EXHIBIT 99.2

                      IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                    FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


INTEL,

                   Plaintiff

               V.                            NO.  C 90-20237  WAI


ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES,

                   Defendants.


_______________________________/




                                 JURY VERDICT
                                 ------------
 
                                SPECIAL VERDICT
                                ---------------

  We, the jury in the above-entitled case, find, by a preponderance of the
evidence, the following special verdict on the questions submitted to us:

  ANSWER QUESTION NO. 1 FIRST. 

QUESTION NO. 1:
- ---------------

  DID AMD prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the disputed language, 
"microcodes contained in Intel microcomputers and peripheral products sold by 
Intel," as used in the 1976 Agreement and as reasonably interpreted by the 
parties, grants rights to microcode contained in Intel microprocessors and 
peripheral products like a math co-processor?

  Answer "yes" or "no."

  ANSWER: Yes [X]   No [_]



SPECIAL VERDICT FORM





 
QUESTION NO. 2:
- ---------------

  Did Intel prove by a preponderance of the evidence that in 1982 the parties 
did not agree as to the meaning of the disputed language: "microcodes contained 
in Intel microcomputers and peripheral products sold by Intel"?

  Answer "yes" or "no."

  ANSWER:  Yes [_]  No [X]


  PLEASE HAVE YOUR FOREPERSON DATE AND SIGN THIS FORM.


Dated: 3/10/94      Foreperson: /s/Paula B. Hoelker-Williams
                                ----------------------------



SPECIAL VERDICT FORM
                                                                          Page 2