laszlojust a mistake..i didn't see it

But a good mistake... in a way! :roll:

laszloyou don't get the point

nvidia don't need x86 license ,is enough to buy 51% via shares;if they leave via as it is the licence remains at via but nviadia can force via to produce whatever they want... including cpu's ..

So they are making CPU's now, and if Nvidia FORCES them to make CPU's it will be like manufacturing RAPE!!!!!! Or not.

But WITHOUT access to the Intel IP, for all purposes and measures if Nvidia controls 51% they don't control the licanse granted by Intel. They simply sit on the shareholders board and have a majority voting interest, and may or may not decide what direction the compnay takes from there. I know in movies if you own 51% you own the company, however it is simply not true. If they own the controlling interest they still have to answer to the other 49% owners.

Quoted from wiseGeek

""Controlling interest is a situation where one entity holds more than half of the voting shares of stock issued by a corporation. In general, controlling interests place the single entity in a position where even if all other shareholders vote in opposition to a decision supported by the investor with a majority of voting shares, their collective strength will not be sufficient to alter the decision. In most cases, a controlling interest is considered to be present when a single investor owns in excess of half of the shares of stock currently in circulation.

In some instances, controlling interest may require something more than simply holding a majority of voting stock. Depending on the articles of incorporation and bylaws of a given company, a two-thirds majority vote of shareholders may be required in order to approve a decision. If that is the case, an investor who owned just over half of the outstanding shares would not be able to control the outcome alone. He or she would require the support of at least enough of the other investors to achieve a two thirds vote in favor of the issue.

In one sense, controlling interest may also be present when a single investor owns at least 34% of the voting stock currently in circulation. This is true when a two-thirds majority vote is required to approve an issue that is put before the shareholders. Without winning the support of the single investor who controls the 34% of shares, there is no way to achieve that majority and the issue will be defeated. From this perspective, an investor can be considered both a minority investor and still have controlling interest, in that nothing is likely to pass without his or her support.

Having a controlling interest in a given company is a model that many corporations use to ensure that control of the company remains in the hands of the founders or owners. The number and type of shares issued to other investors is carefully balanced with the number and type of voting shares retained by the owners, so that they always have a significant say in any decision that impacts the profitability of the company. In addition, maintaining this type of controlling interest tends to keep the corporation safeguarded from corporate raiders who may wish to acquire a controlling interest and begin to dismantle the company for profit.""


This just allows Intel to pull the licanse for any measure they deem to be a breach of contract. Again, Nvidia will NOT be able to just step in and make X86 CPU's anymore than ATI could make any. They WILL be able to incorperate their IP into VIA and allow VIA to make the other side of the solution, but if VIA were ever shown, hinted, or breathed the Intel IP the wrong way Intel would sue them for everything including gold teeth.

How much do x86 licences go for? Seriously, you'd think it would be cheaper to buy a license from Intel than to buy a whole corporation.

Intel wants to never give one out again, remember both these licanses were given when they had production issues, and both companies were seen as a supplier and not competition. The only keep them going as they have not violated the terms of use, and keep Intel from getting sued too hard for a monopoly.

all this x86 license stuff recently is really interesting stuff. is there a big ass article(s) that would shed some more light on this? i pick up the general idea but i'd like to actually understand it fully.

No more than what you can google, and what I remember from the orgins of AMD and Cyrix.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrix

Start there, and move through them, Intel, the X86 and chips following such as the 386, 486, and other revisions. Remember this was a time where computers were first moving from huge building sized devices to desktop machines to help with word processing, data entry, and a few basic tasks, but that save large companies millions in a time where money had worth.


Token Ring, was the unnamed precursor to our modern day CAN (Controlelr Area Network) that cars, trucks and much else use. Ahh old PC stuff....

thx, it's quite late but i have that bookmarked for some leisure reading tomorrow. i can't ever learn enough about computers lol stuff is like crack for me:laugh: plus being 17 and grounded gotta have something to do

SteevoIntel wants to never give one out again, remember both these licanses were given when they had production issues, and both companies were seen as a supplier and not competition. The only keep them going as they have not violated the terms of use, and keep Intel from getting sued too hard for a monopoly.

I think if this ever went to court, Intel would be forced to make the base x86 instruction set public domain. Simply by requiring licensing, they are creating a monopoly (almost all consumer software runs on an x86 base). Maybe that's why Intel is so careful with it--they know they are walking a very fine line.

tkpenaltyNvidia is plain stupid if they don't realise that they're probably going to lose that x86 liscense if they buy VIA. I can tell they'll:

1. Shut VIA down
2. Try to make x86 cpus but fail because of liscensing infringements

Guys all the decisions really aren't in Nvidia's own interests, but the Shareholders.

agreed , nvidia forget cpu's if you want keep on nvidia name

is not it interesting though, AMD aquired ATI and that made a company that had great experience with GPU and CPU manufacturing. Now Nvidia may attempt to aquire VIA which has experience with CPU manu. I wonder what they would want it for???? i couldn't see them producing CPU's to compete with Intel or AMD off the bat, Maybe it would be to get into mobile devices? isn't that what via does with most of their chips? they're for mobile and low powered devices?

You guys still don't get it.


Nvidia can buy all it wants to, it cannot get a X86 licanse through purchase. However if they DO control the company and prove they have not infringed they can intorducer their IP into VIA going them a jump on intel, and allowing them to produce better CPU's and or a systems on a chip.

VIA from what I have seen has not ventured much into the X64 relm, so their intent up front must be to make either integrated devices, or to used this for some smaller systemf to accelerate the chipsets and possabily lighter CUDA clients.

VIA Nano is AMD64 native, and in their segment they have a nice performance, so it still does sense for a money forced agreement for nVidia, I think.