The truth behind ATI and Intel's cross licences

In the course of discussing those "relationships", we also found out why ATI and Intel signed a cross licensing agreement for the Pentium 4 chip.

Here's the Intel press release, and ATI's - which dated 10 January 2001, can be found here.

These releases are full of the weasel words insisted on on such occasions such as "this will help ATI and Intel to incorporate new features and technologies into their products, significantly benefiting their customers," and the like.

We now believe the truth is not only very different from the weasel words, but explains why in the ATU release is printed: "This agreement also settles pending litigation between the two companies".

And it also sheds light on why Nvidia doesn't yet have a Pentium 4 licence and why SIS "settled" with Intel last week on the 533MHz system bus.

According to our informant, very close to ATI's plans, Intel stepped on the Canadian firm's graphics toes very badly indeed in the 3D area, and faced serious litigation as a result. This is because there are, in our contact's words "many grey areas" of PC development and ATI and Nvidia have, in the last few years, gone hammer and tong against each other to grab graphics patents as part of their competitive fight.

Unfortunately for Intel, this is also the reason why Nvidia has refused to allow itself to be drawn by the siren words of corporate lawyers at the Megacorporation which has its HQ in Mission Boulevard.

Another source, from Nvidia in Taiwan, told us last Thursday that his firm had categorically refused to sign a document placed before its corporate lawyers by Intel, for fear of ending up being compromised in the future over these PC "grey areas".

It seems, however, that the chipset SIS has signed some Intel documents and now finds itself in thrall to Santa Clara over such trifling matters as the 533MHz bus which most others seem to agree do not need any licences at all.

Where does this leave ATI? It seems to us that Intel's future graphics plans leave little room for the Canadian firm in the integrated graphics sphere. It is using Via and ALI south bridges for its up and coming chipsets, and next year stands to see its own chipsets dwarfed by "iGFX" products from the chip giant.

Perhaps, in these circumstances, it will be worth waiting until Via and Intel have their legal discussions in four different territories to iron out what Chipzilla owns and what it doesn't.

In the meantime, perhaps both Nvidia and Via are lucky in resisting with all of their might the temptation to sign a "cross licensing document" which could turn around and scupper their future development plans. µ