Transmeta Sues Intel for Patent Infringement 161
Cr0w T. Trollbot writes "Today Transmeta filed suit against Intel for patent infringement. From the article: 'The suit [...] alleges that Intel infringed upon ten of Transmeta's patents. The patents cover computer architecture and power efficiency technologies.' Transmeta offered a low-power x86 processor until last year which used Transmeta's vaunted 'code morphing' software."
Go figure (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Go figure - too clever (Score:5, Interesting)
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, here's the whole thing:
Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, manage.
Re:Go figure - too clever (Score:4, Interesting)
Woody Allen.
Those who can, do.
Those who can't, teach.
Those who can't teach, teach gym.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've got nothing against being snide, just make sure you know what you're talking about first.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Go figure - too clever (Score:5, Informative)
And it's a parody of Aristotle: "Those that know, do. Those that understand, teach."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but ... Intel? \
I actually dearly wish that they win an injunction and Intel won't sell any processors. For a couple months. Halting what amounts to the majority of the global computational hardware infrastructure. "Sorry, we can't fix your computer because of that obscure IT-IP company". They should have the reserves to survive that -- but what do you think is going to happen to Transmeta?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"If you can't beat 'em, sue 'em."
Re: (Score:2)
"sue 'em"
Re: (Score:2)
Company A is a flyspec on the map and company B just buys them and fires everyone. Problem solved.
They still exist? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You said it (Score:4, Insightful)
"Last year, Transmeta laid off 67 employees in a restructuring plan aimed to focus more heavily on IP and the phase out its less profitable processors." (emphasis added)
Patent portfolio operation?!? Whatever do you mean??
Re:You said it (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
One portion of the organisation delivers the most amazing CPU Intel has done since the 8086 whi
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Ideas should be free. If Transmeta doesn't create any products anymore, why shouldn't anybody else be able to do it? And even if Transmeta was still creating products, why should that exclude others from using good ideas in their products too? "In
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So if Bertram Hansen Inc made a cure for hiv *and* cancer, and wanted $200000 per cure in patent fees, you'd think that was right? Because it kept capitalism going?
Yes, I would be happy. (Score:2)
If you fail to sell true innovation then you should allow, even help, others to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Translation: What they created, wasn't really great, not even good enough for competing in a free market.
Ehrmm, yes it does. If you don't have the ability to compete in the market, you should go bankrupt like everyone else. Or do you want to have som
Re: (Score:2)
Even worse... FTA:
Last year, Transmeta laid off 67 employees in a restructuring plan aimed to focus more heavily on IP and the phase out its less profitable processors.
I, for one, welcome our new IP troll overlords.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wish transmeta would be affordable, right now they are just far too expensive compared to via or amd geode, and all of these listed chips have extremely low power requirements. They are ideal for non performance laptops, pvr's, file storage servers. Less heat, less noise, less chances of the machine burnin
Sigh... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
GPL3 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The guys a Transmeta are doing the best use of patents I can think of.
They failed at developing a product, for more than just technological reasons, and now they want to get paid for stuff they invented and other people supposedly implemented.
That is how patents are supposed to work, there is no failure.
The problem is that patents as a whole, even when they do what they are supposed to do, and nobody abuses the system, just don't work well for the community.
It's would be great that Tran
And the people here will wonder ... (Score:2)
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/11/13232
Nothing to see here, move along... (Score:2, Insightful)
Most likely outcome: settlement involving a small amount of money and a cross-licensing agreement. No judge in their right mind would grant an injunction against shi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
the only thing i can think is that if i remember right.. Intel owns the ARM
or i am wrong.. not sure
Re:Nothing to see here, move along... (Score:5, Informative)
Doesn't make much sense to go after a business partner...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I used to think they were cool... (Score:5, Interesting)
FTA: "The complaint charges that Intel has infringed and is infringing Transmeta's patents by making and selling a variety of microprocessor products, including at least Intel's Pentium III, Pentium 4, Pentium M, Core and Core 2 product lines."
They sure are going back a long ways...
FTA: "Last year, Transmeta laid off 67 employees in a restructuring plan aimed to focus more heavily on IP and the phase out its less profitable processors."
So they went out of the business of actually making anything (presumably because their products were not competitive in the market place), so NOW they turn to their IP to make any money. I really don't know if they've got a valid case or not, but they certainly seem to be trolling.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I used to think they were cool... (Score:5, Informative)
Patents last the term and do not fade in that way. They are full effect for 20 years.
Copyrights fade 70+ years after you die (and getting longer...).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Usually for smaller companies patent issues never even get into courts, e.g.
IP company: Stop using our IP
Victim: Okies.
Tom
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
An injuction, which would stop Intel selling their current processors. They would also have to negotiate a license for the past processors that violate the patent, which would result in considerable back pay.
As Intel would never consider stopping selling their processors, they are most likely to license the patent from Transmeta, which is much $$ for the vo
Re: (Score:2)
Bah, patents give Morbo gas.
Tom
Re: (Score:2)
My money is on Intel on this one. I bet they can show Prior Art*, even if not patented, which would basically guarentee them the ability to continue using the IP witout royalty.
-nB
* Or they will be able to show a logical and
Re: (Score:2)
Knowledge is an element in whether or not the infringement was willful. If a court finds an infringement willful, damages can be trebled. Otherwise, knowledge that a competitor has a patent over a technology is irrelevant (though independent invention is useful if you want to argue obviousness). It's your responsibility as a business to avoid infringing u
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you pay the maintenance fees. I don't have the number at hand but something like 60% of all patents expire after 6 years, when the first maintenance fees are due. If it's not close to 60%, it's still a surprisingly large portion.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why the term "IP" is bad.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you invent something and can't market it, but someone else does so, you have grounds for suit.
It's not like they just filed patent hoping someone else would build it, which is a clear abuse of the patent intent.
Re:I used to think they were cool... (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know how long this business model will survive things like OpenCores - it's even cheaper to download the HDL for a chip for free than buy it - but they may well be successful for a while.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This has happened many times in history and the 'Ford's in those cases have had to either pay up to the inventor or had really good lawyers.
That's what patents are for. Why don't you go file a few of your own instead of being pissed for no reason?
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need patents for that. (Score:2)
If somebody else came with a similar device on his own, society should not be punishing them, they should be encouraged for independent innovation.
They also could have a hard time with the timing (Score:2)
To me it just looks like pure greed, same as BeOS and MS. Come up with an idea, fail to think idea all the way through, fail at the market, blame someone else, sue them.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the new business plan; use your employees to build up your IP portfolio, toss them and then make money from the IP.
Re: (Score:2)
They were cool. (Score:2)
It might've been even cooler if it had been possible to bypass their "code morphing software" and natively compile VLIW code. As it is, this little sub-notebook was effectively an x86 PDA. It was insanely small -- 10" screen, about a half inch thick (the whole notebook, not just the screen). It could open completely flat -- unfold unti
Re: (Score:2)
We know that "the marketplace" is frequently an impediment to new and better technology, with entrenched players having the ability to resist new entrants in a variety of ways. So-called predatory pricing and outright theft of te
now just another sleezy IP company eh (Score:4, Insightful)
So, when was Pentium 3?
They waited until they were no longer in the market to sue so they cant be counter sued as effectively. Surely they must have done something they could be sued for, go get them anyway. This just smells funny. If your IP is so great why couldn't they make salable product out of it?
I think these IP lawsuits work like games...the one crying cheater loudest is probably the guilty one
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it has something to do with fear of wet feet (Transmeta? Never heard of. I'll stick with Intel)? Maybe Intel and AMD had contracts with computer manufacturers that prevented these manufacturers from incorporating Transmeta CPUs? Or maybe people simply didn't care for the product.
None of these imply that their IP wasn't good, though.
Re: (Score:2)
So, when was Pentium 3?
The first Pentium 3 was released to market in 1999.
However, the Pentium 3 was little more than a warmed over Pentium 2. The Pentium 2 first hit in 1997.
However, the Pentium 2 was little more than a warmed over Pentium Pro. The Pentium Pro was first available in 1995.
Re:now just another sleezy IP company eh (Score:5, Insightful)
Competition drives technology forward.
Patents effectively outlaw competition.
Therefore, patents kill the need for the company holding the patent to advance their own technology any further.
The only reason these sorts of patents still exist are because some very powerful corporations can effectively stunt the market using them; by default nobody can compete on the same playing field since to do so they would have to have licenses to use the technologies in question, and companies like Intel and IBM own literally thousands of patents on just about everything. So they license their patent libraries among themselves, forming a sort of corporate clique in which outsiders are persona non grata.
Maybe once enough of these patents bite companies like Intel in the ass, things will change. Unfortunately I think it'll take a while for that to happen.
Re:now just another sleezy IP company eh (Score:5, Interesting)
It was well vaunted at their launch that a laptop running a DVD wouldn't last as long on battery as if it were doing word processing.
The fact they didn't catch on isn't relevant to what they contributed to the industry itself.
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason this lawsuit exists is because Transmeta sees these flawed patent laws as an easy way to make a quick buck.
the davinci code (Score:4, Funny)
Quick, someone use this "code morphing" software on the mona lisa so we can find the Holy Grail!
anyone think the case might actually have merit? (Score:2, Insightful)
It seems like everyone so far is poo-pooing the lawsuit.
Has anyone considered that it might actually be possible that Transmeta really does have valid patents, and Intel really might be infringing them?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:anyone think the case might actually have merit (Score:3, Interesting)
In addition, they've got a fair number of engineers working at both Sony and Microsoft, and an Efficeon CPU (with AMD branding) is the only certified processor for the FlexGo program.
The history is that Transmeta has brought out some innovative low-power CPUs, but never seemed to gain any market traction at all.
Yes, I think this case might just well have real merit.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Transmeta had several patents issued in 2006, but I don't see any *filed* this year.
I see four filed in 2005, of which one has been issued.
Re: (Score:2)
Transmeta: Hey, want to license this power management technology?
Intel: Maybe, how does it work?
TM: Like this.
Intel: Oh, we've already got something like that...
TM: Umm... but we patented it ages ago.
Patents are broken. The full system is broken (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, come on. Next you'll be suggesting that Intel's patent violations might have had something to do with Transmeta's financial problems, as if patents were actually supposed to protect the little guy from having his inventions stolen by better funded competitors.
It's very important to remember that "patent infringement" and "theft of ideas" (even ignoring the abuse of the word 'theft') are *NOT* synonymous because of the patent systems ridiculous assumption that two entities cannot come up with the same
Looks like someone was paying attention (Score:3, Informative)
I wonder ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
the good news would be that your new company would be an attractive enough target to sue.
Intel = Deep Pockets (Score:4, Interesting)
If Transmeta scores a win against Intel, then maybe that could lead to licensing agreements with others that may be afraid that they would also lose in litigation. In the meantime, this is one time where AMD may be thankful that they don't have the largest marketshare and the deepest pockets in the CPU industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
AMD sells Transmeta's Efficeon chips, Transmeta licenses Hypertransport and x86_64 from AMD. They have no such coziness with Intel.
Um, hello? (Score:2, Interesting)
Deffo would make more sense to me than the rumored purchase of nVidia.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Note to self. . . (Score:2)
1) form small company of engineers and scientists with good ideas but no idea how to implement them yet
2) wait for big companies with the resources to actually implement some form of the patented ideas to do so
3) sue, sue, sue
4) profit
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Shades of SCO (Score:2)
This reminds me of SCO's tactics: "We have run out of business ideas, we cant seem to be able to make any money, we are headed straight for bankruptcy. Lets sue somebody big."
And then later: "Oh wait we shouldn't have. Bankruptcy would have been so much better than the mess we are in now"
Litigation as a business strategy isn't a good idea. You could get lucky like NTP in NTP Vs. RIMM. However the odds are not very good.
I am pretty sure that Transmeta approached Intel and asked them to take out licenses
Re: (Score:2)
The lawsuit is not "we wanted to license something to intel and they said no", the lawsuit is "we wanted to license something to intel, they said they didn't want to pay, but then used the technology
Be fair. (Score:2)
Transmeta at least has real patents for device that they did introduce to the market and that they want to protect under the current, completely broken, patent system.
back to the future .. (Score:2)
If Intel merely utilized such methods to impliment "Code Morphing" then I don't think Transmeta should have a case. If they actually reverse engineered the Transmeta chip that would be a different matter. It wouldn't be the first time Intel was caught at it, according to experts at the time, the Xeon processor
Insanity is doing the same dumb thing over and ove (Score:3, Insightful)
It would seem that since Transmeta no longer makes CPUs, they are somewhat safe from the big gun defense in industrial patent wars -- being counter-sued for violating 116 Intel patents. But their patents can still be invalidated, and you can just bet that Intel will try.
Still, though, this is all kind of stupid and it is a bit hard to see how anyone other than a few lawyers benefits from this sort of stuff. If a patent is a license granted by government for the public good, why are we still issuing the damn things when they apparently no longer promote the public good?
The elephant in the room (Score:2)
The patent was authorized by the Constitution so that inventions would be shared and used by others, with reasonable payment to the inventor.
These days, very few actually do that, especially in complex technical fields. If a company uses some idea, it's not because it went to the Patent Office and searched for good ideas to implement. They independently develop ideas - which may or may not have been patented by someone else. Or they draw ideas from th
Could this be valid? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
See the NTP/RIM case -- Transmeta can get a sympathetic judge to grant an injunction while they intentionally drag out the case, possibly forcing the prospect of Intel having to stop all processor sales until the case is settled. Intel will of course cave and just buy the "patents" to eliminate this business risk.
And that is why it's pretty much the opposite of your contention in some
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure in the process Intel will countersue due to the patents in Transmeta's products. In the end it may turn into a cross lisence deal.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The reason that traditional CPUs aren't designed that way is because it makes the processor slower when it runs code that requires morphing. Transmeta's whole business model was based on running x86 code, not on their lower-level instruction set.