this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2025

148 points (98.7% liked)

Technology

63028 readers

5421 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

148

AMD could block the sale of Intel due to a cross-licensing agreement (www.tomshardware.com)

submitted 2 days ago by [email protected] to c/technology

23 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 23 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] resetbypeer 45 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

As a AMD fanboy, I will say we NEED Intel in this game for.the x86 stuff. You don't want to end with an Intel 2008-2016 scenario for AMD. Or what you see now with nvidia. We need competition. Look at the absurt prices for 50 series nvidia gpu's

[–] [email protected] 25 points 2 days ago

Unfortunately, a certain government(all three branches) could make things very difficult for AMD if they don't play ball.

[–] Buffalox 14 points 2 days ago (3 children)

If this is true, why then couldn't Arm prevent Qualcomm from using a license agreement they had with a company Qualcomm bought?
The Arm Qualcomm case is bullshit, if you make a license agreement with a company that is later bought by a bigger company, it's no longer the same "legal person". And should absolutely void the license.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 2 days ago

This is specific to a deal between AMD and Intel that goes back to the 90s. Only Intel and AMD can create somewhat modern x86 CPUs because everything is a patent minefield. They cross license their own stuff but don’t want a third competitor so the agreement is voided if either of them gets sold.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Contracts are no where near that standardized, it might just come down to the specific language/clause that was used, either done deliberately or just some lawyer group's normalized process.

[–] A_A 1 points 2 days ago

... *nowhere

[+] Buffalox -13 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Still the contract should be void, when the legal entity ceases to exist.
When a company is bought, it's not the same legal entity or "person".

Seems to me this is merely arbitrary bullshit, where American courts tend to favor American companies.

[–] SchmidtGenetics 24 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Sounds like a great and easy way to get out of contracts by selling yourself to yourself for $1.

Why would a contract be null and void due to a sale…? That makes no sense at all.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

No. The party not being sold should be able to void the contract if they want at that time. It should not automatically be voided. I could just make contracts saying I’ll pay you 1 trillion over 5 years, get whatever from you, then sell my company to void it so I don’t have to pay, uphold my end, or etc.

[–] Buffalox -4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

No. The party not being sold should be able to void the contract

Of course if both parties want to continue the contract, there is nothing stopping them from doing so.

[–] SchmidtGenetics 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

You just said any sale automatically null and voids contracts, and now you’re saying it’s not and you have the option?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

the article states that when a company is sold, they need to renegotiate a new contract. So it looks like it does automatically terminate on sale, and it would be up to them to make a new contract.

I assume the person meant that they could make a new contract with the new names if they wanted to.

[–] Buffalox -2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

No not really, I said license agreements they've received from other companies. That's just ONE VERY SPECIFIC form of contract, not contracts in general.

Obviously if both parties agree, they can extend the contract to the new company without problem.
How does that confuse you?

[–] SchmidtGenetics 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

How can you extend a null and void contract?

You’re contradicting yourself. I’m not confused, you’re just making no friggen sense dude because you’ve now stated multiple contradicting statements.

[–] Buffalox -1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Are you acting stupid on purpose? There are many ways to extend a contract, this would be an extension to the new company, do you think things can only be extended in time?
Also an extended contract doesn't have to be the literal same contract, but can be a new contract that replaces the old one, but with extra things added.

[–] SchmidtGenetics 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I feel like you just don’t actually know the definitions of the words you’re using here.

Don’t call someone stupid because you can’t explain your contradictory statements. You’re never going to, because they are contradictions. If every contract is a null and void at a sale, there’s no contracts to “extend” and how could you extend them ahead of time? It’s a sale, so you negotiate terms, than come back again for a sale? That makes no sense yet again dude.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Still the contract should be void, when the legal entity ceases to exist.

How do you know that Nuvia no longer exists as a legal entity? A company can be acquired without it being dissolved (ceasing to exist).

[–] Buffalox 0 points 2 days ago

If that's the case they have no right to extend their license to another company.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If this is true, why then couldn’t Arm prevent Qualcomm from using a license agreement they had with a company Qualcomm bought?

All licensing agreements aren't the same. It's possible that the ARM agreement didn't address transferable rights but that the Intel / AMD agreement did.

[–] Buffalox -3 points 2 days ago

transferable rights

That's the point, how can those exist without consent???