The outcome of such a court battle could only be guessed at, particularly since the public copy of the license agreement is rife with *****. I am not swearing in comment about the document, but pointing out that while the full version was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the version we get to look at, for confidentiality reasons, has many important areas replaced with five asterisks.
From what information is available, Intel could try to argue that AMD is undergoing a change of control (Section 6.2.b.7), or assigning the x86 license to a third party (Section 8). How well any of this would stick is highly questionable though; Mubadala will end up with less than 20% of AMD, while they would need at least 50% to trigger a change of control. Intel can also argue Change of Control if AMD’s assets or market value would increase by more than a third as a result of the transaction. To get around being found assigning their manufacturing rights, it appears that AMD has to treat TFC as a subsidiary.
The argument that Intel can’t cut off AMD’s x86 license without losing their license from AMD to make x86-64 chips because one cross-license agreement covers both doesn’t stand up. Section 6.2.a gives Intel the opportunity to terminate the agreement but hold on to their x86-64 license if they can find that AMD is in “material breach” of the license, such as an making an assignment. We also look at if Intel could terminate the license because AMD is undergoing a Change of Control, on the off chance Intel would be willing to risk its x86-64 license.
Using what we know about the planned Foundry Company transactions, we’ll try to see if there is any real legal threat to AMD, at least based on the public parts of the x86 license. First we see if they are undergoing a Change of Control, then we determine if TFC will be treated as a subsidiary of AMD under the license.