🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <76372@ut-emx.uucp> (comp.sys.intel), ifaq570@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Kitchen) writes:
(with regard to the recent Intel/AMD microcode copyright decision)
> 	Also it is interesting to note that when the jury returned this 
> "we don't know" ruling, the judge in the case, dismissed them from hearing
> further parts of the case.

The jury was dismissed because Intel and AMD wanted to get on with
their motions, and the judge insisted that the remaining two modules
of the case be heard by the jury before he heard any motions about
the first module (the microcode copyright). Intel and AMD agreed to
drop the two remaining modules so the judge would hear their motions, so the
jury's job was done.

> 	The jury said that neither side proved their side of the argument.
> The argument stems from a technology sharing agreement AMD had with Intel.

This I agree with.  The jury essentially said, "nobody proved anything."

> When the deal went sour, AMD went it's own way, and continued to use those
> things that were shared by contract.  Intel then sued, claiming that the 
> agreement was for internal use only (which is not in the document) and that
> Intel never intended for AMD to sell anything.

This isn't quite right. The agreement, in general, certainly applied to
products AMD offered for sale; it is only one clause of this agreement
that was contested--the section about AMD being granted the right to copy
Intel's microcode. Here's an excerpt from my article that was in the July 8
issue of Microprocessor Report, so you can see exactly what the agreement
says and what questions the jury answered.

======

At issue was the interpretation of a 1976 agreement between Intel and AMD
that grants AMD the right to copy Intel microcode. The disputed section of
the agreement is as follows: 

	"INTEL grants to AMD a paid-up, non-exclusive, royalty-free license
under all INTEL copyrights... permitting AMD to make the following copies
(and only the following copies): 

	(a) To copy published INTEL instruction manuals and data sheets;

	(b) To copy microcodes contained in INTEL microcomputers and peripheral
products sold by INTEL; and 

	(c) To copy mnemonics published by INTEL in its manuals."

It is item (b) above that is at the center of the dispute. Initially, Intel
argued that the right to copy did not imply the right to distribute, but
this argument was not presented at the trial. Instead, the trial focused
on the issue of whether the term "microcode" referred to programs in ROM
on board-level products, or whether it could be applied to microcode
within the 287.

At the time the 1976 agreement was made, of course, the 287 did not exist,
and Intel did not have any microprocessors that included microcode. The
agreement was extended in 1982, however, when the 8086 and 8087 were
already on the market and did contain microcode.

Both Intel and AMD submitted questions to be put to the jury. AMD proposed
more general questions, seeking to establish a broad microcode license,
while Intel proposed more narrow ones; the judge selected Intel's. The
questions put to the jury were as follows: 

	"Did AMD prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the disputed
language `microcodes contained in Intel microcomputers and peripheral
products sold by Intel' means microcode contained in Intel's 80287?" 

	"Did Intel prove by a preponderance of the evidence that in 1982 the
parties did not agree as to the meaning of the disputed language?" 

	"Did AMD prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the disputed
language... means that Intel permitted AMD to have a third party such as
MIC make copies of Intel microcode?" 

	"Did Intel prove by a preponderance of the evidence that AMD willfully
infringed Intel's copyright?"

The jury answered "no" to the first three questions, and deadlocked on the
fourth; Intel agreed to withdraw this last question. One interpretation of
the jury's verdict is that they simply didn't find any of the arguments
convincing; they didn't think anything was proved by a preponderance of
the evidence.

==========

> In addition, Intel has been ordered to stop their legal harrasment of
> AMD.

Actually, I don't think any such order has been made. AMD has an
anti-trust suit pending, but that hasn't gone anywhere yet. AMD recently
accused Intel of saying misleading things to AMD's customers in Taiwan,
but the judge declined to issue a restraining order and the claim
was dropped. It seems AMD couldn't come up with any evidence sufficient
for a U.S. court; whether or not the events occurred I'm sure we'll
never know.

Michael Slater, Microprocessor Report              mslater@mpr.com
P.O. Box 2438, Sebastopol CA 95473  707/823-4004  fax 707/823-0504