Why doesn't AMD have a patent for Dual Core like Intel does?

F

fuelvolts

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 24, 2005
Messages
1,813
Hey all,

I'm a legal student at Texas A&M University and I came across a relatively disturbing (from the POV of a patent lawyer wannabe) fact: AMD has neither been granted, nor filed for a patent (atleast in the US anyways) for their dual core chips.

I have been looking through pages of patents on dual core from Intel and pages of 64 bit patents from AMD (with AMD approved Intel EM64T amendments).

Why do you all think that AMD would choose to pursue a seemingly better architecture when any rival can, legally, "steal" their design and use it.

Reference: (Intel Dual Core) US Patent # 6898690
(AMD 64 + INTEL EM64T instructions) US Patent # 6879526
(AMD Dual Core) US Pantent # ???????

-Patent Nerd
 
iirc, amd and intel have a strange contract where they can share eachother's patents.
 
fuelvolts said:
Hey all,

I'm a legal student at Texas A&M University and I came across a relatively disturbing (from the POV of a patent lawyer wannabe) fact: AMD has neither been granted, nor filed for a patent (atleast in the US anyways) for their dual core chips.

I have been looking through pages of patents on dual core from Intel and pages of 64 bit patents from AMD (with AMD approved Intel EM64T amendments).

Why do you all think that AMD would choose to pursue a seemingly better architecture when any rival can, legally, "steal" their design and use it.

Reference: (Intel Dual Core) US Patent # 6898690
(AMD 64 + INTEL EM64T instructions) US Patent # 6879526
(AMD Dual Core) US Pantent # ???????

-Patent Nerd
Click to expand...
I think it comes down to this. Some things are patented for the wrong reasons. The makers of the Mach 3 razor make much more money off of replacement blades. Hell, I think they loose money on the "base" or razor handle. So what did they do to stop people from using cheap replacements in their razors? They patented the way the razor-head attaches to the handle by making some overly complicated custom attachment mechanism. BAM! No more competition.

AMD trying to patent the little peices of the dual-core tech to stop someone from copying them is the wrong reason, and further, gives them nothing. It's not like Intel and AMD invented dual-core. Sun and IBM have had dual-core chips out for ages. Any company make make a dual core processor, and any company can do a good job. So why does Intel want to patent some of their tech? Maybe to stop competition.. maybe because they actually did somthing inovative.. Maybe just because they can. But really. I wouldn't be shocked, surprised, or worried at all by the patent situation. No one is going to storm in and magically clone their CPU. It would be a very hard thing to do.
 
That is true, but their is no AMD request to join Intel's Dual Core patent, like there is Intel to join AMD64 patent.

If Intel just "slapped" two cores together like many say, and AMD uses a completely new design, that design calls for a new patent, which AMD does not have.

I just dont want AMDs technology stolen from a third company (New Cyrix DC Extreme w00t Edition)

Those guys know what they are doing, it is just strange they would leave their technology open like that.
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
iirc, amd and intel have a strange contract where they can share eachother's patents.
Click to expand...
Ahhhh there's the real reason AMD has no patents on this. If they patent it, Intel gets to use the design. If they don't mention it and keep it a secret, they can keep the superior dual-core tech to themselves.
 
fuelvolts said:
That is true, but their is no AMD request to join Intel's Dual Core patent, like there is Intel to join AMD64 patent.

If Intel just "slapped" two cores together like many say, and AMD uses a completely new design, that design calls for a new patent, which AMD does not have.

I just dont want AMDs technology stolen from a third company (New Cyrix DC Extreme w00t Edition)

Those guys know what they are doing, it is just strange they would leave their technology open like that.
Click to expand...
Depends on the tech. Some things are just common knowledge. You don't have to come up with a layout that has never been used before and get a patent to make a good dual-core CPU. Maybe AMD just picked some of the best aspects of already available architectures to make their dual-core chips.

Kind of ranting, but I just don't see why one needs to use patentable ideas to make a good chip. There is enough stuff in public domain to do a good job most of the time.
 
visaris said:
Ahhhh there's the real reason AMD has no patents on this. If they patent it, Intel gets to use the design. If they don't mention it and keep it a secret, they can keep the superior dual-core tech to themselves.
Click to expand...

That could be true, but the US Library of Congress requires that all technologies that are liscensed by the FTC (all consumer goods) must be accompanied by either a pending patent or an existing one.

The SEC would also be on their tail (AMD's), wondering what they were hiding. Unless they have "connections" with those two agencies, a patent is mandatory. Strange....
 
visaris said:
Kind of ranting, but I just don't see why one needs to use patentable ideas to make a good chip. There is enough stuff in public domain to do a good job most of the time.
Click to expand...

I agree, but that is what makes the field so interesting (atleast for me :cool: )
 
visaris said:
Maybe AMD just picked some of the best aspects of already available architectures to make their dual-core chips.
Click to expand...
from what i can tell, this is exactly what they did. everything that was needed for dual core has been there since the clawhammer except for that extra core. :p
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
iirc, amd and intel have a strange contract where they can share eachother's patents.
Click to expand...

This is true. Thats how Intel got x86-64 so quickly.

(cf)Eclipse said:
from what i can tell, this is exactly what they did. everything that was needed for dual core has been there since the clawhammer except for that extra core. :p
Click to expand...

Dual core Clawhammer would have been awesome :(
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
dual sSOI fx-55's anyone? that would be a nice toasty 200w! :D
Click to expand...

Hahahhaa, that would be crazy. I imagine they could get away with dual 1.4v 2.6ghz claws, though. 181W is easy to dissipate right? :D
 
i dont think intel has the gonads to give up the fsb for the HTT. that would be admitting that someone else did somethin better than them.
 
no actually from what I understand that is not a true statment. The reason is AMD is using hypertransport which has a whole orginization well sorta. (Hypertransport consortium or something or another its called) intel will not adopt hypertransport and would take its own steps and probably is taking its own steps to make something like it. It is possible that if intel would join, "it would not work out in Intels interests".

(I am talking from past conversations so I could be TOTALLY off) however, I am pretty sure that intel has looked and denied hypertransport technology for a reason. (even though it may not be a good, or may be great reason for all I know)
 
Its the same reason that you dont see patents on other things, if they patent it, they have to outline how it works, and they dont want to give their research away, thats what IP laws are for, and as far as things needing a patent for fcc approval, what about really obvious stuff, Im pretty certain that sony/motorola and the like dont have patents on thier phones, yet they get FCC approval
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top