Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Intel Sued Over Core Architecture Infringement

Scarlet Fever said:
correct me if im wrong, but Transmeta are suing Intel fow CPU power management systems, which would mean no chip can ever legally have a power management system in it.

Is that not the same as copyrighting how a computer turns on?
Click to expand...

No you are wrong. The issue is CPU voltage throttling. Not just plain power management. This is the ideas when you are only surfing the net your processor runs at say 50% of it's actual speed and drops the voltage to conserve power. This is also found on the amd64 chips, but amd is partners with Transmeta so it's ok. Intel used the idea in their chips breaking the patent laws.
 
Scarlet Fever said:
correct me if im wrong, but Transmeta are suing Intel fow CPU power management systems, which would mean no chip can ever legally have a power management system in it.

Is that not the same as copyrighting how a computer turns on?
Click to expand...

Welcome to the USPTO and its frivolous patenting system...
 
Scarlet Fever said:
correct me if im wrong, but Transmeta are suing Intel fow CPU power management systems, which would mean no chip can ever legally have a power management system in it.

Is that not the same as copyrighting how a computer turns on?
Click to expand...

1. "Patenting" and "copyrighting" are very, very different things. Copyright can protect my expression of an idea. It doesn't protect the idea itself, but my implementation. If I write code that does something, copyright law prevents others from copying the code, but everyone is allowed to create their own code that does exactly the same thing. Patenting, on the other hand, protects the idea itself. If I have a patent, you are not allowed to do the same thing without a license from me, even if you came up with exactly the same idea independently.

2. To judge a patent, you have to read the patent itself, and then you most likely have to be a patent lawyer to understand what exactly it means. You can never, ever judge a patent by what you read in an article, because the author of the article is most likely completely incapable of understanding the patent and representing it in any sane way. In principle, a patent covers a certain way how to do something. When applying for a patent, you have a choice to go for more specific claims or for more general claims. With more specific claims, it is easier to get the patent, because it is less likely that there is prior art. On the other hand, only someone who uses exactly the claims that you made and doesn't use a slightly different method would be covered by the patent. With more general claims, you cover more ground, but it is much more likely that there is prior art.

What the Intel guys will be doing right now is to examine those patents, find out exactly what they specifiy, and then they will come up with their defences. The usual defences are: Various reasons why Transmeta should never have received the patent (prior art, obviousness etc.), various reasons why Intel isn't actually infringing on these patents even if they are valid (like if Pentium III infringed on anything, Transmeta should have complained years earlier), and various reasons why Intel shouldn't have to pay anything even if they infringe on these patents and they are valid.

At the same time, Intel will examine how their own patents were infringed upon by Transmeta, and start a counter suit. Depending on how Intel judges its chances, there will or will not be a settlement.
 
Someone managed to get a patent on eCommerce, so I doubt getting one for basic processor operations would be that difficult. Was it Amazon that got a patent for '1 click shopping'? Someone did.

It all comes down to money though. Intel obviously think the case isn't that strong and they don't want to pay the money Transmeta thinks it worth. No doubt there will be a settlement at some point to make it go away.

The chances of Intel having to withdraw their processors isn't even zero, its way below that.
 
aquajet said:
I was considering purchasing an Intel mini, but after hearing this, I'm not so sure anymore.



I'm not so sure I agree with this preposition...
Click to expand...
Why would this lawsuit have any bearing on your purchase???
 
Willis said:
no, Apple now pay licensing and Creative get on the Made for iPod brand...
Click to expand...
Apple just paid a one time fee. I don't believe there is an ongoing licencing agreement. That would be crazy and eat into Apple's margins on the ipod indefinitely. With a one time payment, it is all said and done.
 
More to the point how many copyright lawsuits are settled out of court?

I have to say pretty much all of them, I think Intel will settle out of court with a paltry pocketchange gesture to get Transmeta off Intel's back.
 
This doesn't surprise me at all. How many companies have been sued for making successful products? Ah well, Transmeta will probably be bought out as someone said, and as another said, it's probably what they want.
 
at least Transmeta was around and productive, not just patenting ideas that have been in use for a while then immediately suing. from my limited knowledge of the company and the products they put out, they put forth a concerted effort to break into the market, but just couldn't manage all parts of making a successful x86 chip.

SCO who? never heard of them until they started suing companies...
 
ezekielrage_99 said:
More to the point how many copyright lawsuits are settled out of court?

I have to say pretty much all of them, I think Intel will settle out of court with a paltry pocketchange gesture to get Transmeta off Intel's back.
Click to expand...

Yup. Most of these things are setteled out of court. All we are seeing is part of transmeta's "negotiating tactics".

This sort of thing happens to Intel all the time. See the Intel vs intergraph case where intergraph filed for an injunction on shippin Itanium processors fr example. or numersous Intel/AMD cases. They all end up with out of court setterlments with cross licencing of patent portfolios, cash payments, and/or stock transfers.

Never have the supplies of processors been interupted.

Neither side really wants this to drag on. It is less expensive to settle than it is to keep paying all the assosiated leagal costs and take the risk that you will lose the actual court case (if it gets that far).
 
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Mac-Addict said:
There might not even be C2D Macbook pros! people could be stuck with core duo until the supplys run out and then they would have to go back to ppc, MWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH No more when are core 2 duo mbps coming threads. :)
Click to expand...

G5 Powerbooks the Tuesday after the court puts the injunction in?!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back