It sounds like you provided no details of the invention to Intel then other than its existence. Did you have an NDA in place with Intel? If you did, then surely you would have a clear case of violation of that document and not resort to a public posting like you did?
I invented a CPU cooler - 3 times better than previous best - better than water. Intel have major CPU cooling problems - "Intel's microprocessors were generating so much heat that they were melting" (iht.com) - try to talk to them - they send my communications to my competitor & will not talk to me
Winners of major 'Corporate Social Responsibility' awardS!!
Huh!!!! When did RICO get repealed?"
INVENTORS - DO NOT TRUST INTEL!!!
BTW, I have the evidence - my competitor gave it to me.
BBTW, I am prepared to apologize to Intel if;
• They can show that the actions were those of a single individual in the company, acting outside corporate policy, and:
• They gain redress on my behalf.
Inventors - help your fellow inventors - share your experiences with companies - good and bad.
I dont think Google or Apple can disrupt INtel. Google being a ppredominantly web company can try in hardware but being successful or even being in the market would be a challenge. Hardware is a different business it doesnt work like web. They may scratch for some time and leave it. Apple also may not be go very long in hardware design.
I would not trust much the opinion of someone with Transmeta credentials regarding microprocessors. Intel's strength is not in microprocessor architecture but in semiconductor processing, in which it is by 2.5-3 generations ahead of the next guy. Google would be really dumb trying to take on Intel in microprocessors. It is VERY far away from their core competence. Charlie Sporck was one of the greats of the semiconductor industry and he lost his job at Nat Semi because he tried and failed to take on Intel in microprocessors. The Nat Semi processor was MUCH better architecturally than the x86 architecture (and it was optimized to run Unix) but Intel easily won because Nat Semi could not compete in IC manufacturing.
Apple/Google/Amazon/etc. may be able to spend a bunch of $$$$$ to save a few $$ for themselves. Who else would use their custom CPU? Given the tremendous investment required to maintain the processor infrastructure (compilers, memory interfaces, I/O hubs, annual product refresh, etc.), I can't see this being anything more than an attempt to get Intel to lower their prices.
Google and others must do what they do best - and it isn't making CPUs. They may choose a different CPU company that better meets their needs, but I can't imagine there ever being a benefit of becoming a CPU company.
The biggest threat to Intel's CPU business are the likes of Janet Reno...