Analyzing Microsoft's Linux Lawsuit

jammag writes "Open source advocate Bruce Perens takes a close look at Microsoft's lawsuit against TomTom (discussed here last week), which involves an implementation of the Linux kernel, and calls it essentially a paper tiger. He notes: 'the technologies claimed in the 8 patents involved are so old and obvious that it's fair to say they have a high "Duh!" factor. There's an anti-trust angle to this suit that could blow up in Microsoft's face. And there's a high probability that some or all of the patents involved are invalid, due to recent court decisions.' Although the legal expense for TomTom to defend itself in court could be astronomical — meaning they may be forced to settle — in Perens' view Microsoft is aware its case is weak, yet hopes for a PR victory at limited cost." And reader nerdyH adds speculation from Open Innovation Network CEO Keith Bergelt that Redmond's action could be retaliation for TomTom's spurning a Microsoft acquisition bid in 2006.

Comments

FAT translation

[Wowsers]

I read the article, Microsoft contest their FAT patent. But why would anyone need a translation table from 8.3 FAT names to the longer versions, that was only for dumb Microsoft systems that needed this translation for backwards compatibility. There is no need for such backward compatibility these days surely, long filenames are used these days???

Re:FAT translation

[Peaker]

I think these translation tables *are* how long filenames are implemented within FAT file systems.

Re:FAT translation

[gnasher719]

Maybe MS could be nailed for discriminatory patent licensing if we find that, say, TomTom is the only unlicensed infringer being targeted?

There is such a thing as "patent abuse", but that would apply to the opposite situation: If MS licensed FAT32 to everyone in the world except that they refused to license it to TomTom, that could be "patent abuse". If it is true that MS has _demanded_ that TomTom should get a license for this patent, then "patent abuse" wouldn't apply here.

Re:I'll save us all some time:

[RiotingPacifist]

lets not forget gratuitous amounts of links to random comics, like this

Re:Well, if Bruce Perens, legal expert said that..

[styrotech]

I know this wasn't what you were getting at, but he didn't say Linux has nothing to worry about (did you read the article?). Even if there isn't much substance behind the patent claims themselves, the article points out there is still plenty to worry about with these kinds of cases.

Re:question

[ozphx]

Because the legal analysis will go along the lines of "While asshattery on MS's behalf, they will likely win or force Tomtom to settle". This isn't something the Slashdot demographic wants to hear.

Re:Well, if Bruce Perens, legal expert said that..

[morgan_greywolf]

Actually, even as a non-attorney, Bruce Perens does have quite a bit of legal background. You can read all about it in Bruce Perens' online resume

Re:question

[Bruce Perens]

Lawyers have generally been reluctant to do this because they can get in special kinds of trouble.

Re:Well, if Bruce Perens, legal expert said that..

[Bruce Perens]

I didn't say that, and you didn't read the article, so kindly go do so and say something more clueful next time.

Re:question

[tuxgeek]

OSDL has implemented a legal defense fund for this purpose.
http://www.osdlab.org/en/Linux_Legal_Defense_Fund

I'm not sure how it works but I believe you can make donations to them (tax deductible?) specifically for the purpose of defending OSS developers against lawsuit from litigious douche bag companies such as M$, SCO, and various other patent trolls.

Re:question

[nomadic]

I don't know about this, LT has a tendency to go off on rants about things outside his sphere of expertise (and it shows).

Re:Targeting Linux?

[Bruce Perens]

In that case, Microsoft could have come out with a product incorporating the BSD code, while suing other users of that same BSD code. This happened with JMRI.

Re:Targeting Linux?

[transporter_ii]

Interesting. Doesn't that assume that TomTom made the code in question public, which they wouldn't have to do with a BSD license?

I checked and FreeBSD, as well as a long list of other operating systems will mount a FAT32 partition. With FreeBSD it is just mount with "-t msdos,' which will let it mount FAT floppies, FAT16, and FAT32 partitions.

Of course, I'm sure you know this. What I'm just trying to figure out is if they are going after TomTom because they use Linux, or if they would be going after TomTom regardless.

Thanks,

transporter_ii

Re:Targeting Linux?

[Bruce Perens]

Doesn't that assume that TomTom made the code in question public, which they wouldn't have to do with a BSD license?

No. You don't need to look at any code to determine that it's mounting an SD card with a VFAT filesystem. Just look at the card. That's all MS needs to assert the patent. But in any case, it's easy to look at the code in most embedded systems, and certainly on TomTom. All of their proprietary code is on the SD card too.

Re:Only non-Windows GPS System

[linuxrocks123]

Factually incorrect. Garmin also uses Linux; others probably do as well.

---linuxrocks123

Re:Well, if Bruce Perens, legal expert said that..

[David Gerard]

Second link on "gpl court germany". Harald Welte, of course, kicking D-Link's arse.

Re:question

[mcgrew]

There are PLENTY of pro-Microsoft people here.

As can be attested to by the fact that a reasoned, polite comment that has anything negative to say about Microsoft will be modded "flamebait" or "troll".

While it is rare that a company will sneak in secret and/or undesirable behaviors into binary-only distributed software, we know for a fact that it can and does happen

XCP is an excellent example - Sony put that filthy rootkit on MUSIC CDs!

That was an excellent comment, please keep it up.