Transmeta sues Intel for patent infringement

Oh Transmeta, we remember you when you were the darling of Silicon Valley -- yes, the same company that attracted Linus Torvalds and the attention of Microsoft. But apparently Transmeta's designs were so good that Intel copied them (specifically some relating to such nebulous IP holdings as "computer architecture" and "power efficiency") without asking first, resulting in Transmeta filing suit against Intel. According to an account in the EE Times: "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." Given Intel's recent success, it seems like a possible legal ploy to get at Intel's coffers -- especially considering the bouts with restructuring Transmeta's had in the past couple years.

[Via Slashdot]

[John Stracke @ Oct 12th 2006 8:43AM]

Your own story contradicts the headline: they're suing for *patent* infringement, not *copyright* infrigement. Big difference.

[drjones @ Oct 12th 2006 9:28AM]

Well, it would be well deserved if they won. Transmeta, was just shy of being destroyed by Intel, using tactics that could easily be considered monopolistic practices. The bitch of it is, transmeta had a better product. The technology was really amazing. Everytime transmeta was about to land a big deal, Intel swoops in with massive kickbacks.

But luckily for Intel, theyve spoonfed AMD over the years to be their one competitor, so if any antitrust litigation is thrown their way, they can point to AMD as an example of competition.

Any new start-ups in the CPU market, like transmeta are doomed from the beginning.

[Adam @ Oct 12th 2006 11:09AM]

What's the big deal? Big companies are sued all the time for copyright and patent infringement (and a lot of other things).

[John Stracke @ Oct 12th 2006 12:26PM]

Actually, it could be a very big deal. If Transmeta's suit has merit, Intel will probably prefer to settle out of court; such settlements often include patent cross-licensing, to make sure that the defendant can't be sued again for similar infringement. That's how Intel wound up with ARM technology, for example. In this case, that could lead to Transmeta having a blanket license to Intel's x86-related patents, which could make them a much stronger player.

[Pete L @ Oct 12th 2006 11:48AM]

Note to the editors:

Please either refrain from publically passing judgement on intellectual property matters or educate yourself before you do so again. I have been reading your website regularly for well over a year now and I have seen you, the editors, spout of all kinds of crap whenever any hint of patent dispute emerges. I know being against patents or any kind of patent litigation is trendy in the tech community now, but blindly lumping everything together is sheer idiocy. One thing I have seen you do repeatedly is confuse the title of the patents with what is actually being protected (which is described by the CLAIMS). For instance, you said "nebulous IP holdings as 'computer architecture' and 'power efficiency'" These are surely the patent titles. The sole intent of the title is to roughly classify what the patent is about (though, btw, this is not always the case), it does not mean they own the very idea of "computer architecture" or "power efficiency". If you want to get an inkling of what patents are _actually_ protecting, you must read the claims carefully (even here, it requires some background to really understand the importance or the legal worth of it).

[Tim Marman @ Oct 17th 2006 12:45AM]

+1 for what Pete said. In fact, these aren't even the titles of the patents, but rather what the ARTICLE mentions they cover - taken, I'm sure, from Transmeta's press release which claims infringement of "ten Transmeta U.S. patents covering computer architecture and power efficiency technologies." (http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20061011006034&newsLang=en).

Though neither the article nor the press release provide the specific patent numbers, a quick search of the USPTO site would show you that even the TITLES of their patents are more specific than that (e.g., "Method for increasing the speed of speculative execution", "System and method for preserving internal processor context when the processor is powered down and restoring the internal processor context when processor is restored") - let alone the actual claims.

Furthermore, to reiterate what I've said countless times before and as John already pointed out - A COPYRIGHT IS NOT THE SAME THING AS A PATENT. They cover different things and offer different protection.

A quick overview of IP:

* Copyright protects expression ( e.g., books, music )
* Patent protects invention ( e.g., products & processes - we'll ignore design for now )
* Trademark protects symbolic information ( e.g., brand names, logos, etc )

(http://slashstar.com/blogs/tim/archive/2006/01/02/2286.aspx)