Back to GetFilings.com

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

FORM 10-Q

(Mark One)

For the Transition Period from                      to

Commission File Number 000-31803

TRANSMETA CORPORATION

3990 Freedom Circle, Santa Clara, CA 95054
(Address of principal executive offices, including zip code)

(408) 919-3000
(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

     Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes x No o

     Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes x No o

     There were 138,530,976 shares of the Company’s common stock, par value $0.00001 per share, outstanding on April 30, 2003.

Table of Contents

TRANSMETA CORPORATION

FORM 10-Q
Quarterly Period Ended March 31, 2003

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

Table of Contents

PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1. Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

TRANSMETA CORPORATION

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(In thousands, except per share amounts)

ASSETS

(See accompanying notes)

3

Table of Contents

TRANSMETA CORPORATION

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
(In thousands, except per share amounts)
(Unaudited)

(See accompanying notes)

4

Table of Contents

TRANSMETA CORPORATION

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(In thousands)
(Unaudited)

(See accompanying notes)

5

Table of Contents

TRANSMETA CORPORATION

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)

1. Basis of Presentation

     The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and accounting principles generally accepted in the United States for interim financial information. However, certain information or footnote disclosures normally included in financial statements prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States have been condensed, or omitted, pursuant to such rules and regulations. In the opinion of management, the statements include all adjustments (which are of a normal and recurring nature) necessary for the fair presentation of the results of the interim periods presented. These financial statements should be read in conjunction with our audited consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto included in the Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002. The results of operations for the three months ended March 31, 2003 are not necessarily indicative of the operating results for the full fiscal year or any future period.

     The Company’s fiscal year ends on the last Friday in December, and each fiscal quarter ends on the last Friday of each calendar quarter. For ease of presentation, the accompanying financial information has been shown as of December 31 and calendar quarter ends for all annual and quarterly financial statement captions. The three-month periods ended March 28, 2003 and March 29, 2002 each consisted of 13 weeks.

2. Stock Based Compensation

     The Company accounts for its stock options and equity awards in accordance with the provisions of Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 25, “Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees” (APB 25), and related interpretations and has elected to follow the “disclosure only” alternative prescribed by the FASB’s SFAS 123, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation”. Expense associated with stock-based compensation is amortized on an accelerated basis over the vesting period of the individual award consistent with the method described in FASB Interpretation 28. Accordingly, approximately 59% of the unearned deferred compensation is amortized in the first year, 25% in the second year, 12% in the third year, and 4% in the fourth year following the date of grant. Pursuant to SFAS 123, Transmeta discloses the pro forma effect of using the fair value method of accounting for its stock-based compensation arrangements.

     For purposes of pro forma disclosures, the estimated fair value of options is amortized to pro forma expense over the option’s vesting period using an accelerated graded method. Pro forma information follows:

     The fair value for the Company’s stock-based awards is estimated at the date of grant using a Black-Scholes option-pricing model. The Black-Scholes option-pricing model was developed for use in estimating the fair value of traded options that have no vesting restrictions and are fully transferable. In addition, the Black-Scholes option-pricing model requires the input of highly subjective assumptions, including expected stock price volatility. Because the Company’s stock-based awards have characteristics significantly

6

Table of Contents

different from those of traded options and because changes in the subjective input assumptions can materially affect the fair value estimate, in management’s opinion, the existing models do not necessarily provide a reliable single measure of the fair value of its stock-based awards. The fair value of options granted was determined based on estimated stock price volatility. The weighted average assumptions used to determine fair value were as follows:

have led to delays in product deliveries and increased expenses. In particular, during the third and fourth quarters of fiscal 2001 and to a lesser extent the first quarter of fiscal 2002, we experienced difficulties in bringing our products into volume production and distribution. As a result, in part, of these delays, our net product revenue in 2001 declined from $10.5 million in the second quarter to $5.0 million in the third quarter and then to $1.5 million in the fourth quarter. If we experience delays in product deliveries, our target customers could design a competitor’s microprocessor into their product, which would lead to lost sales and impede our ability to increase our revenue. Further, problems associated with manufacturing processes divert engineering personnel from product development and other tasks.

Our Future Revenue Depends Upon Our Ability to Penetrate the Notebook Computer Market.

     Our success depends upon our ability to sell our Crusoe microprocessors in volume to the small number of OEMs that manufacture notebook computers. Due to our software-based approach to microprocessor design, we have been required, and expect to continue to be required, to devote substantial resources to educate prospective customers in the notebook computer market about the benefits of our Crusoe products and to assist potential customers with their designs. In addition, since computer products generally are designed to incorporate a specific microprocessor, OEMs must design new products to utilize different microprocessors such as our Crusoe products. Given the complexity of these computer products and their many components, designing new products requires significant investments. For instance, OEMs may need to design new computer casings, basic input/output system software and motherboards. Our target customers may not choose our products for technical, performance, packaging, novelty, design cost or other reasons. If our Crusoe products fail to achieve widespread acceptance in the notebook computer market, we would likely never achieve revenue sufficient to sustain our business and the value of an investment in our common stock would likely decline significantly.

The Growth of Our Business Depends in Part upon the Development of Emerging Markets and Our Ability to Meet the Needs of These Markets.

     The growth of our business depends in part on acceptance and use of our products in new markets such as the high-density server market and new embedded processor applications. We depend on the ability of our target customers to develop new products and enhance existing products for these markets that incorporate our products and to introduce and promote their products successfully. These new markets often rely on newly developed technologies, which will require extensive development and marketing before widespread acceptance is achieved, so the new markets may grow slowly, if at all. If the new markets do not grow as we anticipate, our target customers do not incorporate our products into theirs, or our products are not widely accepted by end users, our growth would be impeded and we will not be able to factor the related revenues into our growth in the future. In addition, manufacturers within emerging markets may have widely varying requirements. To meet the requirements of different manufacturers and markets, we may be required to change our product design or features, sales methods or pricing policies. The costs of addressing these requirements could be substantial and could delay or prevent any improvement in our operating results.

The Cyclical Nature of the Semiconductor Industry Could Create Fluctuations in Our Operating Results.

     The semiconductor industry has historically been cyclical, and characterized by wide fluctuations in product supply and demand. From time to time, the industry has also experienced significant downturns, often in connection with, or in anticipation of, maturing product cycles and declines in general economic conditions. Industry downturns have been characterized by diminished product demand, production overcapacity and accelerated decline of average selling prices, and in some cases have lasted for more than a year. The industry experienced a downturn of this type in 1997 and 1998, and has been experiencing a downturn again since 2001. Our net product revenue has decreased in response to industry-wide fluctuations, and could decrease further. In addition, we may determine to lower our prices of our products to increase or maintain market share, which would likely decrease our operating results.

Our Operating Results Are Difficult to Predict and Fluctuate Significantly, and a Failure to Meet the Expectations of Securities Analysts or Investors Has Resulted in a Substantial Decline in Our Stock Price.

     Our operating results fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and we expect our results to fluctuate in the future. You should not rely on quarter-to-quarter comparisons of our results of operations as an indication of our future performance. Our stock price declined substantially since our stock began trading publicly in November of 2000. If our future operating results fail to meet or exceed the expectations of securities analysts or investors, our stock price would likely decline further in the future.

     Our results could fluctuate because of the amount of revenue we recognize or the amount of cash we spend in a particular period. For example, our results could fluctuate due to the following factors:

15

Table of Contents

	•		the gain or loss of significant customers, or significant changes in their purchasing volume;
	•		the amount and timing of our operating expenses and capital expenditures;
	•		pricing concessions that we might grant on volume sales;
	•		the effectiveness of our product cost reduction efforts and those of our suppliers;
	•		changes in the average selling prices of our microprocessors or the products that incorporate them;
	•		charges to earnings for workforce reductions;
	•		our ability to specify, develop, complete, introduce and market new products and technologies, and bring them to volume production in a timely manner; and
	•		changes in the mix of products that we sell.

     Our reliance on third parties for wafer fabrication, assembly, test and warehouse services also could contribute to fluctuations in our quarterly results, based upon factors such as the following:

	•		fluctuations in manufacturing yields;
	•		cancellations, changes or delays of deliveries to us by our manufacturer;
	•		the cost and availability of manufacturing, assembly and test capacity;
	•		delays in deliveries to customers of our products; and
	•		problems or delays resulting from shifting our products to smaller geometry process technologies or from designing our products to achieve higher levels of design integration.

     In addition, our results could fluctuate from quarter to quarter due to factors in our industry that are outside of our control, including the following factors:

	•		the timing, rescheduling or cancellation of customer orders;
	•		the varying length of our sales cycles;
	•		the availability and pricing of competing products and technologies, and the resulting effect on sales and pricing of our products;
	•		the availability and pricing of products that compete with products that incorporate our microprocessors;
	•		fluctuations in the cost and availability of complementary components that our customers require to build systems that incorporate our products;
	•		fluctuations in the cost and availability of raw materials, such as wafers, chip packages and chip capacitors;
	•		the rate of adoption and acceptance of new industry standards in our target markets;
	•		seasonality in some of our target markets;
	•		changes in demand by the end users of our customers’ products;
	•		variability of our customers’ product life cycles; and

16

Table of Contents

•

economic and market conditions in the semiconductor industry and in the industries served by our customers.

     A large portion of our expenses, including rent, salaries and capital leases, is fixed and difficult to reduce. Our expenses are based in part on expectations for our revenue. If our revenue does not meet our expectations, the adverse effect of the revenue shortfall upon our operating results may be acute in light of the fixed nature of our expenses. We make many shipments of our products at or near the end of the fiscal quarter, which makes it difficult to estimate or adjust our operating activities quickly in response to a shortfall in expected revenue.

Our Recent Reduction In Workforce May Adversely Affect the Morale and Performance of Our Personnel, Our Ability To Hire New Personnel and Our Operations.

     In July 2002, as part of our effort to reduce operating expenses, we announced a restructuring and related reduction in our workforce. Our restructuring plan included the termination of approximately 195 employees and contractors, which constituted approximately 40 percent of our workforce. As a result of the recent workforce reduction, we have incurred substantial costs related to severance and other employee-related costs. Our workforce reduction may also subject us to litigation risks and expenses. In addition, our restructuring plan may yield unanticipated consequences, such as attrition beyond our planned reduction in workforce. As a result of these reductions, our ability to respond to unexpected challenges may be impaired and we may be unable to take advantage of new opportunities. In addition, some of the employees who were terminated had specific and valuable knowledge or expertise, the loss of which may adversely affect our operations. Further, the reduction in force may reduce employee morale and may create concern among existing employees about job security, which may lead to increased attrition or turnover. As a result of these factors, our remaining personnel may decide to seek employment with more established companies, and we may have difficulty attracting new personnel that we might wish to hire in the future.

We Might Not Be Able to Execute on Our Business Plan if We Lose Key Management or Technical Personnel, on Whose Knowledge, Leadership and Technical Expertise We Rely, or if We Fail to Work Effectively With New Members of Our Management Team.

     Our success depends heavily upon the contributions of our key management and technical personnel, whose knowledge, leadership and technical expertise would be difficult to replace. Many of these individuals have been with us for several years and have developed specialized knowledge and skills relating to our technology and business. Others have joined us in senior management roles only recently. In March 2003, Arthur L. Swift joined us as senior vice president of marketing. Our success will depend in part upon the ability of new executives to work effectively together and with the rest of our employees to continue to develop our technology and manage the operation and growth of our business. All of our executive officers and key personnel are employees at will. We have no employment contracts and do not maintain key person insurance on any of our personnel. We might not be able to execute on our business plan if we were to lose the services of any of our key personnel. If any of these individuals were to leave Transmeta unexpectedly, we could face substantial difficulty in hiring qualified successors and could experience a loss in productivity while any such successor develops the necessary training and experience.

The Price of our Common Stock Has Been Volatile and is Subject to Wide Fluctuations.

     The market price of our common stock has been volatile and is likely to remain to be subject to wide fluctuations in the future. Many factors could cause the market price of our common stock to fluctuate, including:

	•		variations in our quarterly results;
	•		market conditions in our industry, the industries of our customers and the economy as a whole;
	•		announcements of technological innovations by us or by our competitors;
	•		introductions of new products or new pricing policies by us or by our competitors;
	•		acquisitions or strategic alliances by us or by our competitors;
	•		recruitment or departure of key personnel;
	•		the gain or loss of significant orders;

17

Table of Contents

	•		the gain or loss of significant customers; and
	•		changes in the estimates of our operating performance or changes in recommendations by securities analysts.

     In addition, the stock market generally and the market for semiconductor and other technology-related stocks in particular has experienced a decline during 2000, 2001 and through 2002, and could decline further, which could cause the market price of our common stock to fall for reasons not necessarily related to our business, results of operations or financial condition. The market price of our stock also might decline in reaction to events that affect other companies in our industry even if these events do not directly affect us. Accordingly, you may not be able to resell your shares of common stock at or above the price you paid. Securities class action litigation is often brought against a company following a period of volatility in the market price of its securities, and we have settled or are defending several purported shareholder class action or derivative lawsuits. Although we believe that those lawsuits lack merit, it is likely that the lawsuits will divert management’s attention and resources from other matters, which could also adversely affect our business and the price of our stock.

We Face Intense Competition in the Semiconductor Market; Our Competitors Are Much Larger Than We Are and Have Significantly Greater Resources; We May Not Be Able to Compete Effectively.

     The market for microprocessors is dominated by established firms and subject to rapid technological change. We face particularly strong competitive pressure in the United States and we believe that such pressure is increasing on a worldwide basis. Competition may cause price reductions, reduced gross margins and loss of market share, any one of which could significantly reduce our future revenue and increase our losses. For example, we may determine to lower the prices of our products in order to increase or maintain market share, which would likely increase our losses. Significant competitors include Intel, Advanced Micro Devices, VIA Technologies and licensees of technology from ARM Holdings and MIPS Technologies.

     Our current and potential competitors have longer operating histories, significantly greater financial, technical, product development and marketing resources, greater name recognition and significantly larger customer bases than we do. Our competitors may be able to develop products comparable or superior to those we offer, adapt more quickly than we do to new technologies, evolving industry trends and customer requirements, and devote greater resources to the development, promotion and sale of their products than we can. Many of our competitors also have well-established relationships with our existing and prospective customers and suppliers. As a result of these factors, many of our competitors, either alone or with other companies, have significant influence in our target markets that could outweigh any advantage that we may possess. For example, negotiating and maintaining favorable customer and strategic relationships are and will continue to be critical to our business. If our competitors use their influence to negotiate strategic relationships on more favorable terms than we are able to negotiate, or if they structure relationships that impair our ability to form strategic relationships, our competitive position and our business would be substantially damaged.

     Furthermore, our competitors may merge or form strategic relationships that might enable them to offer, or bring to market earlier, products that are superior to ours in terms of features, quality, pricing or other factors. We expect additional competition from other established and emerging companies and technologies. We may not be able to compete effectively against current and potential competitors, especially those with significantly greater resources and market leverage.

Our Products May Have Defects, Which Could Damage Our Reputation, Decrease Market Acceptance of Our Products, Cause Us to Lose Customers and Revenue, and Result in Liability to Us.

     Highly complex products such as our microprocessors may contain hardware or software defects or bugs for many reasons, including design issues or defective materials or manufacturing processes. Often, these defects and bugs are not detected until after the products have been shipped. If any of our products contain defects, or has reliability, quality or compatibility problems, our reputation might be damaged significantly and customers might be reluctant to buy our products, which could result in the loss of or failure to attract customers. In addition, these defects could interrupt or delay sales. We may have to invest significant capital and other resources to correct these problems. If any of these problems are not found until after we have commenced commercial production of a new product, we might incur substantial additional development costs. If we fail to provide solutions to the problems, such as software upgrades or patches, we could also incur product recall, repair or replacement costs. These problems might also result in claims against us by our customers or others. In addition, these problems might divert our technical and other resources from other development efforts. Moreover, we would likely lose, or experience a delay in, market acceptance of the affected product or products, and we could lose credibility with our current and prospective customers. This is particularly significant as we are a new entrant to a market dominated by large well-established companies.

18

Table of Contents

We Derive a Substantial Portion of Our Revenue From a Small Number of Customers, and Our Revenue Would Decline Significantly if Any Major Customer Were to Cancel, Reduce or Delay a Purchase of Our Products.

     Sales to two customers in the aggregate accounted for 44% of net product revenue in the first quarter of fiscal 2003. These customers are located in Japan, which subjects us to economic cycles in that country. We expect that a small number of OEM customers and distributors will continue to account for a significant portion of our revenue. Our future success will depend upon the timing and size of future purchase orders, if any, from these customers and new customers and, in particular:

	•		the success of our customers in marketing products that incorporate our products;
	•		the product requirements of our customers; and
	•		the financial and operational success of our customers.

     We have entered into distributor agreements and rely in part on distributors and stocking representatives for sales of our products in large territories, including Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Europe, China, Korea and North America. These agreements do not contain minimum purchase commitments. Additionally, we have entered into agreements with manufacturers’ representatives in North America and Europe. Any distributor, stocking representative or manufacturers’ representative that fails to emphasize sales of our products, chooses to emphasize alternative products or devices to promote products of our competitors might not sell a significant amount or any of our products. We expect that our sales to OEM customers will continue to be made on the basis of purchase orders rather than long-term commitments. In addition, customers can delay, modify or cancel orders without penalty. Many of our customers and potential customers are significantly larger than we are and have sufficient bargaining power to demand reduced prices and favorable nonstandard terms. The loss of any major customer, or the delay of significant orders from these customers, could reduce or delay our recognition of revenue.

Our Dependence on TSMC to Fabricate Wafers Limits Our Control Over the Production, Supply and Delivery of Our Products.

     The cost, quality and availability of third-party manufacturing operations are essential elements to the successful production of our products. We currently rely exclusively on TSMC to fabricate our wafers. We do not have a manufacturing agreement with TSMC that guarantees any particular production capacity or any particular price from TSMC. We place orders on a purchase order basis and TSMC may allocate capacity to other companies’ products while reducing deliveries to us on short notice. The absence of dedicated capacity means that, with little or no notice, TSMC could refuse to continue to fabricate all or some of the wafers that we require or change the terms under which it fabricates wafers. If TSMC were to stop manufacturing for us, we would likely be unable to replace the lost capacity in a timely manner. Transferring to another manufacturer would require a significant amount of time and money, and would be subject to all risks incident to relying on third parties for wafer fabrication. As a result, we could lose potential sales and fail to meet existing obligations to our customers. In addition, if TSMC were to change the terms under which it manufactures for us, our manufacturing costs could increase.

     Our reliance on third-party manufacturers exposes us to the following risks outside our control:

	•		unpredictability of manufacturing yields and production costs;
	•		interruptions in shipments;
	•		potential lack of adequate capacity to fill all or part of the services we require;
	•		inability to control quality of finished products;
	•		inability to control product delivery schedules; and
	•		potential lack of access to key fabrication process technologies.

If We Fail to Forecast Demand for Our Products Accurately, We Could Lose Sales and Incur Inventory Losses.

19

Table of Contents

     Because we only introduced our products in January 2000 and did not start volume shipments of commercial products until September 2000, we have little historical information about demand for our products. Many shipments of our products are made near the end of the fiscal quarter, which also makes it difficult to estimate demand for our products. The demand for our products depends upon many factors and is difficult to forecast. We expect that it will become more difficult to forecast demand as we introduce a larger number of products and as competition in the markets for our products intensifies. Significant unanticipated fluctuations in demand have caused, and in the future could cause, problems in our operations.

     The lead-time required to fabricate large volumes of wafers is often longer than the lead-time our customers provide to us for delivery of their product requirements. Therefore, we often must place our orders in advance of expected purchase orders from our customers. As a result, we have only a limited ability to react to fluctuations in demand for our products, which could cause us to have either too much or too little inventory of a particular product. If demand does not develop as we expect, we could have excess production. Excess production would result in excess inventories of finished products, which would use cash and could result in inventory write-downs and write-offs. We have limited capability to reduce ongoing production once wafer fabrication has commenced. For example, due to the sudden and significant decrease in actual and forecasted demand for our products during the second and third quarters of 2001, we recorded a net charge of $25.6 million to cost of revenue related to excess inventory and related purchase commitments. Further, as we introduce product enhancements and new products, and improve our manufacturing processes, demand for our existing products decreases. Conversely, if demand exceeds our expectations, TSMC, might not be able to fabricate wafers as quickly as we need them. Also, ASE, which provides the majority of our assembly and test services, might not be able to increase assembly functions in a timely manner. In that event, we would need to increase production and assembly rapidly at TSMC and ASE or find, qualify and begin production and assembly at additional manufacturers, which may not be possible within a time frame acceptable to our customers. The inability of TSMC and ASE to increase production rapidly enough could cause us to fail to meet customer demand. In addition, rapid increases in production levels to meet unanticipated demand could result in higher costs for manufacturing and other expenses. These higher costs could lower our gross margins.

We May Experience Manufacturing Difficulties That Could Increase the Cost and Reduce the Supply of Our Products.

     The fabrication of wafers for our microprocessors is a highly complex and precise process that requires production in a tightly controlled, clean room environment. Minute impurities, difficulties in the fabrication process, defects in the masks used to print circuits on a wafer or other factors can cause numerous die on each wafer to be nonfunctional. The proportion of functional die expressed as a percentage of total die on a wafer is referred to as product “yield.” Semiconductor companies frequently encounter difficulties in achieving expected product yields. During 2001, we experienced yield problems as we migrated our manufacturing processes to smaller geometries, which caused increases in our product costs, delays in product availability and diversion of engineering personnel. Even with functional die, normal variations in wafer fabrication can cause some die to run faster than others. Variations in speed yield could lead to excess inventory, a resulting unfavorable impact on gross margins and insufficient inventory of faster products, depending upon customer demand. Yield problems may not be identified and resolved until a product has been manufactured and can be analyzed and tested, if ever. As a result, yield problems are often difficult, time consuming and expensive to correct. Yield problems have in the past and could in the future hamper our ability to deliver our products to our customers in a timely manner.

Our Dependence on ASE to Provide Assembly and Test Services Limits Our Control Over Production Costs and Product Supply.

     We rely on ASE for the majority of our assembly and test services. As a result, we do not directly control our product delivery schedules. This lack of control could result in product shortages, which could increase our costs or delay delivery of our products. We do not have a contract with ASE for test and assembly services, and we typically procure these services from ASE on a per order basis. ASE could cease to perform all of the services that we require, or could change the terms upon which it performs services for us. Therefore, we may not be able to obtain assembly and testing services for our products on acceptable terms, or at all. If we are required to find and qualify alternative assembly or testing services, we could experience delays in product shipments, increased product costs or a decline in product quality.

Our California Facilities and the Facilities of Third Parties Upon Which We Rely to Provide Us Critical Services are Located in Regions that are Subject to Earthquakes and Other Natural Disasters.

     Our California facilities, including our principal executive offices, are located near major earthquake fault lines. If there is a major earthquake or any other natural disaster in a region where one of our facilities is located, our business could be materially and adversely affected. In addition, TSMC, upon which we currently rely to fabricate our wafers, and ASE, upon which we currently rely for the majority of our assembly and test services, are located in Taiwan. Taiwan has experienced significant earthquakes and could be

20

Table of Contents

subject to additional earthquakes in the future. Any earthquake or other natural disaster in Taiwan could materially disrupt TSMC’s production capabilities and ASE’s assembly and test capabilities and could result in our experiencing a significant delay in delivery, or substantial shortage, of wafers and possibly in higher wafer prices.

The Recent Outbreak of SARS in the Asia-Pacific Region and Its Continued Spread Could Harm Our Business.

The recent outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS, which began in China, Hong Kong, Singapore and Vietnam but appears to be spreading, may have a negative impact on our business. We have employees located in Taiwan, and we have our products manufactured and assembled in Taiwan. Our business may be impacted by a variety of SARS-related factors, including but not limited to disruptions in the operations of our offices, our partners, our customers, and their partners; reduced sales in certain end-markets; and increased costs to conduct our business abroad. If the number of cases of SARS continues to increase or spread to other areas, including the United States, our business could also be harmed.

If We Fail to Establish and Maintain Relationships With Key Participants in Our Target Markets, We May Have Difficulty Selling Our Products.

     In addition to our customers, we will need to establish and maintain relationships with companies that develop technologies that work in conjunction with our microprocessors. These technologies include operating systems, basic input/output systems, graphics chips, dynamic random access memory, or DRAM, and other hardware components and software that are used in computers. If we fail to establish and maintain these relationships, it would be more difficult for us to develop and market products with features that address emerging market trends.

If Our Products Are Not Compatible With the Other Components That Our Customers Design Into Their Systems, Sales of Our Products Could Be Delayed or Cancelled and a Substantial Portion of Our Products Could Be Returned.

     Our products are designed to function as components of a system. Our customers use our products in systems that have differing specifications and that require various other components, such as dynamic random access memory, or DRAM, and other semiconductor devices. If our customers’ systems are to function properly, all of the components must be compatible with each other. If our customers experience system-level incompatibilities between our products and the other components in their systems, we could be required to modify our products to overcome the incompatibilities or delay shipment of our products until the manufacturers of other components modify their products or until our customers select other components. These events would delay purchases of our products, cause orders for our products to be cancelled or result in product returns. System-level incompatibilities that are significant, or are perceived to be significant could also result in negative publicity and could significantly damage our business.

If Our Customers Are Not Able to Obtain the Other Components Necessary to Build Their Systems, Sales of Our Products Could Be Delayed or Cancelled.

     Suppliers of other components incorporated into our customers’ systems may experience shortages, which could reduce the demand for our products. For example, from time to time, the computer and semiconductor industries have experienced shortages of some materials and devices, such as memory components, displays, and storage devices. Our customers could defer or cancel purchases of our products if they are not able to obtain the other components necessary to build their systems.

There May Be Software Applications or Operating Systems That Are Not Compatible With Our Products, Which May Prevent Our Products from Achieving Market Acceptance and Prevent Us From Receiving Significant Revenue.

     Software applications, games or operating systems with machine-specific routines programmed into them can result in specific incompatibilities. If a particular software application, game or operating system is programmed in a manner that makes it unable to respond correctly to our microprocessor, it will appear to users of that software that our microprocessor is not compatible with PC software. We might encounter incompatibilities in the future. If any incompatibilities are significant or are perceived to be significant, our products might never achieve market acceptance and we might not receive significant revenue from product sales.

The Evolution of Our Business Could Place Significant Strain on Our Management Systems, Infrastructure and Other Resources, and Our Business May Not Succeed if We Fail to Manage Effectively.

     Our ability to implement our business plan in a rapidly evolving market requires effective planning and management process. Changes in our business plans could place significant strain on our management systems, infrastructure and other resources. In addition, we expect that we will continue to improve our financial and managerial controls and procedures. We will also need to expand, train and manage our workforce worldwide. Furthermore, we expect that we will be required to manage an increasing number of relationships with suppliers, manufacturers, customers and other third parties. If we fail to manage change effectively, our employee-related costs and employee turnover could increase and our business may not succeed.

Our Lengthy and Variable Sales Cycles Make It Difficult for Us to Predict When and if a Design Win Will Result in Volume Shipments.

21

Table of Contents

We depend upon other companies designing our microprocessors into their products, which we refer to as design wins. Many of our targeted customers consider the choice of a microprocessor to be a strategic decision. Thus our targeted customers may take a long time to evaluate our products, and many individuals may be involved in the evaluation process. We anticipate that the length of time between our initial contact with a customer and the time when we recognize revenue from that customer will vary. We expect our sales cycles to range from six to twelve months, or more, from the time we achieve a design win to the time the customer begins volume production of products that incorporate our microprocessors. We do not have historical experience selling our products that is sufficient for us to determine how our sales cycles will affect the timing of our revenue. Variations in the length of our sales cycles could cause our revenue to fluctuate widely from period to period. While potential customers are evaluating our products and before they place an order with us, we may incur sales and marketing expenses and expend significant management and engineering resources without any assurance of success. The value of any design win depends upon the commercial success of our customers’ products. If our customers cancel projects or change product plans, we could lose anticipated sales. We can offer no assurance that we will achieve further design wins or that the products for which we achieve design wins will ultimately be introduced or will, if introduced, be commercially successful.

If We Do Not Keep Pace With Technological Change, Our Products May Not Be Competitive and Our Revenue and Operating Results May Suffer.

     The semiconductor industry is characterized by rapid technological change, frequent new product introductions and enhancements, and ongoing customer demands for greater performance. In addition, the average selling price of any particular microprocessor product has historically decreased substantially over its life, and we expect that trend to continue. As a result, our products may not be competitive if we fail to introduce new products or product enhancements that meet evolving customer demands. It may be difficult or costly for us or we may not be able to enhance existing products to fully meet customer demands. For instance, in order to meet the demands of our customers for enhancement of our existing products, we may incur manufacturing or other costs that would harm our operating margins and financial condition. Further, we may not achieve further design wins with current customers unless we continue to meet their evolving needs by developing new products. The development of new products is complex, and we may not be able to complete development in a timely manner, or at all. To introduce and improve products on a timely basis, we must:

	•		accurately define and design new products to meet market needs;
	•		design features that continue to differentiate our products from those of our competitors;
	•		transition our products to new manufacturing process technologies;
	•		identify emerging technological trends in our target markets;
	•		anticipate changes in end-user preferences with respect to our customers’ products;
	•		bring products to market on a timely basis at competitive prices; and
	•		respond effectively to technological changes or product announcements by others.

     We believe that we will need to continue to enhance our products and develop new products to keep pace with competitive and technological developments and to achieve market acceptance for our products.

Our Products May Infringe the Intellectual Property Rights of Others, Which May Cause Us to Become Subject to Expensive Litigation, Cause Us to Incur Substantial Damages, Require Us to Pay Significant License Fees or Prevent Us From Selling Our Products.

     Our industry is characterized by the existence of a large number of patents and frequent claims and related litigation regarding patent and other intellectual property rights. We cannot be certain that our products do not and will not infringe issued patents, patents that may be issued in the future, or other intellectual property rights of others. In addition, leading companies in the semiconductor industry have extensive intellectual property portfolios with respect to semiconductor technology. From time to time, third parties, including these leading companies, may assert exclusive patent, copyright, trademark and other intellectual property rights to technologies and related methods that are important to us. We expect that we may become subject to infringement claims as the number of products and competitors in our target markets grows and the functionality of products overlaps. We have received, and may in the future receive, communications from third parties asserting patent or other intellectual property rights covering our

22

Table of Contents

products. Litigation may be necessary in the future to defend against claims of infringement or invalidity, to determine the validity and scope of the proprietary rights of others, to enforce our intellectual property rights, or to protect our trade secrets. We may also be subject to claims from customers for indemnification. Any resulting litigation, regardless of its resolution, could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources.

     If it were determined that our products infringe the intellectual property rights of others, we would need to obtain licenses from these parties or substantially reengineer our products in order to avoid infringement. We might not be able to obtain the necessary licenses on acceptable terms, or at all, or to reengineer our products successfully. Moreover, if we are sued for infringement and lose the suit, we could be required to pay substantial damages or be enjoined from licensing or using the infringing products or technology. Any of the foregoing could cause us to incur significant costs and prevent us from selling our products.

If We Are Unable to Protect Our Proprietary Rights Adequately, Our Competitors Might Gain Access to Our Technology and We Might Not Compete Successfully In Our Market.

     We believe that our success will depend in part upon our proprietary technology. We rely on a combination of patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secret laws and contractual obligations with employees and third parties to protect our proprietary rights. These legal protections provide only limited protection and may be time consuming and expensive to obtain and enforce. If we fail to protect our proprietary rights adequately, our competitors might gain access to our technology. As a result, our competitors might offer similar products and we might not be able to compete successfully in our market. Moreover, despite our efforts to protect our proprietary rights, unauthorized parties may copy aspects of our products and obtain and use information that we regard as proprietary. Also, our competitors may independently develop similar, but not infringing, technology, duplicate our products, or design around our patents or our other intellectual property. In addition, other parties may breach confidentiality agreements or other protective contracts with us, and we may not be able to enforce our rights in the event of these breaches. Furthermore, we expect that we will increase our international operations in the future, and the laws of many foreign countries do not protect our intellectual property rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States. We may be required to spend significant resources to monitor and protect our intellectual property rights.

     Our pending patent and trademark applications may not be approved. Our patents, including any patents which may result from our patent applications may not provide us with any competitive advantage or may be challenged by third parties. If challenged, our patents might not be upheld or their claims could be narrowed. Any litigation surrounding our rights could force us to divert important financial and other resources from our business operations.

We Will Not Be Able to Grow Our Business if We Are Unable to Hire, Train and Retain Sales, Marketing, Operations, Engineering and Finance Personnel.

     To grow our business successfully and maintain a high level of quality, we will need to recruit, train, retain and motivate highly skilled sales, marketing, engineering and finance personnel. We will need to develop our sales and marketing organizations in order to increase market awareness of our products and to increase revenue. In addition, as a company focused on the development of complex products, we will need to hire skilled engineering staff of various experience levels in order to meet our product roadmap. We may not be able to hire on a timely basis a sufficient number of skilled employees, which could lead to delays in product deliveries or the development of new products. Competition for skilled employees, particularly in the San Francisco Bay Area, is intense. We may have difficulty recruiting potential employees and retaining our key personnel if prospective or current employees perceive the equity component of our compensation package to be less valuable than that of other employers.

If We Fail to Meet the Continued Listing Requirements of the Nasdaq Stock Market, Our Common Stock Could be Delisted, Which Would Likely Result in a Further Decrease in the Trading Price and Liquidity of Our Common Stock.

     Our common stock is listed on the Nasdaq National Market. The Nasdaq Stock Market’s Marketplace Rules impose requirements for companies listed on the Nasdaq National Market to maintain their listing status. One of these requirements is that we must maintain a minimum closing bid price of $1.00 per share for our common stock. If we fail to meet this requirement for 30 consecutive business days, we will receive a “deficiency notice” from Nasdaq. Upon receipt of this notice, we would then have a minimum of 90 calendar days to comply, and during this period the minimum closing bid price per share must be above $1.00 per share for 10 consecutive business days during this period to comply. Following this period, we could appeal to Nasdaq for a hearing regarding the determination to delist our common stock from the Nasdaq National Market. On April 30, 2003, the closing bid price of our common stock was $0.95 per share. Delisting could reduce the ability of holders of our common stock to purchase or sell shares as quickly and as inexpensively as they have done historically. For instance, failure to obtain listing on another market or exchange may make it more difficult for

23

Table of Contents

traders to sell our securities. Broker-dealers may be less willing or able to sell or make a market in our common stock. Not maintaining a listing on a major stock market may result in a decrease in the trading price of our common stock due to a decrease in liquidity, reduced analyst coverage and less interest by institutions and individuals in investing in our common stock.

We May Make Acquisitions, Which Could Put a Strain on Our Resources, Cause Dilution to Our Stockholders and Adversely Affect Our Financial Results.

     We may acquire companies and technology to expand our business and for other strategic reasons. Integrating newly acquired organizations and technologies into our company could put a strain on our resources and be expensive and time consuming. We may not be successful in integrating acquired businesses or technologies and may not achieve anticipated revenue and cost benefits. In addition, future acquisitions could result in potentially dilutive issuances of equity securities or the incurrence of debt, contingent liabilities or incurrence of charges related to goodwill and other intangible assets, any of which could adversely affect our balance sheet and operating results. Moreover, we may not be able to identify future suitable acquisition candidates or, if we are able to identify suitable candidates, we may not be able to make these acquisitions on commercially reasonable terms or at all.

We Plan to Expand Our International Operations, and the Success of Our International Expansion Is Subject to Significant Uncertainties.

     We believe that we must expand our international sales and distribution operations to be successful. We have sold, and in the future we expect to sell a significant portion of our products to customers in Asia. As part of our international expansion, we have personnel in Taiwan, Japan and Europe who provide sales and customer support. In addition, we have appointed distributors, stocking representatives and manufacturers’ representatives to sell products in Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Europe, China, Korea and North America. In attempting to conduct and expand business internationally, we are exposed to various risks that could adversely affect our international operations and, consequently, our operating results, including:

	•		difficulties and costs of staffing and managing international operations;
	•		fluctuations in currency exchange rates;
	•		unexpected changes in regulatory requirements, including imposition of currency exchange controls;
	•		longer accounts receivable collection cycles;
	•		import or export licensing requirements;
	•		potentially adverse tax consequences;
	•		major health concerns, such as SARS;
	•		political and economic instability; and
	•		potentially reduced protection for intellectual property rights.

     In addition, because we have suppliers that are located outside of the United States, we are subject to risks generally associated with contracting with foreign suppliers and may experience problems in the timeliness and the adequacy or quality of product deliveries.

Our Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws, Stockholder Rights Plan and Delaware Law Contain Provisions That Could Discourage or Prevent a Takeover, Even if an Acquisition Would Be Beneficial to Our Stockholders.

     Provisions of our certificate of incorporation and bylaws, as well as provisions of Delaware law, could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire us, even if doing so would be beneficial to our stockholders. These provisions include:

	•		establishing a classified board of directors so that not all members of our board may be elected at one time;
	•		providing that directors may be removed only “for cause” and only with the vote of 66 2/3% of our outstanding shares;

24

Table of Contents

	•		requiring super-majority voting to amend some provisions in our certificate of incorporation and bylaws;
	•		authorizing the issuance of “blank check” preferred stock that our board could issue to increase the number of outstanding shares and to discourage a takeover attempt;
	•		limiting the ability of our stockholders to call special meetings of stockholders;
	•		prohibiting stockholder action by written consent, which requires all stockholder actions to be taken at a meeting of our stockholders;
	•		eliminating cumulative voting in the election of directors; and
	•		establishing advance notice requirements for nominations for election to our board or for proposing matters that can be acted upon by stockholders at stockholder meetings.

     In addition, the stockholder rights, which we implemented in 2002, and Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law may discourage, delay or prevent a change in control.

If We Need Additional Financing, We May Not Be Able to Raise Further Financing or It May Only Be Available on Terms Unfavorable to Us or Our Stockholders.

     We believe that our available cash resources are sufficient to meet our anticipated working capital and capital expenditure requirements for at least the next twelve months. We might need to raise additional funds, however, to respond to business contingencies, which could include the need to:

			• fund expansion;
			• fund marketing expenditures;
			• develop new products or enhance existing products;
			• enhance our operating infrastructure;
			• fund working capital if our revenue does not increase, or declines;
			• hire additional personnel;
			• respond to competitive pressures; or
			• acquire complementary businesses or technologies.

     If we were to raise additional funds through the issuance of equity or convertible debt securities, the percentage ownership of our stockholders would be reduced, and these newly issued securities might have rights, preferences or privileges senior to those of our then-existing stockholders. Additional financing might not be available on terms favorable to us, or at all. If adequate funds were not available or were not available on acceptable terms, our ability to fund our operations, take advantage of unanticipated opportunities, develop or enhance our products or otherwise respond to competitive pressures would be significantly limited.

Recently Enacted and Proposed Changes in Securities Laws and Regulations are Likely to Increase Our Costs.

     The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that became law in July 2002 requires changes in some of our corporate governance, public disclosure and compliance practices. The Act also requires the SEC to promulgate new rules on a variety of subjects. In addition to final rules and rule proposals already made by the SEC, the National Association of Securities Dealers has proposed revisions to its requirements for companies, such as us, that are Nasdaq-listed. We expect these developments to increase our legal and financial compliance costs, and to make some activities, such as SEC reporting requirements, more difficult. Additionally, we expect these developments to make it more difficult and more expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance, and we may be

25

Table of Contents

required to accept reduced coverage or incur substantially higher costs to obtain coverage. These developments could make it more difficult for us to attract qualified executive officers and attract and retain qualified members of our board of directors, particularly to serve on our audit committee. We are presently evaluating and monitoring regulatory developments and cannot estimate the timing or magnitude of additional costs we may incur as a result.

Item 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk

     Interest Rate Risk. Our cash equivalents and available-for-sale investments are exposed to financial market risk due to fluctuations in interest rates, which may affect our interest income. Over the past few years, we have experienced significant reductions in our interest income due in part to declines in interest rates. These declines have led to interest rates that are low by historical standards and we do not believe that further decreases in interest rates will have a material impact on the interest income earned on our cash equivalents and short-term investments held at March 31, 2003.

     Foreign Currency Exchange Risk. All of our sales and substantially all of our expenses are denominated in U.S. dollars. As a result, we have relatively little exposure to foreign currency exchange risk. We do not currently enter into forward exchange contracts to hedge exposures denominated in foreign currencies or any other derivative financial instruments for trading or speculative purposes. However, in the event our exposure to foreign currency risk increases, we may choose to hedge those exposures.

Item 4. Controls and Procedures

     Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures. Our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer have evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures (as such term is defined in Rules 13a-14(c) and 15d-14(c) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”)) as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the “Evaluation Date”). Based on such evaluation, such officers have concluded that, as of the Evaluation Date, our disclosure controls and procedures are effective for recording, processing, summarizing and reporting information that we (including our consolidated subsidiaries) are required to disclose in our reports filed or submitted under the Exchange Act.

     Changes in Internal Controls. Since the Evaluation Date, there have not been any significant changes in our internal controls or, to our knowledge, in other factors that could significantly affect such controls. Our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer evaluated our internal controls as of the Evaluation Date. Those officers have indicated that, since the Evaluation Date, there have not been any significant changes in our internal controls or, to their knowledge, in other factors that could significantly affect those controls.

26

Table of Contents

PART II. OTHER INFORMATION

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

     Beginning in June 2001, Transmeta, its directors, and certain of its officers were named as defendants in several putative shareholder class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In October 2001, the Court consolidated those complaints into a single action entitled In re Transmeta Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. C 01-02450 WHA, and appointed lead plaintiffs and class counsel. In December 2001, plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended complaints purported to allege a class action on behalf of all persons, other than the individual defendants and the other officers of Transmeta, who purchased or acquired common stock of Transmeta during the period from November 7, 2000 to July 19, 2001. The consolidated amended complaints alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. In March 2002, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. In May 2002, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, and denied plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. In June 2002, defendants answered the second amended complaint as to the only surviving claim. In July 2002, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment relating to that claim. Plaintiffs moved for class certification, and the Court was scheduled to hear defendants’ motion for summary judgment and plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in December 2002. The Company believes that the allegations in the second amended complaint and the antecedent complaints are without merit and have defended the consolidated action vigorously. Notwithstanding this belief, and in order to avoid any additional waste of management time and expense, the Company and the individual defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding with plaintiffs’ counsel to settle all claims that might have been brought in this action for approximately $5.5 million, all of which monies have been paid by the defendants’ Directors and Officer (D&O) liability insurance. In December 2002, the court granted preliminary approval to the proposed settlement agreement. In March 2003, the Court granted final approval of the settlement and entered judgment in the action. In April 2003, a plaintiff’s attorney who was not selected as class counsel filed a notice of appeal relating to certain orders of the court appointing class counsel and addressing certain applications of her firm for attorneys’ fees.

     Beginning June 2001, the directors and certain officers of Transmeta were sued in four purported shareholder derivative actions. In October 2001, those cases were consolidated in and by the Superior Court for Santa Clara County in a single action entitled In re Transmeta Corporation Derivative Litigation, Master File No. CV 799491. In April 2002, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. Like its antecedents, the consolidated amended complaint is based upon the same general allegations set out in the purported shareholder class actions described above. In May and June 2002, Transmeta and the individual defendants filed two demurrers to the second amended complaint. In July 2002, the Court sustained Transmeta’s demurrer based on plaintiffs’ lack of standing, gave plaintiffs 90 days to file an amended complaint, and deferred consideration of the individual defendants’ demurrer as moot. The Company believes that the allegations in the second amended complaint and its antecedents are without merit and have defended the action vigorously. Notwithstanding this belief, and in order to avoid any additional waste of management time and expense, the Company and the individual defendants agreed to settle all claims that might have been brought in this action for a sum of money to be paid entirely by defendants’ D&O liability insurance, similar to the proposed agreement to settle all of the claims in the federal class action. In December 2002, the parties executed a memorandum of understanding dated October 3, 2002 (the MOU). The MOU provides for a settlement of the consolidated derivative action pursuant to a definitive agreement and subject to judicial approval. The proposed settlement includes a dismissal with prejudice of all asserted claims, a release in favor of all defendants, and a payment to fees to counsel for the derivative plaintiffs in an amount to be approved by the Court but not to exceed $300,000. In April 2003, the court approved the parties’ stipulated order scheduling for September 2003 a hearing on their motion for dismissal upon settlement

     Beginning in June 2001, the Company, certain of its directors and officers, and certain of the underwriters for its initial public offering were named as defendants in three putative shareholder class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In January 2002, the Court ordered that all matters in the Southern District of New York be consolidated under In re Transmeta Corporation Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, No. 01 CV 6492. On April 19, 2002, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the prospectus from Transmeta’s November 7, 2000 initial public offering failed to disclose certain alleged actions by the underwriters for the offering. The consolidated amended complaint alleges claims against Transmeta and several of its officers and directors under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and under Sections 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Other actions have been filed making similar allegations regarding the initial public offerings of more than 300 other companies. All of these consolidated cases have been coordinated for pretrial purposes as In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS). The Company believes that the allegations in the consolidated amended complaint and its antecedents are without merit

27

Table of Contents

and intend to defend the action vigorously. In November 2002, Transmeta joined a coordinated motion to dismiss filed on behalf of all issuers and individual defendants. In March 2003, the Court granted in part and denied in part that coordinated motion to dismiss, and issued an order regarding pleading of amended complaints.

Item 2. Changes in Securities and Use of Proceeds

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities

     In February 2003, we issued 796,178 shares of common stock, valued at $1.0 million, to an intellectual property owner as partial consideration for certain intellectual property and related assets that we acquired in February 2001.

     The sales and issuance of securities listed above were determined to be exempt from registration under Section 4(2) of the Securities Act or Regulation D promulgated under the Securities Act as transactions by an issuer not involving a public offering.

Use of Proceeds From Sales of Registered Securities

     Our Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-44030) related to our initial public offering was declared effective by the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2000. A total of 14,950,000 shares of our common stock were registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission with an aggregate offering price of approximately $314 million. Net offering proceeds to us (after deducting underwriting discounts and offering expenses) were approximately $289.4 million.

     As of March 31, 2003, we paid $14.5 million of the net proceeds to IBM under the terms of our amended license agreement, approximately $13.7 million in property and equipment purchases and $22 million for the purchase of intellectual property and related assets from Seiko Epson and other intellectual property owners. We have also paid approximately $207.3 million to fund ordinary operating expenses. The remaining net proceeds have been invested in short-term interest bearing, investment-grade securities.

Item 3. Defaults upon Senior Securities

     Not Applicable.

Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders

     Not Applicable.

Item 5. Other Information

     Not Applicable.

Item 6. Exhibits and Reports on Form 8-K

(a)

Exhibits.

     The following exhibits are filed herewith:

(b)

Reports on Form 8-K

     Not Applicable.

28

Table of Contents

SIGNATURES

     Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

Date: May 12, 2003

29

Table of Contents

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Matthew R. Perry, certify that:

     1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Transmeta Corporation;

     2.     Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

     3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

     4.     The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

	a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

	b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the “Evaluation Date”); and

	c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

     5.     The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

	a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

	b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and

     6.     The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: May 12, 2003

30

Table of Contents

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Svend-Olav Carlsen, certify that:

     1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Transmeta Corporation;

     2.     Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

     3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

     4.     The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

	a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

	b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the “Evaluation Date”); and

	c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

     5.     The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

	a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

	b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and

     6.     The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: May 12, 2003

31

Table of Contents

EXHIBIT INDEX

32