Ask HN: Could Qualcomm Buy Intel?

18 pointsposted 13 hours ago
by gigatexal

Item id: 41611018

21 Comments

Kubuxu

10 hours ago

AFAIK Intel and AMD have cross-licensing deals for x86 and AMD64 which become invalid in case of acquisition, on the side that gets acquired. This means that you cannot acquire rights to manufacture x64 by acquiring either of them.

unsnap_biceps

9 hours ago

That feels so anti-competitive that I wonder if it would hold up in court.

croes

9 hours ago

The patents expired April 2021

Kubuxu

9 hours ago

Don’t worry they wrote 50-500 more of them.

ColonelPhantom

9 hours ago

I believe most newer x86_64 patents are held by Intel (e.g. AVX). As such if Intel is taken over they would still hold them, right?

dchest

12 hours ago

VMWare is owned by Broadcom.

gigatexal

12 hours ago

Dangit. I get them mixed up. I’m not an analyst. Frick my mistake.

gigatexal

12 hours ago

This whole post makes no sense I think now. I was thinking about Broadcom. Dangit.

user

9 hours ago

[deleted]

tester756

8 hours ago

There's SHITTON of various rumors about Intel because they're during biggest transformation in decades and they're at their low point.

Buy their stock and forget about it for next 5-6 years

IshKebab

8 hours ago

Terrible advice. You don't know if they're at their low point. Their low point could be 0.

greenthrow

10 hours ago

No way this would go through even if it made sense for Qualcomm, which I'm not sure it does.

bell-cot

13 hours ago

Definite Non-Expert Opinions:

From a quick peek (Yahoo! Finance web site), Q has about 2X the market cap of I, so it's plausible-ish there.

Q looks to be a US company, so probably no "can't sell America's critical technology companies to foreigners" veto from the US Govt.

I don't know what the anti-trust situation would look like...but the US Govt. has some history of blatently ignoring such things when they think something is vital to their interests.

Huge question in my mind: Why would Q pay that kind of money? (Yahoo! sez I's market cap is ~$93 billion, and companies are usually bought at a substantial premium to that.) I is in an extremely complex business, and seems to be in seriously deep do-do. Sure, on paper, Q could get their hands on all sorts of awesome assets from buying I. But, on paper, the Titanic and her contents were still worth a fabulous fortune an hour after her infamous bump in the night.

Speculation: Talk about Q buying I is just a means to an end. Test the waters. Pour some blood into them, to see what's attracted to the struggling I. Check whether futile-looking struggles and more bad news could further tank I's market cap. Q might consider buying I, if the price was dirt cheap - but mostly they hope to buy the specific parts of I which they really want, after the sharks tear I into pieces.

jmclnx

9 hours ago

I think Qualcomm wants Intel to get on the US Federal $ gravy train, or maybe a bigger slice of the pie. PLus Intel's patents.

If Qualcomm pulls this off, I would not be surprised if Intel pieces are sold off, with Qualcomm keeping the patents and enough of Intel to get Fed $.

osnium123

10 hours ago

The US government (CFIUS) had blocked the sale of Qualcomm to Broadcom, even though Broadcom had agreed to move HQs back to the US because they were concerned that Broadcom would kill the work that Qualcomm was doing on 5G and beyond networks

christkv

10 hours ago

The EU would probably block this

deepfriedchokes

10 hours ago

As someone else said in another thread, if it benefits US tech China will squash it.

ipsum2

10 hours ago

Big tech mergers seem to be halted with the current SEC chair. Maybe next year if the administration changes.

kayo_20211030

9 hours ago

I don't think the SEC is a barrier. It's more likely to be the FTC. But, we'll have to see what's its board's constitution is after November. A formal proposal - they're none now - will probably come after that when the composition of the board is known. However, no matter who's in the chair at the FTC, a merger might still be scotched on national security grounds.

ko_pivot

10 hours ago

I think it’s more of an FTC issue. SEC governs public markets not M&A anti-trust.