The AMD Execution Thread [2007 - 2017]

[3dilettante]

AMD's joint venture for producing x86 server chips in China is curious. It's made up of two entities, one of which AMD controls.
It's being spun as primarily a licensing opportunity, and not involving GPU or ARM tech.

The dual-entity structure sounds like AMD's portion would be keeping some of its IP under its purview, but rather than selling a specific product there are expectations of royalties in the future. AMD might be expecting money in the form of compensation for R&D, but how primarily x86-based tech will come in as royalties is curious.
I think it would be prudent if important IP specific to whatever x86 cores are involved stayed on AMD's side, with perhaps tech related to interfaces and using them potentially licensed. Perhaps something like an ARM licensed core could be handled by the AMD side and then plugged into an integrated product?

Legalities or possible US government scrutiny aside, such a separation might be prudent because these sorts of joint ventures have been known to leverage IP security long-term for short-term revenue. Even if there is such a separation, it's not a sure thing that the IP held close to the vest doesn't wind up in local competing products anyway.

 

[Grall]

Intel would probably frown upon some sort of (partially) China-controlled joint-venture involving x86 tech, so presumably, ARM IP involved? *shrug* I assume we'll hear more in due time.

What I wasn't clear about was if NX home and portable counted as one or two of the 3 gaming socs.

It ought to be two SoCs; I can't imagine a situation where the handheld and the home NX are both based around exactly the same hardware. ...Although trust Nintendo to Nintendon't... (No, they'd never do that. I'm not that pessimistic!)

 

[3dilettante]

The conference call apparently stated that x86 IP was licensed to the joint venture, at least according what I've read. Anandtech goes further and states that ARM and GPU tech are not part of it.

 

[CSI PC]

Intel would probably frown upon some sort of (partially) China-controlled joint-venture involving x86 tech, so presumably, ARM IP involved? *shrug* I assume we'll hear more in due time.

I am a bit confused how this deal can work regarding x86 IP as well, considering Intel can be rather protective or sensitive of giving access (look at NVIDIA historically not being allowed it).
Cheers

 

[Grall]

AMD can't even be sold and keep its x86 license intact, how can they sub-license it to a joint-Chinese venture? It doesn't grok.

But who the eff knows. Maybe Intel will allow it just to have AMD's nose stay over the water and avoid antitrust investigations from being the only PC CPU vendor on the market...

 

[3dilettante]

The joint venture is apparently composed to multiple entities, one of which AMD owns. That might be where they keep things walled-off.

If China were patient, maybe it actually could get AMD-64 in the clear by 2020 due to patent expiration. The reports on the joint venture seem to be indicating that more modern AMD tech is in play, however.
I'm not sure, but possibly the subset of the IP AMD contributed can be more freely handled? If AMD has managed to patent enough to create a complete-enough set for an implementation, it might be less constrained. If the project is ambitious enough to aim for a new core, perhaps one with AMD's latest IP + AMD64 compatibility could be spun up by 2020.

The last time the agreement was posted here, its coverage was modified. It will persist until all covered patents expire, but would not apply to any patents after November 2014.
Zen's design base could be reasonably up to date relative to Intel, but without some additional arrangements, the bifurcation may be happening regardless.

edit:
Perhaps licensing AMD IP for better Longsoon x86 emulation?

 

[tunafish]

AMD can't even be sold and keep its x86 license intact, how can they sub-license it to a joint-Chinese venture? It doesn't grok.

What rule do they violate and where? I doubt AMD can legally license out the tech to a different company. However, if all the products stay in China, I don't think Intel could successfully sue AMD out of China. And any suit in a Chinese court could be dismissed because the stuff is important to national security, which in China is a free pass to break any rule.

 

[fellix]

AMD64 set is strictly an inclusive extension to the x86. It is not a standalone ISA and drags with itself the whole legacy stack with all the license hooks.

 

[Grall]

What rule do they violate and where?

Do I have the full and unabridged text of AMD's licensing contract right in front of me here and now? I would think that contract is fairly watertight however. I would be rather surprised if it allows AMD to invite foreign state actors (especially one such as China) to use Intel IP.

And any suit in a Chinese court could be dismissed because the stuff is important to national security, which in China is a free pass to break any rule.

Intel might revoke AMD's x86 license altogether, get an injunction on further CPU/APU sales, and would then sue in an American court of course since that is where Intel is based, and as a bonus have no pesky Chinese national security BS that could interfere.

AMD would go under. Also, PS4, Xbone buh-bye.

 

[CSI PC]

On the plus side it helps AMD for now with their stock price and some cash
The downside and sorry to generalise but I know this from experience a few times now with the companies I have worked with, the risk for AMD is that the Chinese company/government use this partnership to gain all relevant technical information to build their own x86 product and then dump AMD while mass producing x86 processors in China.
Think how many years it has taken other companies to get any kind of response from the Chinese government and any compensation, and the national company in China just keeps on manufacturing anyway.

Cheers

 

[3dilettante]

What rule do they violate and where? I doubt AMD can legally license out the tech to a different company. However, if all the products stay in China, I don't think Intel could successfully sue AMD out of China. And any suit in a Chinese court could be dismissed because the stuff is important to national security, which in China is a free pass to break any rule.

The cross-licensing agreement exists to keep AMD's products out of litigation everywhere, and the act of breaching it anywhere is still a breach.

AMD64 set is strictly an inclusive extension to the x86. It is not a standalone ISA and drags with itself the whole legacy stack with all the license hooks.

When I used AMD64, I meant the AMD64 version that AMD introduced in 2000. Whatever it plugged into would be equally out of patent coverage, although since products didn't come out for a few years the deadline might be a little later.
I suppose in theory AMD could license the K5 and K6 generation IP, although I think the utility of at least getting a K8-level chip would be higher.

Just contributing x86-related patents out of AMD's own portfolio, and probably targeting specific items like AMD's implementation of virtualization and non-shared extensions, might not be as problematic.
If this is not enough to make a workable processor, it might serve as an extra IP shield for a processor targeting AMD's version of x86 for emulation.

On the plus side it helps AMD for now with their stock price and some cash
The downside and sorry to generalise but I know this from experience a few times now with the companies I have worked with, the risk for AMD is that the Chinese company/government use this partnership to gain all relevant technical information to build their own x86 product and then dump AMD while mass producing x86 processors in China.

There does seem to be an element of tearing out the foundations for a quick buck, or trying to leverage some kind of concession with regards to future x86 evolution by threatening to torch it. AMD has appears to be shut out going forward, so what it stands to lose is unclear.
However, at this point getting paid money now and being kicked to the curb in 4-5 years is probably doubling AMD's life expectancy.

I wonder how much AMD could give, since the US government has meddled with tech business with China before.

 

[Razor1]

AMD can't even be sold and keep its x86 license intact, how can they sub-license it to a joint-Chinese venture? It doesn't grok.

But who the eff knows. Maybe Intel will allow it just to have AMD's nose stay over the water and avoid antitrust investigations from being the only PC CPU vendor on the market...

Intel won't care about that, If AMD fails by itself, another words screw up by breaching this contract, Intel isn't bound by anti trust because AMD did it to themselves. Anti trust issues take place if Intel directly influences the results of direct market variables. This won't be that.

 

[pharma]

The deal is expected to be based on AMD’s next-generation x86 architecture called Zen. Even AMD is not expected to ship Zen-based server chips in volume until next year. The joint venture is likely to take even longer to assemble a team, design and ship its SoCs.

However details about the deal are scarce and could draw fire from Intel with whom AMD signed in 2009 a detailed patent cross license.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/2488/000119312509236705/dex102.htm

http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1329517&

 

[firstminion]

That deal should still be on, but I can only find that they renewed it on 2001 for 10 years. http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1129690

So we may not have the whole picture here.

 

[CSI PC]

That deal should still be on, but I can only find that they renewed it on 2001 for 10 years. http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1129690

So we may not have the whole picture here.

Well that link opens another can of worms, specifically the foundry that will manufacture these.
From that link you provide:

The cross-licensing pacts are said to either bar or severely restrict any AMD outsourcing of its x86 processors to external foundries......
Sources believed AMD may test the legal restraints on use of foundries by seeking a partner that also has an x86 cross-licensing agreement of its own with Intel.

I just cannot see a way round this with regards to design-manufacturing in China.
And tbh I think Intel are going to have some thoughts about a Chinese company having access to x86 technology from a design-development perspective; appreciate it depends upon how it the business and its design-manufacturing-logistics operates between AMD and the Chinese company.
I would still be a bit leery of IP espionage for the x86 technology, especially as the background of this company is not fully transparent; I could imagine aspects of the Chinese government would be keen to have this on their own turf.
Cheers

 

[Alexko]

Couldn't it just be K12? Or has AMD stated otherwise?

 

[Razor1]

why would they need a Chinese company to partner for design and production purposes? I think it would be more involved than just something they already had in the works. China has been pushing for silicon of their own, so this might be the first step to that while side stepping making something from the ground up.......

 

[CSI PC]

why would they need a Chinese company to partner for design and production purposes? I think it would be more involved than just something they already had in the works. China has been pushing for silicon of their own, so this might be the first step to that while side stepping making something from the ground up.......

AMD doesn't, but the Chinese government probably do and so they would want to have the technical collaboration and manufacturing in China to be able to learn and take what they can from this experience IMO.
Next stage for China is to evolve the country into a full blown tech development-manufacturing power house, although the government there does seem to be one of best already at hacking espionage

Cheers

 

[Razor1]

Lol yeah conspiracy theories aside, we have seen China do this in many other markets by outright stealing patents.

 

[3dilettante]

That deal should still be on, but I can only find that they renewed it on 2001 for 10 years. http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1129690

So we may not have the whole picture here.

The most recent link I've seen was in this thread from last year:
https://forum.beyond3d.com/posts/1863877/

The agreement there has no requirement for renewal, as its termination is baked-in. After November 2014, patents filed by either party are no longer covered.
Long-term the agreement will end once all the patents it covers expire. Realistically, if there's not an additional agreement to cover newer tech, it would become less likely that compatibility past what has already been shared will continue.

I just cannot see a way round this with regards to design-manufacturing in China.

The joint venture is composed of two entities. One of them is controlled by AMD and falls under the umbrella of the parent company. If there is some kind of gymnastics involved in getting past AMD's obligations, it would seemingly go through there. Manufacturing via foundries was freed up with the most recent agreement, I think. Who controls the actual end result might be where the question is asked about licensing.