9 ms·

AMD Responds to WSJ ‘Keys to the Kingdom’ Story

208 points by JackFaker 7y ago

yorwba 7y ago
Earlier HN thread on the WSJ article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20300100 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20300100
microcolonel 7y ago
This was my impression from the beginning, but I'm glad to hear it directly from AMD.
mizzack 7y ago
I'm sure the timing of this exposé (of a years-old story) has nothing to do with AMD's imminent release of a product that will seriously threaten if not outright beat Intel for years to come. FUD
- WrtCdEvrydy 7y ago
  Someone wanted to short some AMD.
- duxup 7y ago
  There's got to be a law or something where for a given thread there is some user who has a conspiracy theory about it.
  - mizzack 7y ago
    Conspiracies, eh https://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49#49 https://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49#49 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc._v._Intel_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc._v.... Full disclosure, I'm long $AMD ;)
    - duxup 7y ago
      Unless I'm misunderstanding aren't you just proving the point / following the usual example of proof people give of a conspiracy? Every conspiracy claim has some related story people point to and draw a line from. The claim is that the article was FUD. The fact that companies who are competitors can compete fiercely doesn't prove anything.
      - arcanus 7y ago
        > The fact that companies who are competitors can compete fiercely doesn't prove anything. The linked Wikipedia shows that Intel was convicted and fined for illegal anticompetitive measures against AMD. They were fined 1.25 billion dollars, a non-trivial sum. It is a factual statement that Intel has historically attempted to suppress AMD products through measures beyond competing on features alone. While this does not prove the original accusation, it is supporting evidence, and makes the statement more plausible.
        duxup 7y ago
        I don't think it makes anything more plausible. If there is zero proof of the claim, stuff that isn't proof ... still isn't proof. I feel like using your reasoning, you could argue ANYTHING is more plausible.
      - mizzack 7y ago
        Sure, saying there are ulterior motives to this story is a conspiracy theory. Without, say, video evidence of the author getting handed a bag of money by Bob Swan you're free to dismissively label it as such. Without more information we're left with: - Everything in the WSJ article was known years ago. - AMD is a week away from likely taking the x86 performance crown from Intel in nearly every metric. - The last time this happened, Intel engaged in outright illegal non-competitive behavior to preserve market share. >It's like what Lenin said... you look for the person who will benefit, and, uh, uh... You know what I'm trying to say...
        duxup 7y ago
- cf498 7y ago
  Also the Intel leak https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/c5nb01/amd_competitive_profile_where_we_go_toetotoe_why/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/c5nb01/amd_competitive...
duxup 7y ago
>The Wall Street Journal story omits important factual details, including the fact that AMD put significant protections in place to protect its intellectual property (IP) and prevent valuable IP from being misused or reverse engineered to develop future generations of processors. Without knowing what those protections are, I'm not sure we have learned much. Also the US government not objecting, I'm not sure changes the gist of the story does it?
- strawberryfan 7y ago
  The two key claims by AMD -- that they only transferred lower performing technology and that all the things were blessed by US government -- were cited nearly verbatim in the WSJ story. I can't find anything in the AMD statement that adds meaningfully to the case; it's a non-rebutting rebuttal. Whatever. If they really did unzip for the Chinese military as the WSJ claims then AMD will soon find itself competing with Chinese government subsidized derivatives of their IP and have next to no meaningful recourse with any governing authority.
- sambe 7y ago
  Without knowing what those protections are, we haven't learned much from either the story or the response. The gist of the story wasn't just that a lot was shared; it was that it was shared nefariously, borderline illegally, and it was all AMD's fault and intention. It essentially painted them as mercenary traitors. I admit, the original story does sound bad. But I'm also aware of how easy it is to paint such a picture, ando find it hard to believe the US Government couldn't have shut this down if it really wanted to.
  - btown 7y ago
    It's also reasonable to believe that the "government" is not all on the same page. Everything can be true: some officials were happy to greenlight the tech transfer at the beginning of the process, other parts of government found out and disagreed but their hands were tied, and amidst all of that AMD leadership firmly and rationally believes that it's not being traitorous to transfer tech of Gen N when China's desperately stuck on Gen N-2 and "state of the art" used by the US is Gen N+5.
m3kw9 7y ago
Transferring lower speed tech still could be a huge jump from what China had, the main point is architecture is hard to put a value to it. For what is known, maybe slower means lowering the hertz
- strawberryfan 7y ago
  > "could be a huge jump" ... "maybe slower means lowering the hertz" This is so painfully obvious it's sad that it has to be said out loud. There is no credible information about exactly what AMD means when they claim lower performance. Nothing meaningful is said about the nature of their 'protections.' And the fact that everything was supposedly blessed by all the various US government TLAs under the Obama administration is almost a confirmation of the WSJ lede; that this was yet another backdoor sellout of US tech to China.
  - simion314 7y ago
    >that this was yet another backdoor sellout of US tech to China what does this mean? It does not seem to be something secret or illegal.
- baybal2 7y ago
  Man, IC designers who work on state backed IC projects are given salaries significantly higher than that of designers at Intel and Apple. Otherwise they would not have a single chance to bring in anybody of an anymuch high calibre to China
draw_down 7y ago
I didn't keep up with this at the time, but in reading replies to the original story, it was pointed out that Chinese capital propped up AMD when it needed cash. If AMD was so crucial to American interests, how come no US investors stepped up? And, what did we think would happen?
georgeburdell 7y ago
AMD “laundered” IP through Chinese partnerships. The fact that the legal goalposts have moved since their partnership began does not absolve them of this fact. If China suddenly becomes massively more capable in X86 CPU’s, it will be obvious why
tinktank 7y ago
Hypothetical question: Let's say a news source writes a story that tanks a company's stock price and then, over the course of time the company is able to prove the story is false and/or the news source is unable to back up the story. Can the company sue the newspaper for damages?
- staticautomatic 7y ago
  I work in the law and I'm not 100% sure what the case law is on this but my guess is that if you could prove that they knew (or should have known) what they were publishing was false, then yes. First amendment lawyers please correct me if I'm wrong.
  - testvox 7y ago
    Yeah in general if the untrue statement was made without at least negligence then it will be protected. > Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true are generally treated the same as true statements; however, the court may inquire into the reasonableness of the belief. The degree of care expected will vary with the nature of the defendant: an ordinary person might safely rely on a single newspaper report, while the newspaper would be expected to carefully check multiple sources.
- nradov 7y ago
  Even if the company can prove that the newspaper engaged in libel it would be difficult to establish compensatory damages. Regardless of stock price changes, the company hasn't lost any assets. They might have a shot at getting legal fees plus some punitive damages depending on how egregious the newspaper's conduct was.
  - clhodapp 7y ago
    It would be the shareholders that would have grounds for a suit rather than the company itself, I would think.
  - yoz-y 7y ago
mrtweetyhack 7y ago
"AMD put significant protections in place to protect its intellectual property (IP) and prevent valuable IP from being misused or reverse engineered to develop future generations of processors". We no steal you IP. - China, Hehe.
aristophenes 7y ago
My understanding of the structure of the arrangement when I first heard about it was that it was designed to not transfer IP, but to allow China to make their own chip, in a manner of speaking, without actually having the important IP. Even ignoring national obligations, it would just be bad business to hand that over. "AMD put significant protections in place to protect its intellectual property (IP) and prevent valuable IP from being misused or reverse engineered to develop future generations of processors." That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if they got the IP anyway, just that wasn't the intention. AMD CEO Lisa Su made some comments a few weeks ago that the joint venture was already dead in the water and was just for one project only. I get the feeling AMD wasn't too happy about the way it all turned out.
rasz 7y ago
Intel did (probably forced by recent at the time $1B Qualcomm penalty in China) the very same thing with Atom IP, twice! https://www.anandtech.com/show/8061/this-is-huge-intel-enters-strategic-agreement-with-chinese-soc-maker-rockchip https://www.anandtech.com/show/8061/this-is-huge-intel-enter... http://linuxgizmos.com/intel-invests-1-5-billion-in-chinese-chip-designers/ http://linuxgizmos.com/intel-invests-1-5-billion-in-chinese-... Not only Intel gave away its CPU IP, it also "invested" $1.5B in Tsinghua Unigroup. Whats more last year they shared 5G modem IP with Unisoc, part of Tsinghua Unigroup holding.

208 points by JackFaker 7y ago

Earlier HN thread on the WSJ article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20300100 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20300100

microcolonel 7y ago

This was my impression from the beginning, but I'm glad to hear it directly from AMD.

mizzack 7y ago

I'm sure the timing of this exposé (of a years-old story) has nothing to do with AMD's imminent release of a product that will seriously threaten if not outright beat Intel for years to come. FUD

WrtCdEvrydy 7y ago
Someone wanted to short some AMD.
duxup 7y ago
There's got to be a law or something where for a given thread there is some user who has a conspiracy theory about it.
- mizzack 7y ago
  Conspiracies, eh https://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49#49 https://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49#49 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc._v._Intel_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc._v.... Full disclosure, I'm long $AMD ;)
  - duxup 7y ago
    Unless I'm misunderstanding aren't you just proving the point / following the usual example of proof people give of a conspiracy? Every conspiracy claim has some related story people point to and draw a line from. The claim is that the article was FUD. The fact that companies who are competitors can compete fiercely doesn't prove anything.
    - arcanus 7y ago
      > The fact that companies who are competitors can compete fiercely doesn't prove anything. The linked Wikipedia shows that Intel was convicted and fined for illegal anticompetitive measures against AMD. They were fined 1.25 billion dollars, a non-trivial sum. It is a factual statement that Intel has historically attempted to suppress AMD products through measures beyond competing on features alone. While this does not prove the original accusation, it is supporting evidence, and makes the statement more plausible.
      - duxup 7y ago
        I don't think it makes anything more plausible. If there is zero proof of the claim, stuff that isn't proof ... still isn't proof. I feel like using your reasoning, you could argue ANYTHING is more plausible.
    - mizzack 7y ago
      Sure, saying there are ulterior motives to this story is a conspiracy theory. Without, say, video evidence of the author getting handed a bag of money by Bob Swan you're free to dismissively label it as such. Without more information we're left with: - Everything in the WSJ article was known years ago. - AMD is a week away from likely taking the x86 performance crown from Intel in nearly every metric. - The last time this happened, Intel engaged in outright illegal non-competitive behavior to preserve market share. >It's like what Lenin said... you look for the person who will benefit, and, uh, uh... You know what I'm trying to say...
      - duxup 7y ago
cf498 7y ago
Also the Intel leak https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/c5nb01/amd_competitive_profile_where_we_go_toetotoe_why/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/c5nb01/amd_competitive...

duxup 7y ago

>The Wall Street Journal story omits important factual details, including the fact that AMD put significant protections in place to protect its intellectual property (IP) and prevent valuable IP from being misused or reverse engineered to develop future generations of processors. Without knowing what those protections are, I'm not sure we have learned much. Also the US government not objecting, I'm not sure changes the gist of the story does it?

strawberryfan 7y ago
The two key claims by AMD -- that they only transferred lower performing technology and that all the things were blessed by US government -- were cited nearly verbatim in the WSJ story. I can't find anything in the AMD statement that adds meaningfully to the case; it's a non-rebutting rebuttal. Whatever. If they really did unzip for the Chinese military as the WSJ claims then AMD will soon find itself competing with Chinese government subsidized derivatives of their IP and have next to no meaningful recourse with any governing authority.
sambe 7y ago
Without knowing what those protections are, we haven't learned much from either the story or the response. The gist of the story wasn't just that a lot was shared; it was that it was shared nefariously, borderline illegally, and it was all AMD's fault and intention. It essentially painted them as mercenary traitors. I admit, the original story does sound bad. But I'm also aware of how easy it is to paint such a picture, ando find it hard to believe the US Government couldn't have shut this down if it really wanted to.
- btown 7y ago
  It's also reasonable to believe that the "government" is not all on the same page. Everything can be true: some officials were happy to greenlight the tech transfer at the beginning of the process, other parts of government found out and disagreed but their hands were tied, and amidst all of that AMD leadership firmly and rationally believes that it's not being traitorous to transfer tech of Gen N when China's desperately stuck on Gen N-2 and "state of the art" used by the US is Gen N+5.

m3kw9 7y ago

Transferring lower speed tech still could be a huge jump from what China had, the main point is architecture is hard to put a value to it. For what is known, maybe slower means lowering the hertz

strawberryfan 7y ago
> "could be a huge jump" ... "maybe slower means lowering the hertz" This is so painfully obvious it's sad that it has to be said out loud. There is no credible information about exactly what AMD means when they claim lower performance. Nothing meaningful is said about the nature of their 'protections.' And the fact that everything was supposedly blessed by all the various US government TLAs under the Obama administration is almost a confirmation of the WSJ lede; that this was yet another backdoor sellout of US tech to China.
- simion314 7y ago
  >that this was yet another backdoor sellout of US tech to China what does this mean? It does not seem to be something secret or illegal.
baybal2 7y ago
Man, IC designers who work on state backed IC projects are given salaries significantly higher than that of designers at Intel and Apple. Otherwise they would not have a single chance to bring in anybody of an anymuch high calibre to China

draw_down 7y ago

I didn't keep up with this at the time, but in reading replies to the original story, it was pointed out that Chinese capital propped up AMD when it needed cash. If AMD was so crucial to American interests, how come no US investors stepped up? And, what did we think would happen?

georgeburdell 7y ago

AMD “laundered” IP through Chinese partnerships. The fact that the legal goalposts have moved since their partnership began does not absolve them of this fact. If China suddenly becomes massively more capable in X86 CPU’s, it will be obvious why

tinktank 7y ago

Hypothetical question: Let's say a news source writes a story that tanks a company's stock price and then, over the course of time the company is able to prove the story is false and/or the news source is unable to back up the story. Can the company sue the newspaper for damages?

staticautomatic 7y ago
I work in the law and I'm not 100% sure what the case law is on this but my guess is that if you could prove that they knew (or should have known) what they were publishing was false, then yes. First amendment lawyers please correct me if I'm wrong.
- testvox 7y ago
  Yeah in general if the untrue statement was made without at least negligence then it will be protected. > Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true are generally treated the same as true statements; however, the court may inquire into the reasonableness of the belief. The degree of care expected will vary with the nature of the defendant: an ordinary person might safely rely on a single newspaper report, while the newspaper would be expected to carefully check multiple sources.
nradov 7y ago
Even if the company can prove that the newspaper engaged in libel it would be difficult to establish compensatory damages. Regardless of stock price changes, the company hasn't lost any assets. They might have a shot at getting legal fees plus some punitive damages depending on how egregious the newspaper's conduct was.
- clhodapp 7y ago
  It would be the shareholders that would have grounds for a suit rather than the company itself, I would think.
- yoz-y 7y ago

mrtweetyhack 7y ago

"AMD put significant protections in place to protect its intellectual property (IP) and prevent valuable IP from being misused or reverse engineered to develop future generations of processors". We no steal you IP. - China, Hehe.

aristophenes 7y ago

My understanding of the structure of the arrangement when I first heard about it was that it was designed to not transfer IP, but to allow China to make their own chip, in a manner of speaking, without actually having the important IP. Even ignoring national obligations, it would just be bad business to hand that over. "AMD put significant protections in place to protect its intellectual property (IP) and prevent valuable IP from being misused or reverse engineered to develop future generations of processors." That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if they got the IP anyway, just that wasn't the intention. AMD CEO Lisa Su made some comments a few weeks ago that the joint venture was already dead in the water and was just for one project only. I get the feeling AMD wasn't too happy about the way it all turned out.

rasz 7y ago

Intel did (probably forced by recent at the time $1B Qualcomm penalty in China) the very same thing with Atom IP, twice! https://www.anandtech.com/show/8061/this-is-huge-intel-enters-strategic-agreement-with-chinese-soc-maker-rockchip https://www.anandtech.com/show/8061/this-is-huge-intel-enter... http://linuxgizmos.com/intel-invests-1-5-billion-in-chinese-chip-designers/ http://linuxgizmos.com/intel-invests-1-5-billion-in-chinese-... Not only Intel gave away its CPU IP, it also "invested" $1.5B in Tsinghua Unigroup. Whats more last year they shared 5G modem IP with Unisoc, part of Tsinghua Unigroup holding.