on Intel's marketing plan).
Click to expand...

And I think it's safe to assume Intel will fight back with everything at
its disposal, including harrassment over contract details, excessive
auditing, etc. etc.
Thar's money to be made in them thar hills. ...and patents are "free",
once the engineering is done (actually that's an understatement).
Click to expand...

Hmm, I'm not sure I get that last bit - patents are obviously the
foundation of IP and the combo seems to be taking increasing importance in
corporate value those days... submarined or not.:-) There's a "devil" in
the implementation/enginering of course... if that's what you mean... C.F.
Moto/AMD/CU-SOI.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
 
AMD and Chartered have signed an agreement whereby Chartered will
produce AMD64 processors at its Singapore plant, probably starting in
2006, possibly at the 65nm node, but probably more likely at the 90nm
node.
Click to expand...

Further details on this story, an interview with a Chartered VP
describing how happy they are to be chosen to do this for AMD.

ITworld.com - Chartered looks forward to partnership with AMD
http://www.itworld.com/Tech/4535/041125charter/

Chartered will start doing this for AMD in 2006 on their 300mm fab.
However they won't be doing it with 65nm processes, they will be doing
it with "mature" 90nm processes. I guess AMD doesn't want them doing
production and experimental stuff at the same time. In 2006, AMD's own
Fab 36 opens using 300mm and 65nm, so I guess AMD expects some delays
and getting upto speed for this rampup. So they are probably hedging
their bets by having at least a couple of fabs producing with 90nm
processes, their own Fab 30 and this Chartered fab.

It seems that AMD's customers don't want to take any chances either,
so they are going to require that the chips produced at Chartered be
separately qualified from AMD's own.

On a separate note, I think these guys ought to seriously think about
stretching out their 90nm process a bit longer instead of plunging
into 65nm so quickly. It was an expensive proposition going to 90nm,
and so far a lot of companies (Intel) have found that it hasn't
performed as well as previous process transitions had. Might as well
take your time and get it working right and paying its own way before
spending even more cash on 65nm.

Yousuf Khan
 
Back
Top