The AMD Execution Thread [2007 - 2017]

[itsmydamnation]

For all this mellowdrama what actually matters is rtg keep pushing architecture. Far more then a name that's the thing that keeps high skilled intelligent people engaged. Which has increased in polaris and Vega compared to previous releases.

I also think 12nm could be very important for amd across the enthusiast board. Samsung 14nm llp appears to be far enough behind tmsc to matter, and then Zen voltage wall is brutal.

 

[rcf]

Is it somehow possible to do a hostile takeover of AMD without voiding its x86 license?

 

[3dilettante]

Is it somehow possible to do a hostile takeover of AMD without voiding its x86 license?

A hostile one? I wonder if AMD could threaten to breach its agreement on purpose and destroy most of its value as a poison pill.

 

[el etro]

I think that only if AMD fuses with Nvidia the license will not be void.

 

[xpea]

The only reason to rationalise it to be Chief Gluer is that it protects AMD and Nvidia from another competitor, but Intel is one of the most aggressive companies out there in the tech world.

After 10 years of mainstream dual/quad cores

 

[Malo]

I assume he meant aggressive in the business/legal sense. Funny though

 

[CarstenS]

Aggressively protecting it's margins.

 

[Kaotik]

One of my friends threw interesting scenario in the air, would it be in the realm of possibilities that RTG will be spun off as a separate company, from which AMD owns majority and Intel minority, for example 51/49? It could give RTG enormous possibilities on the budget side, possibly access to better manufacturing process, which would benefit both AMD and Intel?

 

[CSI PC]

After 10 years of mainstream dual/quad cores

Those Xeons and Phis are expensive for quad cores, ah they are not

Aggressive in many ways beyond just dual/quad cores; business approach, product approach, perception and attitude to other companies, pushing R&D timeframes, but also technology IF they commit to it even for a brief period.
Part of the problem is the Intel CEO, but if he does commit Intel resources they can be very aggressive in terms of R&D, asset aquisition, product competition,etc.

Intel is bothering being aggressive these days in Deep Learning/automotive/etc, they are throwing resources at it in a not funny way - just one obvious example.
Think of them doing the same with discrete GPU; context IMO like I said before targetting Tesla, Quadro and especially Grid, but this would also feed into consumer discrete GPUs same way we see from Nvidia.
It is a potential headache for both Nvidia and AMD.

 

[entity279]

One of my friends threw interesting scenario in the air, would it be in the realm of possibilities that RTG will be spun off as a separate company, from which AMD owns majority and Intel minority, for example 51/49? It could give RTG enormous possibilities on the budget side, possibly access to better manufacturing process, which would benefit both AMD and Intel?

AMD would be stupid, IMO, to share its IP with Intel

 

[Alexko]

One of my friends threw interesting scenario in the air, would it be in the realm of possibilities that RTG will be spun off as a separate company, from which AMD owns majority and Intel minority, for example 51/49? It could give RTG enormous possibilities on the budget side, possibly access to better manufacturing process, which would benefit both AMD and Intel?

I'm not sure Intel would want to risk cannibalizing Xeon Phi sales like that. Then again, I suppose it could be a way to hedge their bets.

 

[CSI PC]

I'm not sure Intel would want to risk cannibalizing Xeon Phi sales like that. Then again, I suppose it could be a way to hedge their bets.

Yeah if they are going affect Xeon Phi then it will be a product from within Intel and not shared with anyone else due to margin/profit positioning.
This new announcement could see Phi being EOL down the line or heavily evolved, but it is not really providing the traction they expected against Nvidia in its current form.

 

[DrYesterday]

As I mentioned if any engineer breaks their NDA's/IP-trade secret knowledge contracts when moving company then the repercussions are massive; court order to cease said product/services/concept against the new company to begin with and ending up with a hefty compensation claim with other penalties also thrown in.

Can you provide an example where courts have ruled this way?

 

[CSI PC]

Can you provide an example where courts have ruled this way?

The point is the mechanism exists and these engineers are under the constraint of them (I am under a few myself and sounds like some others here are as well), these are stronger than non-compete clauses because they follow me and them wherever the eventually end up.
The top tech companies are loath to push this too far, look how AMD is pushing IP infringement recently themselves with limiting said products that infringe even when it does not involve ex-engineers.
I have just done a quick search outside of this and here is an example what a few here would be under, including those engineers moving between Intel/AMD/Nvidia.
https://www.law360.com/articles/842310/prelitigation-steps-for-trade-secret-and-noncompete-cases

These types of cases have more solid grounding than say the IP infringement AMD or Nvidia recently brought against various tech companies.
It will also usually mean the automatic sacking of the ex-engineer in the new company to try and limit the fallout of the lawsuit; context being major western tech companies.
So it is rare that it happens blatantly these days (the engineer abusing knowledge-IP from previous company) in the top western tech companies, but the boundaries may be pushed and try to be blurred and the scale of the infringement.

 

[CarstenS]

From Raja's email " As we enter 2018, I will be shifting my focus more toward architecting and realizing this vision and rebalancing my operational responsibilities."

Sounds like he will have more of an engineering role and less management responsibilities.

In hindsight, this was a hint in plain sight.

 

[CSI PC]

Can you provide an example where courts have ruled this way?

Not really ideal/strong comparison as the theft was deemed non-critical/non-important IP but there is the Waymo vs Uber case; to date Uber has got away OK but with limitations applied however even there Uber (not great reputation) has sacked the engineer who stole the IP information to alleviate some of the fallout.
There is also a possible legal prosecution to happen as the judge has referred it to prosecutors, but for now the court case is looking for compensation (could be weak after some internal Waymo documents showed a weaker position than they initially projected and relevance of the IP theft).
Outside of that which top company would employ the sacked Levandowski now, something on the back of the mind of any engineer that risks trade/IP secrets.

Edit:
This was a quick search when asked for an example, so not all the information is there but did find info going back to last month on the case.

 

[DrYesterday]

No one is expecting Intel to start manufacturing a Vega clone based from the plans Raja acquired No one is that stupid. I don't think it is worth discussing that possibility.

 

[Kaotik]

No one is expecting Intel to start manufacturing a Vega clone based from the plans Raja acquired No one is that stupid. I don't think it is worth discussing that possibility.

Of course not, but they still have to tip-toe around what they can and can't do with Raja's knowledge even if it's a small part of big picture

 

[CSI PC]

No one is expecting Intel to start manufacturing a Vega clone based from the plans Raja acquired No one is that stupid. I don't think it is worth discussing that possibility.

You asked me for an example *shrug*.
This is not about a clone but using important/fundamental IP/company knowledge from a different company specifically by engineer/s that bring it over; it can be physical/copied data or that from engineer memory; the judge still ruled the ex-engineer in the Uber case must be moved to a different division/role in Uber and excluded from working on/with the potentially infringing technology Uber was developing, eventually they sacked him as the case continued - and that was deemed not to be important-fundamental-critical IP.
Going by what I found after you asked for an example.
Like I said all the major tech companies are watching for any infringement when their influential engineers move and how they are still under such IP/trade secret obligations, examples of movement was given earlier by several.

 

[manux]

Open question about intel is do they stay on the ball and do this long term. They have habbit of starting strong and then exiting. Tablets, phones, iot,... says hello