The AMD Execution Thread [2007 - 2017]

Discussion in 'Graphics and Semiconductor Industry' started by overclocked_enthusiasm, May 28, 2007.

Tags:
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 3dilettante

    Legend Alpha

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    7,807
    Likes Received:
    2,072
    Location:
    Well within 3d
    One of the things that comes up in a joint venture like this would be that when the JV starts asking for resources such as capital calls, or the accounts go over owner contributions over time, is how sustainable the current split is.
    AMD faced this with its Globalfoundries spinoff and split ownership with ATIC.
    As long as the specter of tripping some of the last covenants of the prior cross-licensing agreements with Intel remained, AMD had to maintain at least some semblance of control.
    However, capital calls for GF inevitably diluted AMD's share since it couldn't contribute on the level of Abu Dhabi's investment fund. AMD made it clear they would be looking for ways to divest the remainder of their holding, and once an agreement with Intel was made the final sliver was sold off.

    A joint venture has an AMD with historically limited investment as the controlling party, and then an Intel whose partnership provides the enormous budget and manufacturing contributions?
    How long would AMD's inferior investment keep it in control, or why would Intel agree to give all those things if while AMD coasts by calling all the shots?

    One related event was AMD's loss of most of its Jaguar team, with a similar sequence. The other party was mostly Samsung, although as a competitive headache I'm not sure it's threatened AMD directly yet.
    It did mean that AMD's decision to focus its efforts on one CPU design was not just a decision based on outside factors, as the choice to do otherwise was effectively removed.

    Could you clarify the Demers statement? Did you mean he should have never left? I recall he went to Qualcomm in 2012.
    One additional wrinkle to the blame game for Read is that there were at some rumors concerning the cutting of R&D started back with interim CEO Seifert, though Read obviously had the choice of changing things if he didn't agree.
     
    Krumme and CSI PC like this.
  2. no-X

    Veteran

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Messages:
    2,205
    Likes Received:
    133
    3dilettante: Yes, I meant it that way. As for the costs, Read decided to lower expenses by $120 mil. per year at the end of 2011 (~10 % of workforce left AMD). Later in 2012 AMD announced another employee reduction. It resulted in prolonged development cycles and decrease from ~4 new GPUs per generation to 2-3 per generation.
     
  3. DrYesterday

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    17
    I asked for an example where (your words) "court order to cease said product/services/concept against the new company to begin with..." I do not see any such example.
     
  4. CSI PC

    Veteran Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2015
    Messages:
    1,626
    Likes Received:
    662
    Feels like you want to argue semantics.
    In general you have cease injunctions with IP infringement more recently from such as AMD is bringing against some manufacturers they started early in year, or like how Apple did against Samsung.
    If a company believes an ex-engineer has used trade-secrets then usually this is a request for information 1st, followed promptly by injuction request (both partial and full), followed by court and possibly full injuction given along separately with compensation, and outside of this you have the engineer/people involved sacked and potential for legal prosecution case or at a minimum the headache of a federal investigation, and then there will be the company's internal audit getting in the way as well.
    So yeah it does start with court order injunction.... well could be argued discussion between companies for request of information to try and validate infringement/concerns that then is pushed more heavily by a court judge.

    You ignored the whole context of my post, which also included a trade secret theft example which ended up with the engineer being sacked but before that the judge ruled he must be removed from a role working on the project he was employed by at Uber (this was a partial injuction the judge did accept), the original company suing for massive compensation, and also the Judge referring the case it to the legal federal prosecutors to investigate if there should be arrests/prosecution.
    The only reason it was not worst for Uber is that like I said Waymo were undermined by their own internal emails that came to light saying the theft/use was a secondary and not important data, they overplayed their hand to the court and the judge was not happy; but it is still going to court for compensation and potential full injunction against Uber - doubt Waymo will get the full injunction though due to email admission.
    https://forum.beyond3d.com/posts/2010189/

    Like I said these days you are not going to usually see a blatant ex-employee use their previous companies IP/trade secrets for all of those reasons, I even provided a link showing the type of legal obligations several here are under including myself and all of us are under no illusions we would be shafted and the fallout depending how great the infringement is also a headache for the company one moved to.
    No-one going to work for one of the top western tech companies is going to push it too far because of these factors, these days anyway or unless your in a company based out of China/Russia :)
    Even a partial injunction instantly applied is a nightmare as it can remove a lot of the team from the R&D project if they all came from the same original company or stall the R&D, let alone what follows.
     
    #4984 CSI PC, Nov 13, 2017
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2017
  5. CSI PC

    Veteran Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2015
    Messages:
    1,626
    Likes Received:
    662
    OK here is one back to 2013 doing another quick search:
    Brocade Awarded Permanent Injunction in Intellectual Property Theft Case against A10 Networks
    Court Orders A10 to Stop Selling and Shipping Products Infringing on Brocade Patents
    Also involved financial damages.
     
  6. DrYesterday

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    17
    Sorry, not my intentions. And thanks for for the Brocade reference.
     
    CSI PC likes this.
  7. A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y

    Regular

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Messages:
    878
    Likes Received:
    146
    'Kernel memory leaking' Intel processor design flaw forces Linux, Windows redesign

    https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/02/intel_cpu_design_flaw

    This sucks for all those who are running Intel processors - myself included.

    But this will help AMD sell more processors as they are not affected.

     
  8. Kaotik

    Kaotik Drunk Member
    Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2003
    Messages:
    7,277
    Likes Received:
    964
    Location:
    Finland
    Yet it still might affect them even though they don't have the bug - apparently Linux-devs are ignoring AMD's request for vendor check.
    (though I did hear that some RC-version of the patch did have the AMD-line included, so there's still hope - but as it stands PTI is forced on AMD too and hurts their performance)
     
  9. 3dilettante

    Legend Alpha

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    7,807
    Likes Received:
    2,072
    Location:
    Well within 3d
    They could be playing it safe. Long-term if AMD is able to make the case this doesn't apply after the full disclosure, then there should be enough pressure to get something through.

    On the other hand, there could be ancillary effects or long-term plans to isolating the kernel space that the OS devs think makes it worthwhile even for AMD, or the check as written assumes too much about what any future AMD chip may or may not do.

    How readily can that check be spoofed?
     
  10. Malo

    Malo YakTribe.games
    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Messages:
    5,895
    Likes Received:
    1,901
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Grall likes this.
  11. A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y

    Regular

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Messages:
    878
    Likes Received:
    146
    Lightman, milk and pharma like this.
  12. Malo

    Malo YakTribe.games
    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Messages:
    5,895
    Likes Received:
    1,901
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    I was just trying to limit the discussion of the flaw attacks to one thread, especially after you posted it in like 4 different places, including a new thread lol.
    Yep, definitely appropriate for the execution thread when discussing the impact of it for AMD financially.

    I think it could have a significant impact in sales just from this change, but also from the backlash against Intel. But really the biggest decider for enterprise will come actual impact on performance for their respective application in their datacenters. If in the end performance isn't much for PCID Intel CPUs, how much will datacenters really care that the "flaw" is there after the patching?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...