Yes they would because it's a cross licensing agreement. Intel licences their x86 IP and AMD licences their x64. The agreement on IP sharing is void if either company changes hands it's one of the big reasons why AMD that has been struggling for years hasn't been bought.
Cross licensing on what? AMD had (has ) a basic, classic x86 license. Intel handed a couple of those out long ago. The cross licensing is probably written for what goes on top ( augmentations of x86). Some AMD additions and some Intel additions with each track each other on the stuff layered on top. That is cross licensed. The old , "grandfather", license could easily still have the same terms. There is also likely more clear 3rd party foundry licensing terminology ( since both Intel and AMD are doing more of that now. AMD solely doing it. Intel just dipping baby toe in. )
So Intel can use x86_64 and AMD gets all of he AVX stuff. Virtualization stuff swapped both ways as needed. The goal is to keep up a dual source platform.
The layered on top licensing had not reason to put a change of ownership clause into it. AMD gets sold and Intel still has rights to the layered on top stuff. They don't need a grandfather license because they own it. It is only a poison pill for one side. There is absolutely ZERO rational reason why Intel would sign an agreement that crushed themselves. AMD didn't really have choice with their relatively weak position technologically ( an layered on top augment to someone else's core technology. ) and financially ( so 'sell' x86_64 to get access to AVX et. al. ). There is
nothing in the law that cross licensing agreements have to be 100% bilateral. They very often are not (e.g., one side having to make payments while the other side doesn't. Terms that are limited in one side with respect to 3rd parties, etc. )
[doublepost=1479501373][/doublepost]
x86 is key to computing. The world is locked-in.
No, it isn't. Smartphones computers x86 is hardly present. Really big iron boxes . No lock-in. You are trying to narrow down computing just to classic PC form factors. That isn't computing. Windows isn't.
It is likely trying to nail down the Mac market subset to being a market and then applying monopoly rules to it. It is a submarket of a larger market.
P.S. Note that AMD even with serve cash limitations is still pursuing ARM based CPUs. Both indicative that computing isn't solely x86 based and that they do need a fall back CPU architecture if did get bought out.
