I know that the same thing was said about the AMD-ATI merger, but I firmly believe this will amount to nothing. I wonder how Transmeta will make their case, which leads me to a more important question:
What proof do they have???
Also, if they did develop this technology first, why didn't they exploit it and make the money Intel has? I understand Transmeta has nowhere near investment capital of Intel, but they would be able to develop something well.
Finally, why didn't they sue when the Pentium III was first released? Suing when a new, remarkable processor has put Intel on top and threatened their already meager market share is very convenient indeed.
Here are the facts:
Transmeta developed two consumer laptop processors to compete with the Pentium M, Turion, etc. These were Crusoe and later Efficeon. Both aimed to reduce power consumption (around 10 watts), which did work. But the CPUs were too anemic, and Transmeta didn't count on OTHER components which suck power (display, HDD, etc.). The slight power consumption improvement paled in comparison to the poor performance. But Intel made it work, they made it work with Pentium M, and they made it work better (much better) with Core architecture.
Transmeta, stop blaming Intel for properly implementing a processor philosophy. I apologize if they really did steal your technology, but this lawsuit is too conveniently timed to be real in my opinion.
Excuse my long winded rant, I just hate it when some little desperate for cash company plays the "you stole my idea" card.
)
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram