backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 21 comment(s) - last by cheetah2k.. on Oct 26 at 3:31 AM

Intel has patched up hurt feelings with Transmeta with a big fat check.

Share prices of Transmeta more than tripled following a ground-shaking settlement with CPU market leader Intel.  Intel has just agreed to a $250 million USD settlement with Transmeta, perhaps the biggest financial event in Transmeta's rocky history.

Transmeta, founded in 1995, has had its share of ups and downs.  It focuses on the design of power efficient architectures and its resume includes the Crusoe and Efficeon x86 architectures.  The company at one time employed Linux legend Linus Torvalds.  In the 1990s it tried to compete with Intel and AMD in the processor market, but could not become profitable and faced struggling sales.

The company made lots of headlines in October 2006, when it filed suit against Intel on infringement of ten patents.  Not long after the suit was filed, Transmeta decided to do away with its engineering services departments in February 2007. This meant that Transmeta no longer would develop new hardware or software, but would exist solely to market its existing intellectual property.  Despite this drastic shift, Transmeta showed signs of life when it received a $7.5 million USD cash infusion from AMD for use of its patent portfolio.

Intel countersued Transmeta in January, claiming Transmeta infringed on seven Intel patents.

Now that the pair has made up -- how exactly the massive settlement will effect Transmeta has yet to be seen.  The effects on the stock were instant, though as prices per share jumped from $9.75 yesterday to $26.01 today.

In exchange for the settlement, Transmeta is getting cozy with Intel -- it will grant licenses to any of its existing patents, and any new patents it is granted over the next 10 years.  It will also transfer some technology rights.  Among these rights is LongRun2, a technology which reduces unwanted leakage of electrical current from chips.

Transmeta's President and Chief Executive Les Crudele was excited about the deal. "We believe that this arrangement will create value for Transmeta stockholders both by realizing immediate financial value for our intellectual-property rights and by supporting our technology development and licensing business going forward," said Crudele.

What exactly his comments on "technology development" allude to, if anything material, has yet to be seen because Transmeta currently has no real development resources.

Transmeta may have a rocky history and an uncertain future, but it has scored a major victory and has formed an unlikely relationship with a former rival.




Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

bad for AMD
By omnicronx on 10/25/2007 11:13:26 AM , Rating: 3
This can't be good for AMD, dealings with transmeta may be vital for both AMD and Intel as both companies move their lines to 45nm and lower processes.




RE: bad for AMD
By maverick85wd on 10/25/2007 11:19:30 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
received a $7.5 million USD cash infusion from AMD for use of its patent portfolio.


It never said anything about not continuing to allow AMD the use of it's patents, I don't see why they would either


RE: bad for AMD
By omnicronx on 10/25/2007 11:24:50 AM , Rating: 3
But it does mean that AMD no longer has sole use of those patents. Many of Transmetas patents and technology have to do with the reduction of leakage, which is a major issue when making processes smaller. There used to be a slight advantage for AMD, but with this their advantage is once again erased.


RE: bad for AMD
By giantpandaman2 on 10/26/2007 1:54:09 AM , Rating: 2
AMD paid $7.5 million to use the tech...Intel paid $250 million. And this is bad for AMD? Oookay.


RE: bad for AMD
By Calin on 10/26/2007 2:18:56 AM , Rating: 2
Much worse than AMD paying $100 millions and Intel not getting the tech.


RE: bad for AMD
By omnicronx on 10/25/07, Rating: 0
RE: bad for AMD
By maverick85wd on 10/25/2007 11:49:03 AM , Rating: 3
I didn't vote you down, I was just making a point. I like AMD, but if Intel has a clear performance advantage when I upgrade I will probably go with them... which is perhaps part of the reason I haven't upgraded recently ;-)... also waiting for high-K parts to come out.

Intel was apparently using those patents as well because they were getting sued for it. And I would venture to guess they realized they needed to be able to continue using them because they gave them a fat check to improve relations and allow deals to be made in the future (and settle, obv).


RE: bad for AMD
By Adonlude on 10/25/2007 2:25:02 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
AMD is my personal choice of processor


No, I think AMD is your personal choice of company. You are a fanboy, you love to pitty the little guy. Intel is the undebatable performance leader right now and no one would chose and AMD processor just for the processor unless they were ignorant or careless.


RE: bad for AMD
By maverick85wd on 10/25/2007 4:22:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I like AMD, but if Intel has a clear performance advantage when I upgrade I will probably go with them.

Please read everything I wrote before making snide comments.

As far as being a fanboy, so what? I appreciate AMD for hitting Intel so hard with the Athlon line so long ago and creating competition in a market that sorely lacked it. I am a fanboy of the development and wide-spread integration of technology. Are you so opposed? If so perhaps you should consider your own ignorance and/or carelessness.

I will still buy Intel if they are the performance leaders because I want superior electronics. If AMD comes out with a chip that's bettter, which I hope they do, I will buy that. I'm waiting for second-gen high-K parts to come out anyways.

Additionally, if you have enough time on your hands to come on here and flame people for voicing their opinions, perhaps you have too much time on your hands. I enjoy DT because it allows me to read about the latest tech news and hear other people's opinions on said topics. Criticizing me for voicing my opinion is contrary to what DT is all about.


RE: bad for AMD
By maverick85wd on 10/25/2007 4:24:43 PM , Rating: 2
sorry, it looked like that was a reply to my post for a second... my bad

kinda went off there for a second


RE: bad for AMD
By murphyslabrat on 10/25/2007 4:42:44 PM , Rating: 2
Ironically, the redeeming quality of AMD's line-up is that the low-end parts have a better off-the-shelf price-performance ratio. Though, most people who care about that are the people who buy computers through OEMS, or in other words, the people who are too ignorant to build their own computer. While some customers of OEM distributors prefer that channel due to the warranties, the customer-base is primarily composed of people unwilling to learn to build their own.

My point is that despite AMD having a tangible advantage over Intel, that advantage largely exists just for the "ignorant and careless."

For figures, I am referring to a recent article from Anandtech that covered CPU price/performance in stock and overclocked applications. While in the stock sector AMD beat out Intel, Intel had a very significant advantage when it came to overclocked price/performance.


RE: bad for AMD
By omnicronx on 10/25/2007 6:43:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No, I think AMD is your personal choice of company.
No AMD is my personal choice because all my pc's are AMD, and i have not upgraded since i got my opteron 170, which was leaps and bounds ahead of Intels offerings when i bought my computer. Theres no doubt Intel has better chips out right now, but why on earth does that mean that if i do not buy one, that I am a fanboy?

I don't jump on the bandwagon of the current cpu leader, I base my opinion on my previous purchases and the price per performance i paid.

There is a difference between loyalty and being a fanboy, for example: my current car is an acura, and since it has been such a good car, regardless of their quality of the current lineup, I will probably buy another.

If this is really what you consider being a 'fanboy', then i will take that any day over jumping on the bandwagon.


RE: bad for AMD
By KFeldman on 10/26/2007 1:15:34 AM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't have any problem buying an AMD CPU, because, except for the top models, they offer the same performance as Intel CPUs for about the same price (and the motherboards are usually a bit cheaper). But your car metaphor has me a bit confused:

quote:
my current car is an acura, and since it has been such a good car, regardless of their quality of the current lineup, I will probably buy another.


I read that twice but it still doesn't make any sense. Because your current car is good you will buy another car from the same maker... regardless of its quality (meaning even if you know its quality is bad)?

That's not loyalty, that's stupidity.


RE: bad for AMD
By mathew7 on 10/26/2007 2:10:12 AM , Rating: 2
No matter what "fanboy" you are, you should see the advantages of competitors.
I'm an Intel fanboy (more related to their chipset quality than processors), yet I if you see the runtime of my 2 computers and 1 laptop, you will see that the single AMD computer wins. Why? Because Intel chose to not allow a low multiplier on desktop parts. So I chose an AMD X2 for a computer router/downloader because it can scale from 2GHz to 1GHz in idle. My E6300 goes from 1.86 to 1.6GHz, while my laptop goes from 1.86GHz to 0.8/1GHz (in don't recall exactly). So I "found" in AMD a laptop scaling in desktop price. And the whole computer is combined with a laptop HDD and consumes around 46W in idle (according to an APC UPS) and goes to 100W in full load. I really don't know what combination will enable me lower consumption without big money. Via's C7s performance is too low (also it's missing 64bit and availability), while Intels mobile parts are too expensive.


Transmeta is like NTP or Rambus...
By pugster on 10/25/2007 12:15:51 PM , Rating: 3
Transmeta is no longer a company which produces anything, but has a bunch of patents and leech off other companies to pay them to use their Intellectal property.




By Treckin on 10/25/2007 7:45:12 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm. Like the recording industry?


Monopoly creeping closer
By Screwballl on 10/25/2007 11:54:26 AM , Rating: 2
What better way to follow in the footsteps of MS and EA than to settle, and start the buyout process of a former rival. It starts with this and in a few years Intel will buy them out.
As AMD nor Intel has an exclusivity contract, they are free to contract out to either. I somehow suspect though that with continued payoff, it will become exclusive to Intel as mentioned above.




Shares are 13.86 as of now
By brownzilla786 on 10/25/2007 3:36:04 PM , Rating: 2
the shares of transmeta are 13.86 as of the time of this posting, not 26.01
http://finance.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3ATMTA




What patents?
By KFeldman on 10/26/2007 1:02:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Transmeta [...] will grant licenses to [...] any new patents it is granted over the next 10 years.


Why do I have a feeling there won't be many of those?

I don't see Intel having much use even for Transmeta's current patents. A few years ago, sure (low power), but now Intel is ahead in virtually every field, except code morphing. But the only place where I can see them having any use for that is the Itanium line.




By BigToque on 10/26/2007 1:57:47 AM , Rating: 2
Would AMD have access to these patents if AMD and Intel still have that cross-licencing agreement?




Hmmmm
By cheetah2k on 10/26/2007 3:31:11 AM , Rating: 1
Transmeta is nothing but a processor technology whore now, selling themselves to the highest bidder




"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson