Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Transmeta Sues Intel for Patent Infringement

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the easy-advertising dept.

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."

36 of 161 comments (clear)

  1. Go figure by nurb432 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When the chips are down, ( no pun intended ) and your business model is going up in a fireball.. sue someone!

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  2. They still exist? by WilliamSChips · · Score: 3, Funny

    I thought that they filed bankruptcy or something.

    --
    Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    1. Re:They still exist? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's kind of ironic that the company vaunted and praised so vigorously for employing Linus now appears to have become a 'Patent portfolio operation.'

  3. Sigh... by pete6677 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is anyone else getting a little sick of these patent infringment stories? Its now common knowledge that you can't build anything in the United States without some IP leech suing you, so is this really even a big deal anymore? We all know the eventual result of this: either more products will be invented in other countries or the only things that will be made in the U.S. anymore will be by companies that have a large legal budget, which I'm sure Intel does. Stories like this will become small insignificant news.

    1. Re:Sigh... by orasio · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The issue is patents.

      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 Transmeta got paid for what they developed, but if they are succesful in this, everybody else loses.
      Chip companies will have more legal work regarding patents, and that is less money for R&D. Lots of paths of development will be closed by other companies patents, so innovation actually happens more slowly.

      For me, the problem is that some people think that patents are granted, because somehow the "inventor" deserves to get paid for what he developed. That is something like a subsidy to inventors. You invent something, and the government gives you a monopoly on whatever you invented. In the old days, it was a great deal for everybody. A player invented something, and only 14/20 years later, all the industry was that one step ahead. Usually, new technologies took more than that time to develop, so all the competitors went faster due to this.

      Right now, it just doesn't work, because companies achieve the same breakthroughs with years of difference, and when you get a patent on something, you don't advance the knowledge in that area, you just slow it, for 20 years.

  4. Nothing to see here, move along... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Transmeta has alleged this before, as have other companies. It's nearly unavoidable in the technology business that your invention will have something in common with theirs. It all comes down to a lot highly paid patent lawyers and engineers showing diagrams in court and vouching for when they designed what, if it even makes it into court.

    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 shipping the majority of the world's processors, no matter what the infringement.

    1. Re:Nothing to see here, move along... by Amouth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      to be fair.. why don't they go after AMD too.. why not . more money right?

      the only thing i can think is that if i remember right.. Intel owns the ARM .. which does have alot in comon when Transmeta.. but something else makes me think they they had something todo with that..

      or i am wrong.. not sure

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    2. Re:Nothing to see here, move along... by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      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
  5. I used to think they were cool... by posterlogo · · Score: 5, Interesting
    ...but now, they just seem like patent trolls.


    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.

    1. Re:I used to think they were cool... by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 4, Informative

      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...).

      --
    2. Re:I used to think they were cool... by tomstdenis · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.
    3. Re:I used to think they were cool... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Focussing on IP is not necessarily a bad thing for a semiconductor company. ARM did it in the '90s. Building fabs is expensive. There is a huge market for cores that can be modified slightly and then fab'd as ASICs. A lot of mobile 'phones have an ARM9 core, for example. This is a design licensed from ARM, modified by someone else (e.g. TI, who add DSPs and some other things to the die) and then fab'd. It's cheaper to buy a general-purpose core from ARM than to design your own, especially since you can then guarantee it is ARM-compatible (and hence has compilers available for it).

      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.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:I used to think they were cool... by MikeBabcock · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How would you feel if you invented a high-efficiency engine design, failed to market it to any of the major auto-makers and as you were going bankrupt, Ford started producing something very similar and selling it without giving you credit?

      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?

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    5. Re:I used to think they were cool... by Christian+Smith · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.


      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.
  6. now just another sleezy IP company eh by hurfy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "including at least Intel's Pentium III, Pentium 4, Pentium M, Core and Core 2 product lines."

    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 ;)

    1. Re:now just another sleezy IP company eh by TheSpoom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is why business logic patents either shouldn't last nearly as long, especially technological patents, or (preferably) shouldn't exist at all. I don't remember Transmeta doing anything to advance the useful arts and sciences using these technologies, yet Intel has done so and made quite a bit of money in the meantime.

      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.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    2. Re:now just another sleezy IP company eh by MikeBabcock · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Then surely you don't remember very well. Before AMD and now Intel started pushing low-power CPUs, Transmeta was there with the concept. Transmeta was at the forefront of Intel-compatible low-power CPUs with dynamic power profiles dependant on usage.

      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.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  7. the davinci code by User+956 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Transmeta offered a low-power x86 processor until last year which used Transmeta's vaunted 'code morphing' software.

    Quick, someone use this "code morphing" software on the mona lisa so we can find the Holy Grail!

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
  8. Looks like someone was paying attention by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 2, Informative
    Link.

    --
    You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
  9. I wonder ... by guysmilee · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As a developer when i see a company do this ... I seriously quetion if I can refuse to participate in my companies work in pursuing patents for my work ... b/c if the company was to ever collapse (not being a business person) I could be crippling my own future at other employers ... imagine switching jobs and being your new company being sued by a "defunct" company you used to work for ...

  10. Re:Go figure - too clever by From+A+Far+Away+Land · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's too clever a saying for me to have been the first to have thought of it, so I probably just heard it before.

    Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.

    --
    Oh You POS
  11. Re:anyone think the case might actually have merit by Vengeance · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Transmeta has a rather extensive patent portfolio, with many new ones granted this year.

    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.

    --
    It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
  12. Intel = Deep Pockets by StateOfTheUnion · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Guess Transmeta is going after the biggest guy with the deepest pockets . . . seems a little hard to believe that AMD wouldn't be doing something similar to what Intel is doing (that Transmeta claims in infringing).

    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.

  13. You said it by BeeBeard · · Score: 3, Insightful

    From the article:

    "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?? ;-)

    1. Re:You said it by cerelib · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:You said it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes. Innovation is 1% inspiration (or ideas) and 99% perspiration, or work. Ok, Transmeta did create some really cool CPUs, but in the long run they just didn't cut it, and so why should the now be able to sit back and say "but those were our ideas, boohoooo"?

      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? "Intellectual property" sucks.

  14. Re:anyone think the case might actually have merit by clem.dickey · · Score: 2, Informative

    > 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.

  15. Um, hello? by tehSpork · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Intel should just purchase Transmeta outright, between their engineering crew and patents it would be a smart move.

    Deffo would make more sense to me than the rumored purchase of nVidia. :)

    1. Re:Um, hello? by cpm80 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It sounds like a good idea on the surface, but not if you know *anything* about the stock market. I'm not a guru, but know enough to explain why Intel cannot afford Transmeta. When an entity acquires a certain percentage, somewhere arround 10%, of a public company they must file with the SEC. This usually causes the share price of the takeover target to increase significantly. Also, Transmeta has what's called a poison pill which in the event of a hostile take over attempt causes them to issues more shares. The net effect of the number of outstanding shares increasing at the same time the price of each share increases is that acquiring 51% of the shares becomes orders of magnitude more expensive than the current market cap of Transmeta. Given these conditions Intel cannot afford to buy Transmeta, unless of course Transmeta's board of directors agrees to sell the company to Intel.

  16. Re:Hail Mary Play by ergo98 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    And Intel will win, if not in the courts, then because it has probably 1000 times the money available to prosecute the case.

    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 cases -- it isn't how much you have to use to fight, but how much you have to lose even if you might eventually win.
  17. Re:Note to self. . . by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 2, Informative

    Sorry, that business plan was patented by Lemelson 30 years ago.

  18. Re:Go figure - too clever by acvh · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Nope.

    Woody Allen.

    Those who can, do.
    Those who can't, teach.
    Those who can't teach, teach gym.

  19. Re:Why all the Transmeta-bashing? by ClosedSource · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It takes a lot of balls to sue the company whose products form the basis of your business model. If these guys were so brilliant why didn't they create their own unique processor rather than create a super-slow version of Intel's.

  20. Re:Go figure - too clever by ShakaUVM · · Score: 4, Informative

    No, George Bernard Shaw.

    And it's a parody of Aristotle: "Those that know, do. Those that understand, teach."

  21. Re:Note to self. . . by a_n_d_e_r_s · · Score: 2, Funny

    Not a problem - patents are only valid for 20 years!

    --
    Just saying it like it are.
  22. Insanity is doing the same dumb thing over and ove by vtcodger · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Personally, I'm for closing the patent office, in an orderly fashion ... over time... but shutting the whole mess down. Personally, I don't think that Intellectual Property other than trademark is a viable concept in a technologically advanced world.

    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?

    --
    You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey