Intel 1994 Annual Report Download - page 9

At December 31, 1994, Intel also leased 21 major facilities in the U.S. totaling approximately 609,000 square feet and 11 facilities in other
countries totaling approximately 246,000 square feet. These leases expire at varying dates through 2002, including renewals at the option of
Intel.
Intel believes that its existing facilities are suitable and adequate, and the productive capacity in such facilities is in general being utilized. Intel
has other facilities available that it can equip to meet future demand as such demand materializes. These include 4.5 million square feet of
building space under various stages of construction in the United States and abroad for manufacturing and administrative purposes.
(A) Includes an idle, 131,000-square-
foot facility formerly utilized for wafer fabrication and administration, which is currently for sale. (B) The
lease on a portion of the land used for these facilities expires in 2032.
(C) Leases on land expire in 1998, 2002 and 2008. (D) This facility is currently for sale.
PAGE 11
ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
A. LITIGATION
Intel vs. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. ("AMD") U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (C90-20237) - Intel287 Copyright
Infringement Suit
In a letter dated March 23, 1990 from AMD, AMD asserted a right to copy and distribute Intel-copyrighted microcode in an AMD 80C287
math coprocessor. In response to the letter, Intel filed a suit on April 23, 1990 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
alleging that AMD infringed Intel's copyright on the microcode for the Intel287(TM) math coprocessor. In its defense, AMD claimed a license
to copy and distribute Intel copyrighted microcode based on a clause in a 1976 patent cross-
license agreement which gives AMD the right "...to
copy microcodes contained in Intel microcomputers and peripheral products sold by Intel."
On January 11, 1995, in connection with the settlement of various legal matters between the two companies, the parties agreed to dismiss all
claims, counterclaims and defenses raised in this action. AMD has agreed to abide by the terms of the preliminary injunction entered August 7,
1990, and Intel has granted AMD a license to Intel code contained in Intel287, Intel386 and Intel486 microprocessors. AMD has agreed that it
has no right to copy the microcode in the Pentium processor and future microprocessors.
Intel vs. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. ("AMD") U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (C92-20039) - Intel386 Copyright
Infringement Suit
On October 9, 1991, Intel filed another copyright infringement suit against AMD, alleging that AMD copied the Intel386 microcode and a
control program which is stored in a programmable logic array.
On January 11, 1995, in connection with the settlement of various legal matters between the two companies, the parties agreed to dismiss all
claims, counterclaims and defenses raised in this action.
Intel vs. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. ("AMD") U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (C93-20301) - Intel486 Copyright
Infringement Suit
On April 28, 1993, the Company filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California covering numerous
copyright infringement claims on AMD's versions of Intel486 microprocessors.
On October 11, 1994, Judge Trumbull ruled that AMD is not licensed to copy or distribute the Company's 486 ICE(TM) system microcode,
and entered an injunction which prohibits AMD from shipping Am486s which contain the Company's 486 ICE system microcode after January
15, 1995.
On January 11, 1995, in connection with the settlement of various legal matters between the two companies, the parties agreed to dismiss all
claims, counterclaims and defenses raised in this action. The 486 ICE system microcode injunction will remain in effect, and AMD agreed to
pay Intel $58 million as settlement for past damages for its 486 ICE system microcode infringement. As part of the settlement, AMD will have
the right to use foundries for up to 20% of its Am486 production.
PAGE 12
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. ("AMD") vs. Intel Corporation U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (C91-20541) -
Antitrust Suit
On August 29, 1991, AMD filed a lawsuit against Intel in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that Intel
violated the Sherman Act by committing unlawful acts and conspiring with customers and distributors to secure and maintain monopoly