Slashdot Mirror
Transmeta Sues Intel for Patent Infringement
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."
Trademarks fade if you do not agressively pursue violators (like how you search google for something, not "google for something").
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...).
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Damages change with the circumstances. If you can't prove they knowingly violated your patents sometimes all you can win is an injuction and court costs.
Usually for smaller companies patent issues never even get into courts, e.g.
IP company: Stop using our IP
Victim: Okies.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Intel got StrongARM from Digital a long time ago, and then developed the XScale, and then sold it off earlier this year to Marvell.
However ARM are the primary company, and they're an independent company based in Cambridge, UK, and this is the company that every one of the dozens of ARM licensees buys ARM core designs off of.
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 volumes Intel shift.
The wilful aspect of infringing patents only affects the ability to award punitive damages. No wilful infringement, no punitive damages, but the license fee will still be there.
> Transmeta has a rather extensive patent portfolio, with many new ones granted this year.
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.
They didn't go after (& won't go after) AMD because they've had a very long standing cross-patent agreement with them going back to the original transmeta product launch...
Doesn't make much sense to go after a business partner...
we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
Sorry, that business plan was patented by Lemelson 30 years ago.
Transmeta wanted to do something new. They did serious research to develop a different kind of product, but they were never able to find enough business. The market was not ready for what they were selling and they did not have the power to make it into something amazing. What they are left with is patents on research that they funded. Just because they do not have the ability to compete in the market right now does not mean they should have to give up all of their work. If you invented something, but didn't have the capital or even motivation to sell it, would you be okay with everyone else being able to make money from your invention? I have not investigated Transmeta's claims, but low-power chips were their whole business and that seems to be what Intel is killing for now. This leads me to believe that they might actually have a case. On the surface, this seems like a completely appropriate use of the patent system.
No, George Bernard Shaw.
And it's a parody of Aristotle: "Those that know, do. Those that understand, teach."
They bought the HP research team that did the Dynamo project. They hired them all. ...still, I'm not surprised to see them suing Intel, as Intel's Netburst architecture has plenty of overlap with the principles of Dynamo and Crusoe.