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 absurd prices for 50 series nvidia gpu’s
Unfortunately, a certain government(all three branches) could make things very difficult for AMD if they don’t play ball.
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.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.
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.
… *nowhere
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.
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.
Same reason when companies play the same game with consumers.
“Non transferable warranties and EULAs”
You’re not actually trying to paint that as somehow a good thing though, are you?
As specified in the term, that’s negotiated up front it doesn’t transfer. Not every contract stipulates that, and some do transfer… so there is precedence already.
