GlobalFoundries sues IBM for flogging 'chip secrets to Intel, Rapidus'

GlobalFoundries today said it is suing IBM, accusing Big Blue of licensing chip-making know-how to Intel and foundry upstart Rapidus when it had no right to do so. GlobalFoundries is also seeking an injunction that may derail Intel and Rapidus' roadmaps. In a lawsuit filed in a New York City federal court, GlobalFoundries …

[Snowy]

Big enought

Big enough to know better or think they can get away with it?

>GF thinks it should be the one doing the licensing as owner of the tech.

Should not effect either Intel or Rapidus' foundry plans to much if they can get GF to do a licensing deal with them?

[luis river]

IBM great damage to GFS ??

Judge it had some work about to clear up contratc of sale and purchase, but infameus behavior by IBM dont have pardon for that : GlobalFoundries alleges that IBM has been poaching GlobalFoundries talent, and is asking the court to "end the unlawful recruitment efforts.

[IGotOut]

Re: IBM great damage to GFS ??

ChatGPT has a newer version you can use now. Feel free to try it out.

[luis river]

Re: IBM great damage to GFS ??

Excuse me, I am old man, the first I saw ChatGPT, I think than "G" it is aluded to movement gay.

[Zola]

Re: IBM great damage to GFS ??

I got halfway through and started thinking "has amanfrommars got a new handle..."

[Peter Gathercole]

2015 is a long time ago in tech, especially when it appears that IBM did not sell of their chip R&D labs. to Global Foundries.

I think it will all depend on the wording of the contract of sale. If it is the 2nm gate-all-around technology, then chances are that it did not exist in 2015, so it will probably revolve around what was detailed in the contract for derivative technologies.

There may also be something in any time-based exclusivity, which has probably expired now. In addition, as far as I remember, IBM claimed that GF were in breach of contract over late delivery of Power9+, or was it Power10, and the associated z technologies, which caused IBM to look around for other foundries to make their chips. In order for other foundries to build these chips using the designs, they would have to be given details of the processes used to create them.

In my view, this probably means that there were clauses in the contract that allowed IBM to move manufacturing to someone other than GF, especially if there was a breach of contract. IBM has enough good lawyers to not have some get-out clause once exclusivity had passed or the contract was breached.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except the manufacturing process for those chips would have been based around the GF process. If IBM wanted to use another foundry they would have to work with their process and alter their designs accordingly. Or are you suggesting that IBM were having GF build a foundry for the power cpu?

[Roger Kynaston]

lawyers "kerching"

Clearly we don't know if the parties tried to resolve this without recourse to litigation but this business most of use commentards work in seems to be way too fond of taking each other to court. There are only ever one set of winners from that sort of thing.

[Snowy]

Re: lawyers "kerching"

Lawyers are going to be involved but it is most likely to be better if they are doing contract and licensing rather than litigation.