I believe this is the agreement you're referring to and it looks like it applies even to a change in ownership of 50% of the company:

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/2488/000119312509236...

Does Apple even need to own a majority ownership to control the company? Couldn't they just purchase 49.9% of the company and set up the board of directors in their favor? With that much stake getting the company to do what you want it to do wouldn't be that difficult it seems.

Please. I buy AMD then Intel loses the 64 licensing rights which AMD owns.

That really sounds like a winning proposition for Apple, given that Intel's own 64-bit arches historically sucked.

> That really sounds like a winning proposition for Apple, given that Intel's own 64-bit arches historically sucked.

Yeah but for various reasons any usable amd64 CPU needs backwards compatibility with x86 - which, if Apple doesn't want to go the Fat Binary emulation approach again, requires that an Apple-bought AMD must achieve a licensing deal with Intel to maintain said compatibility.

Then again, Apple these days doesn't give a ... about BC anymore anyway, so they might as well go down that track and use only amd64.

That's true, but Intel has as much to lose as AMD if that cross-licensing deal is terminated. So I'd imagine that Intel would want to re-negotiate it with the new party, which is obviously a possibility.

You do realize that amd owns a lot of the x64 patents, not intel, right?

Yes, I do realize that. Which ought to have been clear from the use of the term 'cross-licensing', frankly.