Seeking Alpha

Justin Jaynes

View as an RSS Feed
View Justin Jaynes' Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • AMD Rumors: Separating Fact From Fiction [View article]
    @Ephud -

    Almost, but not quite. I think it's a subtle difference, but if you look through the language of the settlement agreement, it is almost entirely related to business practices, anti-trust litigation, compensation for damages, gave AMD the right to build x86 chips elsewhere, and absolved Intel of any future suits.

    (can't copy and paste, so anyone interested must open the PDF,
    In this light, I think the important parts of the settlement agreement are the definition of Personal Computer (definition 1.18), and the fact that the only time the patent cross license agreement is mentioned in the settlement agreement is in simply stating "we signed a cross license agreement too, and we're both happy with the terms."

    The part you're referencing (paraphrased for convenience, sect 6.3) states:
    "Processors AMD was making at the time of the change of control, and further limited to PCs"

    But the change of control in Section 6.3 is specific to the settlement agreement, not the cross license agreement.

    Basically, I read it in a very specific way: The cross license agreement is a stand alone agreement, but is referenced in the settlement agreement. A change of control would mean that:

    1) Intel can do whatever business practices they want to outside of PC x86 CPUs (makes the settlement agreement null and void outside of x86 CPUs)

    2) Cancels the cross license agreement with AMD and Intel, but acquiring entity and Intel are required to negotiate new terms for x86 and 64 bit IP.

    So I am not reading this as meaning that any acquiring entity is only restricted to x86 PC CPUs - but that Intel is free to practice business as they wish outside of x86 CPUs in the event of an acquisition.

    I sent "Retired Securities Attorney" my post from above to see if he agrees or disagrees, we'll see if he has an opinion.
    Jan 30, 2015. 12:11 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • AMD Rumors: Separating Fact From Fiction [View article]
    Ephud - Absolutely it's convoluted. Here's my understanding of the three documents after reading them (thanks for your link as well - I had found this once, you probably linked to it, but I was trying to find it again and couldn't)

    1) The document you linked to ( essentially absolves Intel of any wrong doing without admission of any wrong doing, gives AMD some money, and limits Intel in the scope of their business practices. It also states AMD can't sue Intel in the future, gives some terms that would be considered a breach of agreement, and sets forth the boundaries that are cause for termination and transference of the agreement - specifically the settlement agreement.

    In this capacity, I believe section 6.3 and 9.7 both are basically saying that the agreement (the agreement specific to business practices, not x86 license) is transferable under certain circumstances, but this covers more business practices, not the IP.

    2) The cross license agreement filed with the SEC ( This agreement, in the scope of this discussion, basically says that in the event of a change of control both parties, Intel and AMD, lose their respective rights to each other's license. This does not mean, based only on my interpretation, that AMD loses their license while Intel retains theirs. I think this more means that any rights afforded under this agreement become null and void, and new terms will have to be renegotiated.

    3) The final document is the FTC ruling ( Section three is the pertinent one to this discussion, and it basically says AMD, the acquiring party buying out AMD, or Intel can't engage in patent litigation for a year while "good faith" negotiations take place.

    Taking all three documents in aggregate, I believe this is basically saying that Intel can get out of the Settlement agreement (your link) in the event of a buyout, except with respect to x86 chips specific to PCs. And the settlement agreement is specific to business practices. The rest of the settlement agreement in respect to servers or whatever else is off the table in the event of a buyout, but the wording their is weird as it talks about chips AMD is producing at the time (semi-custom maybe?) - it's very verbose.

    And both Intel and AMD lose the protections afforded under the cross license agreement during an acquisition of AMD, but must enter into negotiations to renew the cross license agreement.
    Jan 29, 2015. 04:18 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • AMD Rumors: Separating Fact From Fiction [View article]
    Ephud -

    Seeking Alpha is doing that thing where it's not letting me see new comments, but I was able to get to your question by looking at your specific comments:

    Yours is a "settlement agreement", mine is the "cross license agreement", both were signed on the same date.
    Jan 29, 2015. 12:19 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • AMD Rumors: Separating Fact From Fiction [View article]

    Let me rephrase - the cross-license agreement between Intel (needs AMD's 64 bit ip) and AMD (needs Intel's x86 IP) is terminated, and the FTC ordered, one year after the cross license agreement was signed, that Intel would be required to negotiate in good faith with an acquiring entity during a change of control.

    I am *not* spinning this as a good thing for AMD or Intel, but it would be a headache for both.

    The language is not redacted surrounding who loses what:

    5.2(c) below deals with terminations due to change of control:
    "Termination Upon Change of Control. Subject to the terms of, and as further set forth in, Sections 5.2(d) and 5.2(e), this Agreement shall automatically terminate as a whole upon the consummation of a Change of Control of either Party."

    "In the event of any termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section 5.2(c), and subject to the provisions of Section 5.2(e), the rights and licenses granted to both Parties under this Agreement, including without limitation the rights granted under Section 3.8(d), shall terminate as of the effective date of such termination."

    3.8(d) is the Licenses and Subsidiaries section. So although this section is heavily redacted, unless one of us has access to this Intel/AMD confidential information (which I can assure you I do not, but I believe you are ex-Intel so maybe you've read this?), Section 5.2(c) and 5.2(d, ii) explicitly state that the licenses set forth in section 3.8(d) are terminated *for both parties*.

    The one year clause is the FTC ruling against Intel, which requires Intel to negotiate, in good faith, the terms of a new agreement.

    Probably a myriad of reasons no one has bought AMD - the headache around the x86 license is likely a good reason. But the language of the cross license agreement, and the FTC ruling, both seem like they at least give way for a legal battle.

    Now, I'm not a lawyer so it's entirely possible I'm wrong, and I would absolutely love to discuss this because I feel it's important. So how do you parse, given that *both* parties lose their rights afforded by section 3.8(d) of the cross license agreement, that only AMD loses it's license? I get something different when I read this.

    To your point, Intel is also required to negotiate. If they fail to do so, the acquiring party of AMD can bring suit against Intel as this is a cross-license agreement.
    Jan 29, 2015. 11:42 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • AMD Rumors: Separating Fact From Fiction [View article]
    You did re-enter via puts AH? Just on the other side of the trade :D
    Jan 29, 2015. 10:50 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • AMD Rumors: Separating Fact From Fiction [View article]
    Techy - both Intel's licenses to AMD's patent and AMD's licenses to Intel's patents would be cancelled, and no litigation can take place for a year to facilitate these "good faith" negotiations that Ephud is talking about.

    If Intel makes it difficult for the new entity, the new entity can make it difficult for Intel.
    Jan 29, 2015. 10:50 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • AMD Rumors: Separating Fact From Fiction [View article]
    Ephud, I believe you are correct. The cross license agreement terminates in its entirety for both parties under a change of control, and a new one would be negotiated
    Jan 29, 2015. 10:08 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple: Winning The Profit Battle, Losing The Smartphone War [View article]
    I'll keep my bet with Apple for the time being. Long shares with covered call sold against them
    Jan 28, 2015. 09:54 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • AMD jumps above $2.50 on M&A rumor [View news story]

    Unless I was wrong when I calculated, Mubadala was in for about $7 per share before the warrants were exercised.

    Average share cost (very rough estimate) = (107M shares * $7 + 34M * $0)/141M shares = $5.30ish.

    Here is my article from a while back with relevant links, but this was before the warrants for the additional shares were exercised.
    Jan 27, 2015. 04:23 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • AMD jumps above $2.50 on M&A rumor [View news story]

    Take on the US Government blocking the selling of technology assets to China?
    Jan 26, 2015. 01:44 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple: ARM-Based Macs Are Not Only Feasible, They May Be Inevitable [View article]

    "Not really. They tweak the ISA in unspecified (SFAIK) ways." - Not quite sure why you're debating this. Apple licenses the ISA and designed a processor that implemented the ISA.

    So you're telling me that Apple does not design their CPUs now, and that a licensing agreement for the ARM ISA implies that ARM gives them a CPU design to go with the ISA license?


    "They take ARM designed cores (e.g. Cortex A9, Cortex A15, Cortex A7) and integrate them into custom SoCs. In NVIDIA’s case the CPU cores are paired with NVIDIA’s own GPU, while Samsung licenses GPU designs from ARM and Imagination Technologies. Apple previously leveraged its ARM processor license as well. Until last year’s A6 SoC, all Apple SoCs leveraged CPU cores designed by and licensed from ARM.

    With the A6 SoC however, Apple joined the ranks of Qualcomm with leveraging an ARM architecture license. At the heart of the A6 were a pair of Apple designed CPU cores that implemented the ARMv7-A ISA. I came to know these cores by their leaked codename: Swift."

    A53 and A57 are 64 bit ARM designs. A8 is an Apple design that utilizes the 64 bit ARM ISA.
    Jan 15, 2015. 04:08 PM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple: ARM-Based Macs Are Not Only Feasible, They May Be Inevitable [View article]
    ARM doesn't mean AMD - Apple designs their own ARM processors.
    Jan 15, 2015. 01:19 PM | 8 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple: Ditching Intel Processors Would Be Disastrous [View article]

    Not that I trust JPM, but just pointing out that another analyst is making similar speculation now.
    Jan 15, 2015. 12:39 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple: Ditching Intel Processors Would Be Disastrous [View article]
    "All the incumbants laughed at them and got steam rolled."

    My favorite quote was from the old CEO of Intel regarding the iPhone and his conversation with steve jobs. Otellini turned down the iPhone chip, and the rest is history.

    The A8/A8X is a phenomenal chip, and if Apple keeps up with their current cadence we're looking at an iPhone 6S with an A9 by the end of the year, possibly fabbed at 14nm/16nm

    It demolishes the current atom line (soon to be replaced), and holds it's own against the core m line (I believe core m has the stronger graphics perf by a decent margin though, but not 100% sure, haven't looked too hard). (Yes, I know this is SemiWiki, but Nenni has at least been more right about what is produced where over some other sources)

    Let's assume (I know this could not pan out) that for the sake of argument at least one other foundry (TSMC, GF, Samsung) is able to yield 14nm/16nm chips by the end of the year for apple. This would mean Intel's process lead has been drastically reduced. Intel's will probably be better, and more dense, but the disparity between Intel and other foundries will be reduced.

    In this scenario, Apple has access to Imagination GPUs, which are arguably better than Intel's. Imagination has also stated their GPUs can scale up to higher powers. Apple has access to a foundry that's closer, but still not equal, to Intel's 14nm. And benchmarks show that Apple can produce absolutely capable CPU designs.

    I absolutely think that Apple would be capable of designing and ARM based product for the high end, be it a MacBook air, pro, iMac, or Mac Mini. I think Intel is safe in the MacPro, and probably the MacBook pro. And, just my speculation, I think we'd be most likely to see an ARM based chip in either something more similar to a MacBook air or mac mini if apple were to develop an ARM based product.
    Jan 15, 2015. 11:38 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Can Cars Be The Perfect Home For Nvidia's Chips? [View article]
    Thanks for the response.

    The reason I bring up apple specifically is because Apple makes their own SoCs for these types of devices. I've been digging around trying to find if CarPlay requires the use of an Apple A* chip, or if Apple will make the carplay software + licensing agreements for carplay hardware agnostic so it could run on a competitor's chip, but haven't found anything that clarifies this.
    Jan 15, 2015. 01:12 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment