Core 2 Duo injunction sought against Intel

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
A new lawsuit filed against Intel Corp. on behalf of Transmeta threatens to prevent the chipmaker from shipping microprocessors to PC manufacturers such as Apple Computer.



According to InfoWorld, Transmeta is charging Intel with violating 10 of its patents covering processor design and power efficiency techniques.



The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, seeks damages, royalty payments, and an injunction barring Intel from selling infringing products such as the Pentium III, Pentium 4, Pentium M, Core and Core 2 processors.



The lawsuit comes after the two companies failed to agree to licensing terms, said Transmeta's President and Chief Executive Officer Arthur Swift. "Friendly win-win discussions between the two parties had broken down and we thought is was appropriate now to turn to the courts."



Nine of the 10 Transmeta patents invoked in the lawsuit cover basic processor functions like scheduling and addressing instructions on the chip, according to InfoWorld. The tenth patent reportedly relates to Transmeta's LongRun technology, which is used to adjust the voltage of the processor, depending on its workload.



If granted, an injunction could prevent further shipments of Intel's Core 2 Duo to Apple, which would halt the roll-out of Core 2 Duo-based MacBook and MacBook Pro systems due a little later this year. It would also freeze production of Apple's other Intel-based systems.



However, such an injunction is incredibly unlikely (and a bit sensational) due to the ramifications it would have on the entire PC industry.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 30
    guarthoguartho Posts: 1,208member
    Quote:

    However, such an injection is incredibly unlikely



    I hope it's not a lethal injection.
  • Reply 2 of 30
    maccrazymaccrazy Posts: 2,657member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider


    However, such an injection is incredibly unlikely (and a bit sensational) due to the ramifications it would have on the entire PC industry.



    lol



    I don't see Intel freezing the production of most of their chips for a lawsuit. If it is an infringement they'll settle out of court surely!
  • Reply 3 of 30
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacCrazy


    lol



    I don't see Intel freezing the production of most of their chips for a lawsuit. If it is an infringement they'll settle out of court surely!



    Indeed! that would grind the PC industry to a halt, if they didn't
  • Reply 4 of 30
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hypoluxa


    Indeed! that would grind the PC industry to a halt, if they didn't



    Did I hear someone say AMD?
  • Reply 5 of 30
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ReCompile


    Did I hear someone say AMD?



    Bless their hearts, but I don't think AMD can hope to take up the slack without major disruptions, unless AMD contracts Intel to make their chips. It's not as if AMD can quintuple their production just like that.
  • Reply 6 of 30
    Intel would never let that happen. I hope no judge will let that happen.
  • Reply 7 of 30
    eckingecking Posts: 1,588member
    Intel...IT COURT CLOBBERIN' TIME!
  • Reply 8 of 30
    nohmnohm Posts: 10member
    well, as long as our anticipated MBP comes out on time.....
  • Reply 9 of 30
    eaieai Posts: 417member
    Well, start stockpiling your chils - buy then while you can!
  • Reply 10 of 30
    tony1tony1 Posts: 258member
    And just when I thought we'd be seeing the light at the end of the tunnel...
  • Reply 11 of 30
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tony1


    And just when I thought we'd be seeing the light at the end of the tunnel...



    There's an expression about that:



    The light you see at the end of the tunnel might be an express train.
  • Reply 12 of 30
    Violating patents for Pentium III and 4? Seems like they didn't care about their patents 7 years ago, but now that the core duo is big and involves Apple, there is money to be made in lawsuits.
  • Reply 13 of 30
    Which would be better for the Transmeta shareholders? A licensing deal on the patents or being bought out by Intel in order to make the problem go away.
  • Reply 14 of 30
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PatsFan83


    Violating patents for Pentium III and 4? Seems like they didn't care about their patents 7 years ago, but now that the core duo is big and involves Apple, there is money to be made in lawsuits.



    Actually it appears from the original article that Transmeta and Intel have been trying to negotiate a way out of this and that the talks have broken down which has resulted in the lawsuit being filed.



    And I should also point out that waiting for a company to become profitable with a product which may have a patent infringement case against it is SOP with a lot of companies. (the recent lawsuit by Apple Records against Apple as an example).



    However this lawsuit could have some very interesting repercussions on Apple. If the injunction is granted I wonder what the possiblility is that Apple would look at a different CPU??
  • Reply 15 of 30
    If it comes true, you'd better run for cover while the Moon smashes into the Earth and Super Patent Infringement Godzilla is unleashed from the deep within the Core (2 Duo) to wreck multithreaded destruction on us all!!
  • Reply 16 of 30
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PatsFan83


    Violating patents for Pentium III and 4? Seems like they didn't care about their patents 7 years ago, but now that the core duo is big and involves Apple, there is money to be made in lawsuits.



    They've been fighting about this for years.



    I doubt that Apple has anything to do with any of the timing.
  • Reply 17 of 30
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,663member
    [QUOTE=SopraninoHowever this lawsuit could have some very interesting repercussions on Apple. If the injunction is granted I wonder what the possiblility is that Apple would look at a different CPU??[/QUOTE]



    No more than anyone else would. They can't go back to the PPC, and there is no way that AMD could ever hope to meet any new commitments. They are behind in shipments now.
  • Reply 18 of 30
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross


    No more than anyone else would. They can't go back to the PPC, and there is no way that AMD could ever hope to meet any new commitments. They are behind in shipments now.



    I guess several options could exist.



    1) You're quite right about Apple not going back to PPC but they may look at the IBM Cell chip again, I found an article talking about how the cell chip in its initial configuration was not suitable for Apple because of the power use (between 30-80 watts) but the newest version works at 25 watts and is now fully compatable with the PPC instruction set.



    2) They could go to AMD. The AMD 64 bit chips run at a constant voltage regardless of the number of cores on die which makes heat management easier to design for. Apple is not a "large" purchaser of chips (unlike some other PC vendors) so it could be possible for AMD to meet demands.



    Speculations R Us



    Sopranino
  • Reply 19 of 30
    robmrobm Posts: 1,068member
    No way any of the parties involved actually wants to stop production>sales.



    Bickering over percentages here - and a revitalised backdated claim on older tech to lend more weight to the claim on the new implementation.



    C'mon Transmeta and Intel - sort it out and keep 'em coming !
  • Reply 20 of 30
    Quote:

    Nine of the 10 Transmeta patents invoked in the lawsuit cover basic processor functions like scheduling and addressing instructions on the chip, according to InfoWorld. The tenth patent reportedly relates to Transmeta's LongRun technology, which is used to adjust the voltage of the processor, depending on its workload.



    Don't AMD's chips do that as well? If so, why aren't they being sued?
Sign In or Register to comment.