The Foundry company does not need Intel's OK - it is merely manufacturing parts. On the other hand the x86 license states that AMD can't outsource more than 20% of it's CPU production, so AMD design is operating in a very gray area.

While AMD has equal voting rights, they have a minority (44%) stake in the foundry company, so some may consider this to be outsourcing of CPU production. Think of it this way, if AMD owned a 1% stake in TSMC could they then say they are not outsourcing (had they gone that route)? 

The 44% stake vs equal voting is the gray area - AMD will claim they "control" the foundry company and thus are not outsourcing.and thus not violating the x86 license. However, others may argue a 44% equity stake is not a controlling interest.

The other hurdle which is not reported on much is apparently the good old boy network in NY state is on board with this and have no problem pasing the 1.2Bil NY fab subsidy on to the new company. 

Apparently the Dems in that state have no issue with the new company being incorporated OFFSHORE to avoid some US corporate taxes. Yes there are the same Democrats who rail about companies abusing corporate loopholes - I guess if it benefits their own home state those "principles" are for sale! (Thank you Schumer, Clinton, et al)

I've read that Intel is "studying" The Foundry Co. setup, but I haven't seen their final OK. Has Intel approved the deal? Also, are their any other hurdles? - such as National Security? Thanks, Erin

Yeow, thought DJIA might be last wound, yet luckily, by end of day, Alls Well.

Ultee' feels SO Much More competent Now & Sounds like AMD Flag is Rising to New Height, Leading Edge Processors & Chips. I'm Glad, As World+DOG Both Need AMD.
TS Drashek