Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!apple!amdcad!mozart.amd.com!positron!brian
From: brian@positron.amd.com (Brian McMinn)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: AMD vs. Intel Arbitration
Message-ID: <1990Oct11.214112.1392@mozart.amd.com>
Date: 11 Oct 90 21:41:12 GMT
Sender: usenet@mozart.amd.com (Usenet News)
Reply-To: brian@positron.AMD.COM (Brian McMinn)
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., Austin, Texas
Lines: 29

Partial results of the arbitration between AMD and Intel over the
breach of the 1982 Technology Agreement were announced today:

[condensed from an AMD press announcement]

Judge Phelps' opinion described Intel's conduct as "a classic example
of a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, preaching
good faith but practicing duplicity."
...
the Arbitrator [Phelps] characterized Intel's conduct as "extortion."
...
The Arbitrator also ruled that Intel engaged in multiple breaches of
the agreement when it failed to transfer to AMD updates on
manufacturing packages on the 80286 microprocessor in the mid-1980s.
Judge Phelps concluded that information transferred by Intel during
1986 was "deliberately incomplete, deliberately indecipherable and
deliberately unusable by AMD engineers."
...
Notable among the [issues where AMD failed to make its case] was the
Arbitrator's ruling that Intel had no obligation to accept five
specific products either proposed of developed by AMD.

For more info:  John Greenagel (408) 749-3310

---
   Brian McMinn                 brian.mcminn@amd.com
   Advanced Micro Devices       N5PSS
   Austin, Texas                1-(512)-462-5389
"You can't leap a chasm in two jumps."