3 ms·
This is an interesting perspective. Does anyone with an informed opinion have anything to add to it?
by syedkarim 6y ago
This is an interesting perspective. Does anyone with an informed opinion have anything to add to it?
- klelatti 6y agoAMD was originally licensed access to Intel's 8086 and later designs because customers demanded a 'second source' manufacturer in case Intel had manufacturing problems (sounds familiar!) Intel tried to ditch second sourcing with the 386 but AMD was able to continue manufacturing compatible CPUs. Much later Intel was accused of anti-competitive behaviour by AMD in various markets - which resulted in a fine in Europe and a $1.25bn dollar payment to AMD and patent cross licensing. But - AMD licenses some important technology to Intel eg x86-64.
- thu2111 6y agoIt pre-supposes that what was best for the USA and world was Intel being maximally successful, rather than there being a market for x86 chips. That's not clear at all. If American capitalism is defined by anything it's competition, something Intel has sometimes unfortunately tried to squash. The real answer here is not to come up with artificial Intel-specific legal kludges like forcing them to cross-license to AMD, but rather to adjust copyright and patent law to define APIs and ISAs as non-protectable.