Slashdot Mirror
Intel Countersues Transmeta
An anonymous reader writes "After being sued by Transmeta for patent infringement last year, the fangs are out at Intel. In a suit filed in Delaware, Intel claims Transmeta has infringed on 7 of its patents. The whole saga revolves around chips designed to be energy efficient."
Have they thought about the energy wasted in pursuing the lawsuits ?
I sat down to write a new sig tonight and all I did was make the chair warm.
... starts to crumble as far as its ability to bring the bestest and most advancedist products to the coinsumer.
A couple of years ago I saw Stallman lecture about the dangers of software patents. A lot of his speech revolved around the busting of the myth of the "patent empowering the little guy", ie. the myth of the lone inventor walking down the street demanding money from the likes of Intel, IBM, Microsoft, because of his mighty patent. Stallman explained that if such a situation would arise, the large companies would simply find ways of countersuing for infringement of some of their numerous patents, thus forcing the smaller entity to give up it's claims, and possibly settle the countercase by giving up it's own patent.
This is something he referred to as a patent plateau -- where the large companies are all so far beyond the reach of smaller entities, be it individuals or companies, that patents in the hands of those not "on the plateau", are practically useless.
Like silicon graphics I think transmeta was suing out of desperation. Do they even make processors anymore? I did like their on chip, heat based, random number generator.
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
Was Linus invovled?
It seems more likely to me that this thing will eventually blow over with the two sides agreeing to a patent portfolio sharing agreement. It's worked for AMD, and I suspect Trnasmeta would like to reach that point as well.
But only if you don't have a product of your own.
The patent system can serve two groups:
1) The big companies, who can keep newcomers out.
2) Litigation companies, with no purpose other than suing.
It can not serve the little guy with an innovative products, as all products build on older ideas, and the lifetime of a patent is much longer than the generation gab between products.
If you have a great patentable idea, and want to make money on it, here is what you must do: Patent it. Distribute it widey, for example, if applicable, as source code under a BSD/MIT style license. Watch others build products on it. Sue them. Never, ever, make the mistake of creating a product of your own. The time where you could get rich by identifying a need, and selling a product to fulfill it, is long gone.
"bestest", "advancedist" and "coinsumer" are perfectly cromulent words!
They just haven't found their way into the dictionaries yet.
This tactic of trying to make a bunch of money via litigation before tanking a failed company is so uncertain - and with such a potential for backfire - I can't image why anyone would go that route.
If they wanted to make money before closing up shop, they should have sold thier patents.
-W
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
You shouldn't be able to patent energy efficiency. If one company can tell another that it cannot make something that is energy efficient that is just wrong.
Please learn English, thanks.
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
Somehow the words Intel and Power efficient in the same sentence seems to strike me as funny!
I am a chip designer (not working for Intel, AMD or Transmeta). Here is my take:
Having studied Transmeta designs, I can tell you that a large number of Intel improvments when they suddenly jumped from 100-300 MHz to 800MHz - 1.3GHz (in terms of architecture, not available consumer chips) is due to ideas they stole from Cruse.
Now I understand that we dont like sueing and lawyers here at slashdot, and I hate SCO as much as the next guy. But in this case, I think it is obvious that Intel stole a large number of design ideas from Transmeta.
I dont think Transmeta will win, but I beleave they are the good guys here and _should_ win.
simple: legal requirements could easily implement a mandatory requirement that patent cases be settled by the patent office and established levels of compensation would remove the financial incentives which drive the legal community to exploit this to their own benefit
the Romans didn't allow lawyers to charge fees, as they believed it prostituted the legal system
They must feel fucked..
FRA: STFU GTFO
You people floor me. You mash all day long about how poor the patent system is, and then when someone tries to uphold legitimate patents you label them money-grubbing losers. Doesn't anyone remember what happened? Transmeta comes along with a revolutionary new perspective and implementation of teh CPU based on the idea of power efficiency and the big wig Intel just cuts them out of the picture by copying them. Now, power efficiency is the new "MHz" and the company we have to thank for it is being kicked about and compared to scoundrels like SCO. This has all the same characteristics of Netscape vs. Microsoft, but we can see by the results of that case people really care about.
It makes me sick.
:T:R:A:N:S:
I guess Intel learned its lesson from its Intergraph experience. Here was a company that was brought back in business via its win against Intel in a IP suit: http://library.findlaw.com/2003/May/13/132730.html
You are exactly correct, but don't forget about patent trolls. Small company X can't sue IBM for patent infringement because Intel will counterclaim and destroy company X. So company X sells its patents to a patent troll and the troll then sues Intel. Because the troll produces no products, it is immune from Intel's counterclaims. Of course, everyone on /. would complain about the troll and say how unfair patents are, but company X (the small guy) still benefits from selling its patent to the troll.
Based on the above, I hope everyone can see why the large companies want "patent reform" to prevent trolls (those who do not make any products) from suing, because if trolls do not exist, large companies will be immune from patent suits by small companies.
They used technology pioneered by others before them. And those people also build on older technology. Given that Intel really is one of the major pioneers in CPUs, it is quite likely that the Intel patents are as legitimate as the Transmeta patent.
The Netscape vs Microsoft is totally inappropriate, neither company was pioneer in anything but the commercializing of existing technology.
I personally am an adherent to something akin to the RMS philosophy. I believe information wants to be free, and that patents and copyrights should be gradually phased back to their original very limited focus and scope.
That said, the facts show that Transmeta decided to play by the rules and compete in the chip business. The facts also show that they received the standard treatment from one of the two biggest technology monopolists of our age, Intel (our friend M$ being the other). Intel has a long history of anti-competitive illegal abuse of their dominant position in the marketplace.
We know this through contracts with distributors and partners that have been periodically leaked and reported on, as well as a mountain of articles detailing their abusive platform tie-ins and deceptive marketing techniques. A look at the current antitrust case brought by AMD alone is damning. Separately, each piece of the puzzle isn't blatantly illegal, but that's the game monopolists (and the mafia) play; it's hard to prove collusion and/or conspiracy.
If Transmeta had never successfully fabbed a chip, or had never found a major distribution partner, you could rightfully call them a troll. The important point is that even if this was the case, Intel still stole their technology and called it their own, and is liable for massive patent violations.
But that's not the case. Transmeta tried, made a pretty damn good go of it, and was squashed. I think the only part of this in dispute is if Transmeta could bring an antitrust case like AMD against Intel as well. I wish they would, because without companies like AMD and Transmeta, today we'd be paying $2000 for a (t)Itanic clocked at 300MHz or so with no backwards (32-bit) compatibility, power saving, or other performance innovations. Instead we get to pay $100-$200 for a multi-GHz chip with all these features.
Now Intel shows us exactly why they are the poster child for patent reform after rummaging through their bin of monopolist patent bombs for a few months and countersuing.
There are certainly problems with the patent system, primarily insofar as it has allowed too many low quality patents through (overly broad and obvious). This problem is particularly bad in areas that the patent office understands little due to its relative novelty and when there is a rapid growth in applications (e.g., internet tech). However, many slashdotters also grossly overstate the scale of the problem because they have no idea how to read patents and because they themselves have never been involved with sizable entrepreneurial activity. All they see are reports of the problems (about half the time with grossly inaccurate information) and they never hear about companies of all sizes using patents to secure real innovation (or small companies/entrepreneurs licensing their tech to much bigger firms for $$$).
Yes, some guy with just a few thousand dollars to his name/idea is going to have a difficult time filing a _strong_ patent today(many people have weak patents which are easily worked around). But he sure as hell can file a provisional patent application with a little research (cheap) which can then give him the legal leverage and confidence to talk to other engineering types, VCs, etc to seek out funding, assistance, and guidance. What's more, if that (really) little guy can't obtain funding from anyone, the odds are that he won't be able to develop the idea in the first place. Most competent investors won't even invest if you don't have or can't obtain a strong patent (there are some exceptions)