Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gerald Walls who wrote (96958)	1/20/2000 6:41:00 PM
From: Saturn V	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Gerald, < Patents > Ah yes, Patents. The Speed Step gets you 95 percent of the way. If I were a patent lawyer, I would argue that the last five percent was an "obvious" extension. "Obvious" is very subjective, and "obvious" means obvious to anyone skilled in the art. However Intel should try and avoid litigation. If I could have copies of Intel's patents on Speed Step, and Transmeta patents, I could judge Intel's exposure.

To: Gerald Walls who wrote (96958)	1/20/2000 10:09:00 PM
From: Paul Engel	Respond to of 186894

Gerald - Re: 'One innovation on the Transmeta chips is the adjustment of clock speed with the processor workload in order to extend battery life. This idea can easily be implemented on the x86 by a minor tweak to the Speed St(e)p technology. Patents." Transmeta uses - FREELY - Intel patents by virtue of their use of IBM as a foundry, which "launders" the Intel patents. If I were Intel, I would assert EQUAL PATENT LAUNDERING RIGHTS to TRANSMETA PATENTS - if they are processed by IBM - a licensee of Intel. The road MUST GO BOTH WAYS on this issue, and I think Intel should force the courts to uphold Intel's rights to any patents of Transmeta chips being "laundered" by IBM - or throw out the entire patent laundry concept in the first place. Paul