TomTom Sues Microsoft For Patent Infringement

CWmike writes "GPS device maker TomTom has shot back at Microsoft with a claim of patent infringement, after the software giant raised concerns in the Linux community with a recent lawsuit against TomTom. In a suit filed earlier this week, TomTom alleges that Microsoft infringes on four patents in mapping software Microsoft Streets and Trips. TomTom is asking for triple damages for willful infringement, since it says it had notified Microsoft about its alleged infringement. Microsoft said it was reviewing TomTom's filing and that it remains committed to a licensing solution and has been for more than a year."

Comments

Total War?

[McGiraf]

Is this the start of a total patent war? That would be quite entertaining. Hope when the dust settles we're in for a patent reform.

Re:Total War?

[something_wicked_thi]

The funny thing is that, if the summary is true, it could have been TomTom, not MS, that shot first. Maybe MS suing TomTom was just retaliation for TomTom trying to collect royalties.

Re:Total War?

[Zeinfeld]

Well it certainly makes Tom Tom's previous complaints about patent bullies look a bit thin. As they admit they threatened Microsoft. To their surprise, Microsoft fired first.

In other words the Microsoft suit had nothing whatsoever to do with Linux, except to the extent that if your product uses Linux and you try to sue Microsoft for infringement of your own patents you can expect to be sued in return.

This is not a new situation. The car industry discovered that it was impossible to build cars without cross licensing between all the major manufacturers in the 1950s.

Re:Total War?

[pieterh]

What this shows is that firms which take patents are more likely to be involved in patent lawsuits. So the whole "we took defensive patents, now see how we need them" becomes a self-justifying circle.

Re:Total War?

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally I'm waiting for IBM to jump on the band wagon and sue both TomTom and Microsoft for patent infringement for using electronic devices in implementing data reading. Then Oracle decides they want a slice of the pie and sues everyone for infringing on their patent to use patents to sue other companies. And just when this mexican standoff starts to get hairy, we get HP joining in claiming that everyone has violated their patent of patenting patents. At this point all the big guns come out and the pantent suites start flying until you need a a meter by meter poster to diagram out the connection using a 10pt font. The Lawyers then go to work, bankrupting all the companies and then turn around and ask the US government for a bailout. Which is when AIG strikes claiming that it would violate their patent of receiving government bailouts.

At this point the rest of the world decides to nuke the US to stop the disease from spreading.

Re:Total War?

[morgan_greywolf]

Not likely.

Seriously. TomTom is a much smaller company than Microsoft. It isn't likely that they would launch a patent strike against Microsoft (unless their CEO happens to be Darl McBride ;), a company with a much bigger portfolio and more cash. As a comparison, according to TomTom's 2007 annual report, at that time, they had ~$2 billion in assets world wide. Microsoft has ~$20 billion just in cash.

Re:Total War?

[Shakrai]

it could have been TomTom, not MS, that shot first.

There's a bit of a difference between notifying someone and filing a lawsuit. If Microsoft is infringing on their patents what else should they have done? You can't ignore it. Personally I'd rather receive a letter in that situation than a summons. Maybe that's just me....

Re:Total War?

[Kalriath]

Actually, Halliburton has the patent on patent trolling.

Re:Total War?

[Ioldanach]

Also, from the article, Microsoft "remains committed to a licensing solution and has been for more than a year." So Microsoft has known about this patent violation for a year, and rather than stopping the violation while seeking a license, they continued to infringe. It would be hard to find a clearer case of willful infringement.

Re:Total War?

[Dhalka226]

If Microsoft is infringing on their patents what else should they have done? You can't ignore it.

True. But if it really has been a year since they sent the notification, it seems pretty clear that 1) Microsoft doesn't think they're infringing or 2) they simply don't want to pay license fees. #1 doesn't seem likely, because of that quote about looking for a licensing solution, so it has to be #2.

So how do you infringe somebody's patent and not have to pay them to continue using it? You trade. But you can't trade unless they're also infringing one of yours -- so you can file a lawsuit, which essentially forces them to counter-sue. Now you're both in the pot and you both have incentive to deal, and agreeing to a patent license swap is certainly the easiest and most pain-free resolution to the conflict.

Note that nowhere in that scenario does any party have to actually prove the other is infringing, nor does it even have to be reality. It just has to have a prospect of losing scary enough that you don't want to let a judge/jury decide an outcome. It can be fear of losing or simply fear of legal costs in pursuing a win -- and having Microsoft's legal department on the other side of the table should go a long way toward that.

And hey, if Microsoft actually succeeds in getting a patent trade without TomTom actually infringing one of their patents... well, they won handily.

Re:Total War?

[Anonymous Coward]

Han shot first. Have you not been watching?

Re:Total War?

[overlordofmu]

Are you saying that the law is not equal and fair?

Are you saying that in the USA the wealthy are at an inherent advantaged over the poor? That justice isn't blind and she looks at the litigants pocket books and leans on the rich person's side of the scale?

I was just wondering because I see the same thing and it is nice to hear that I am not alone.

Re:Total War?

[Anonymous Coward]

The funny thing is that, if the summary is true,

Now that would be funny. Summaries on Slashdot being true. That's a good one.

Re:Total War?

[InsertWittyNameHere]

And then the dominoes will fall like a house of cards, checkmate!

Re:Total War?

[sapphire wyvern]

This is not a new situation. The car industry discovered that it was impossible to build cars without cross licensing between all the major manufacturers in the 1950s.

Thus creating a nice high barrier to entry to protect the incumbent oligarchs. Further evidence that the current patent regime is certainly not good for the quality of the market.

Re:Total War?

[mgiuca]

Then Oracle decides they want a slice of the pie and sues everyone for infringing on their patent to use patents to sue other companies.

Wait, it's IBM who has the patent to use other patents to sue other companies.

Re:Total War?

[Picass0]

No, what this shows is companies who employ full time attorneys are more likely to become involved in lawsuits. The patents are simply the weapon of choice.

EFF understands the threat against OSS and that's why we continue to see the stockpile of defensive portfolios.

Re:Total War?

[should_be_linear]

I hate Microsoft just like next guy, but sorry, *ALL* software patents are troll patents in my book. If you start using it against anyone else (which I don't say is the case of TomTom, we don't know yet) then prepare other SW patents to bite you back.

Re:Total War?

[cfriedt]

TomTom is a much smaller company than Microsoft. It isn't likely that they would launch a patent strike against Microsoft..., a company with a much bigger portfolio and more cash.

I wonder if the above comment could be counted as reasonable legal evidence arguing that the US Patent System is corrupt (conventional "wisdom").

In spite of the irony, I wouldn't be surprised if someone already holds a patented business process on judging a patent lawsuit based on who has more money and more expensive lawyers. Throw in bribes and there you have a quasi-functional, feedback-business-control system!

Though I believe that software and business process patents should only exist in Neverland, I still hope that TomTom would win the case if they already had a patent on the "device" in question, regardless of whether they are a company with more or less capital. I assume that the invention was non-obvious at the time the patent and lawsuits were filed, of course, which may not be the case today.

That is definitely not the case with the FAT filesystem.

Has MicroSoft done anything innovative since MS Office?

Re:Total War?

[Jurily]

Is this the start of a total patent war? That would be quite entertaining. Hope when the dust settles we're in for a patent reform.

FOOD FIGHT!

Re:Total War?

[ergo98]

The funny thing is that, if the summary is true, it could have been TomTom, not MS, that shot first. Maybe MS suing TomTom was just retaliation for TomTom trying to collect royalties.

You and quite a few other posters are getting it quite wrong.

When Microsoft talks about remaining committed to a licensing solution, they're saying "we want these bitches to pay up, but they up and pulled the same stunt on us". They're talking about their own claims against TomTom, and since the maker has thus far refused to back down, and is now turning the same fire onto Microsoft, they're probably even more committed to reaching a licensing deal.

But hopefully it doesn't come to that. Hopefully this whole farce of software patents is blown wide open, and the growing protection racket that Microsoft has going on, adding a Microsoft tax to a lot of goods that you don't even know about, gets demolished.

TomTom is a frickin' hero. Just bought a GPS yesterday and I wish I got a TomTom (got a Garmin).

Re:Total War?

[Anonymous Coward]

But aren't courts tired of getting used for this type of thing? That's like two guys organizing a public boxing match between themselves. They get a ring, a referee, a crowd... As soon as round 1 starts, they look at each other and decide it's not worth fighting. If all they wanted was to compare each other's muscles, couldn't they have done this privately instead of wasting a bunch of people's time?

Re:Total War?

[murdocj]

Are you saying that in the USA the wealthy are at an inherent advantaged over the poor?

You mean, like the rest of the world?

Re:Total War?

[nicolas.kassis]

I will now have to quote this patent in every patent discussion ever to come about on any internet website or discussion. Please do the same.

Re:Total War?

[Anonymous Coward]

STFU. In America, the "poor" are only poor because they are lazy or just plain stupid. Anyone who is willing to work hard and make a few sacrifices can easily get as much wealth as they desire.

Re:Total War?

[TerranFury]

What this shows is that firms which take patents are more likely to be involved in patent lawsuits. So the whole "we took defensive patents, now see how we need them" becomes a self-justifying circle.

Isn't what you're saying circular? TomTom didn't get into this dispute because it had patents; it got into it because Microsoft did. But now, because it has patents, it and Microsoft will eventually be able to settle with a cross-licensing scheme -- whereas if it didn't, then it wouldn't have any bargaining chips.

The only "circle" I see isn't a circle at all but rather a collective action problem: If all companies voluntarily agreed to avoid this patent nonsense, then they'd all be better off. But the individual incentives encourage patenting. See the Tragedy of the Commons, the Prisoner's Dilemma, or any other canonical example of a collective action problem.

Re:Total War?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone willing to work hard, to learn, to make sacrifices along the way, can claw themselves from poor/destitute/working class up to middle-class. No more. Big money comes from knowing the right people, already being rich, or being lucky - in the right place, at the right time.

Re:Total War?

[Keeper]

I don't suppose it occured to you that the Microsoft statement refers to the patents they're trying to license TO TomTom, did it?

Re:Total War?

[TerranFury]

The car industry discovered that it was impossible to build cars without cross licensing between all the major manufacturers in the 1950s.

The same goes for the microelectronics industry. Intel, AMD, IBM... they're all cross-licensed to the hilt. Patents are issued very liberally, and the companies don't protest each other's obvious patents, because they know they'll just cross license them effectively-for-free anyway ("I'll pay you ten million dollars for your portfolio, and you'll pay me ten million for mine").

The only thing this achieves in the end, as sapphire_wyvern pointed out, is to create a high barrier of entry to incumbents.

Re:Total War?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you saying that the law is not equal and fair?

He's saying if you have fewer bullets than your enemy, it's not wise to shoot at them unless you're sure you can get them between the eyes.

He has more ammunition so he can hose down the entire area and hope for a few lucky hits.

(Or would you like a car analogy?)

Re:Total War?

[mwvdlee]

So TomTom should have just idly stood by while MicroSoft used their patent without paying a license fee? It's not like TomTom tried to sue MicroSoft; they just told them "hey, you're using our patent, you should pay the license fee". Only after MicroSoft didn't give TomTom the same opportunity to buy a license did TomTom countersue.

Re:Total War?

[Ioldanach]

You should suppose that, because it did occur to me, and I had to read the statement several times to be clear about who was saying what. The statement is slightly ambiguous, but the context in which it appears strongly implies that the licensing solution they're seeking is either a cross-licensing solution or the simple licensing of TomTom's patents. From the context, I think any other interpretation is much less likely, though poor reporting or a lack of clarity on Microsoft's part does make it possible.

Re:Total War?

[mea37]

What do you mean, you can't ignore it? Of course you can. Patents aren't like trademarks, if that's what you're thinking...

Re:Total War?

[Jesse_vd]

don't worry, you made the right decision buying a Garmin.

Re:Total War?

[TheRaven64]

No, because the grandparent is suggesting that Microsoft filed suit in response to TomTom notifying them of infringement. By filing suit first, Microsoft are in a better position to negotiate a cross-licensing deal. If TomTom had kept quiet then it's possible that Microsoft would not have filed suit. Under US law (as of a few years ago) the damages you can claim for patent infringement are much lower if you can claim you were unaware of the patent. By notifying Microsoft of their infringement, TomTom increased the potential damages for a lawsuit and may have triggered Microsoft's filing.

Re:Total War?

[TheRaven64]

It also produces a nice environment for patent trolls. If your company doesn't produce anything - it just licenses patents - then you gain nothing from a cross-licensing agreement and the MAD strategy doesn't affect you because you're not infringing any patents.

Re:Total War?

[TerranFury]

in response to TomTom notifying them of infringement.

Oh, I'd missed that part of the story... Why on earth would TomTom do such a thing?

Re:Total War?

[TheRaven64]

Because if they don't, and they do later want to claim damages (perhaps as part of a countersuit) US law designed to prevent submarine patents means that they can't claim any damages between the time that they became aware of infringement and the time they notified the infringing party. Once they became aware of the infringement, they needed to notify Microsoft because otherwise their defensive patent became useless.

Re:Total War?

[Xerolooper]

Now that's funny! I love when they "acknowledge" that the company owns patents filed by their employees. They say it backwards so you may not notice it at first. That makes me wonder if you recorded this patent app with a text reader and played it backwards would you hear Satan?

Re:Total War?

[dna_(c)(tm)(r)]

And that's probably why they are so healthy and resilient in times of crisis.

Re:Total War?

[D Ninja]

STFU. In America, the "poor" are only poor because they are lazy or just plain stupid. Anyone who is willing to work hard and make a few sacrifices can easily get as much wealth as they desire.

I'll (sort of) agree with your first part. Most of the "poor" people I know really just don't make the effort to change and improve their life. (Of course, your comment doesn't take into account unlucky streaks, people who have mental health issues, etc.)

As for "making a few sacrifices" and "easily getting as much wealth as they desire" - not so. This works for some people, but if it was so easy, we'd have a lot more rich people. But, instead, we have a lot of middle class. (Which, arguably, for many countries, America's middle class IS rich.) To become part of the super rich, you have to come up with something awesome AND be able to sell it/market it well, you have to know the right people, or you just have to have pure dumb luck and know how to manage money afterwards. (Lottery winners have pure dumb luck, but many of them have no clue how to manage money and end back up in the poor house.)

Re:Total War?

[Tetsujin]

What this shows is that firms which take patents are more likely to be involved in patent lawsuits. So the whole "we took defensive patents, now see how we need them" becomes a self-justifying circle.

Huh... Well, I guess that's potentially true in the sense that "involved in a lawsuit" could then go either way - the company would have the option to sue, in addition to the possibility of being sued...

Though, on the other hand - a company that holds no patents basically has no recourse if they're sued under patents someone else claims to own. There's no potential counter-suit, no threat of retaliation to hold off the lawyers... So if someone holds a patent they can claim you're infringing, and you don't have a patent to use in a counter-suit, you're more or less boned. All you can do is go to court and fight for your case. Best case scenario is you don't lose much money.

In a patent war, on the other hand, each company holds some power over the other: there's potential there to come to a mutually-beneficial agreement.

Re:Total War?

[quickOnTheUptake]

IIRC, MS did offer to license some time before bringing suit, and TomTom didn't bite.

Re:Total War?

[Bysshe]

Total War won't break out over this. Its a minor patent dispute. Not worth fighting tooth and nail over. Also, TomTom doesn't have to worry too much since its Dutch company (EU folks) - microsoft will think twice about retribution because of the way having its ass handed to it over here where the playing field is a little more level.

Re:Total War?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Personally I'm waiting for IBM to jump on the band wagon and sue both TomTom and Microsoft for patent infringement...

Personally, I'm waiting for Delorme to step into the fight. At the very least, I see them watching intently and weighing their options...

Re:Total War?

[drinkypoo]

Is this the start of a total patent war? That would be quite entertaining.

You know what would be even more entertaining? If this were actually patent war theater.

Re:Total War?

[db32]

Hey lets be fair. I like my tyrants honest. It really isn't about how things are so much different in the US as much as it is the sales pitch and packaging. A great deal of lipservice is paid to "opportunity" and "justice", and while there is certainly more of both than in many places of the world, the sales brochure indicates that there is an abundance of it when there really is not. Many places are much more honest about how little justice and opportunity is available for the poor.

Re:Total War?

[Patch86]

Surely a patent for patent trolling could never pass the obviousness test?

WHAT ELSE ARE THEY EVEN FOR?!

Re:Total War?

[something_wicked_thi]

Really, now. This argument is a little silly.

TomTom has, apparently, been pursuing MS for a year. We have no idea what they've been saying or asking for. TomTom probably felt as you say - that it shouldn't file a lawsuit because this very thing would happen. So maybe they tried to bluff and MS called it. Or maybe they didn't think their terms were unreasonable but MS did.

We don't know what went on in these negotiations, but we do know it's been going on for a year with no license signed. Maybe it's one huge coincidence that MS was asked to pay royalties and then sued the very same company asking for them for patent violations when they have no prior history of using patents in a first-strike manner.

At the very least, if this is the start of something bigger, then MS went after TomTom first because they already were threatening to sue. But my money is on this just being an old fashioned throw-everything-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks lawsuit to force a settlement on terms more favorable to MS.

Re:Total War?

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually wouldn't mind the car equivalent...

Re:Total War?

[Laurence0]

Mmmm, I feel the same way (about the last bit!). I bought a Garmin a year or so ago, and within a week, I was wishing I'd got a TomTom instead.

It's not so much the the Garmin is actively bad... It's just that the TomTom is much much better. That said, the Garmin is good enough that I'm not going to replace the Garmin as long as it works, however the next one I get is certainly going to be a TomTom.

Re:Total War?

[blitzkrieg3]

They could have notified them of infringement, but kept an article of good faith that they weren't going to prosecute...

Re:Total War?

[johannesg]

But aren't courts tired of getting used for this type of thing? That's like two guys organizing a public boxing match between themselves. They get a ring, a referee, a crowd... As soon as round 1 starts, they look at each other and decide it's not worth fighting. If all they wanted was to compare each other's muscles, couldn't they have done this privately instead of wasting a bunch of people's time?

I'm sure they are pretty tired of drugdealing, homicide, and theft as well - and yet those things keep popping up in court all the time...

Re:Total War?

[Tired and Emotional]

Not at all, the law bans the rich, as well as the poor, from sleeping under bridges.

Re:Total War?

[atraintocry]

Why is this modded funny? It's true, and it's terrifying.

Well, I don't think it's an actual patent, but it's at least true that they applied.

Re:Total War?

[CAIMLAS]

"The first thing we gotta do is, we shoot all the lawyers..."

Re:Total War?

[lskovlund]

LOL. From the patent:

2. The method of claim 1 further including:distributing proceeds from the monetary settlement to at least one of the first party and the inventor.

To at least one of...

Re:Total War?

[cthulhu11]

Too bad we can't sue TomTom for having a dumbass goofy name.

Re:Total War?

[LordVader717]

I have a navigator based on Windows CE. It makes me feel so dirty...

Re:Total War?

[cfriedt]

I would argue that most of the things MS claims to invent were actually invented by promising technology firms who sold their rights to MS. Many people would probably argue against Visual Studio being the best IDE, in favor of Eclipse, and MS was not the first company to have a large touch interface by a long shot.

Ubuntu is great for beginners in the Linux world, but also for people who can't afford to risk compiling code from scratch (i.e. running into bugs, losing productivity time). I compile all of my applications from scratch, and I fix / file bugs often. My reward is that I'm participating in the greater picture, and quite often others tell me that I've helped them out with similar problems.

I also use a desktop configuration that appears like a cross between Windows XP and Mac OS X, but it's running Gnome. That's all being run on an EEE PC that I've significantly customized both hardware and software-wise.

Today, what I call innovative is mostly what's happening on mobile devices. I'm not an Apple 'snob' by any means... and no longer even own an apple product because my 'retro' flash-modded 4th gen ipod was lost on a plane... but I would really have to say, that Apple has been leading innovation in the mobile world for a while. Android has begun to impact the mobile world, and I feel nice that I was one of the first people to port it to a new device. If Apple's mobile platform was open source, I would probably expand on it, but as far as I know, Android is as close as I can get.

Re:Total War?

[Keeper]

The context in which it appears is on Slashdot, so one should assume that there was substantial bias against Microsoft on part of the person submitting the article...

Re:Total War?

[Ioldanach]

No, the context in which it appears in the original article.

Re:Total War?

[Thinboy00]

Heck, you can be smart and STILL waste all the money you earned for being smart.

Note to lazy mods: Make sure you read the paragraph before the "Barbara ... Mikkelson" line, if you don't understand WTF I'm trying to say. If you won't follow my link, go mod someone else instead.

Can I be the first to say

[Anonymous Coward]

touche!

Go TomTom! *dances*

Stop the world, I want off

[squoozer]

Is it just me that is a bit fed up with this sort of situation? The last few years seems to have seen the rise of the legal stalemate based on patent infringement where 90% of the patents are for trivial ideas anyway. I'm sure when the patent and legal system were designed this wasn't what was intended as it helps no one and just ends up costing us, the buyers, more money. I suppose it keeps all those lawyers in business though.

Re:Stop the world, I want off

[Fred_A]

Is it just me that is a bit fed up with this sort of situation?

Inter corporate relations look more and more like a kindergarden recess.

You infringed my patent, I will sue !
Did not nyah nyah
Did so, I'm telling on you
Oh yeah ? Well you infringed first, so there !

Re:Stop the world, I want off

[TheDreadSlashdotterD]

When you put enough idiots together, that's how things turn out. This has been happening since humans started banding into tribes and tribal warfare emerged.

Re:Stop the world, I want off

[kj_kabaje]

It builds paper wealth for some people; much like short-selling and the current Wall Street debacle.

Re:Stop the world, I want off

[je ne sais quoi]

And don't forget the interaction of corporations with society:

AIG: Waaaahhh! I need to get my bonus?
Taxpayer: We gave you lots of money after you lost all your money and ours also. You don't deserve a bonus, you're too rich already.
AIG: Waaahhhh! I was promised this! Now I won't be able to attract the best talent.

Re:Stop the world, I want off

[Anonymous Coward]

http://despair.com/teamwork.html

Re:Stop the world, I want off

[Anonymous Coward]

Taxpayer: You totally mishandled your own money, so we gave you a bunch of ours, and you mishandled that, too? I'm outraged you would do such a thing! I had every reason to believe you would handle OUR money much better than your own!!!

Re:Stop the world, I want off

[transporter_ii]

Without the Internet, just 10 - 15 years ago...you probably wouldn't have heard about any of this unless you happened to be involved in it.

Maybe some trade publications would have covered it, but there were few newspapers that would have.

It's been going on for a while, it is just that the last few years, Slashdot made it front page news for geeks everywhere.

The Internet was a game changing, disruptive technology. Maybe things will change a *little* simply because there are people getting fed up with it. Whereas, in the past, it was just business as usual.

I know after watching what happened to SCO, I would have to have some kind of freaking air tight case to sue a company involved in Linux.

Even if SCO had one, they would have still lost.

Transporter_ii

Re:Stop the world, I want off

[Quothz]

It's been going on for a while, it is just that the last few years, Slashdot made it front page news for geeks everywhere.

I'd intended to disagree with you, and I dug up some numbers:

The number of patents granted each year spiked dramatically in the US (be sure you're looking at the second row) in 1998, and again in 2006.

Congress' statistics office determined that "the number of U.S. patent lawsuits as a percentage of total patents have not changed significantly over the passed two decades".

This site claims that suits by number of claims rose way up in '04, but the source of the data is not clear.

Likely the '98 jump was the big technology boom following the popularization of the Web.

The anomaly in '06 may well be attributable to a rise of patent trolling, but this isn't clear. The number of patents issued peaked during the NASDAQ crash and held steady for a couple years. In '05, it dropped tremendously, then spiked high in '06, and dropped down somewhat in '07.

If the numbers from the patent blog are true, we're seeing a lot more claims per suit. Given the other numbers, this must represent a shift in IP litigation strategy, but I don't know what it means in any broader sense.

So... yeah. Business as usual. Mind you, that doesn't mean it's a good thing. Just because it's the status-type quo doesn't mean we should settle for it. IP law, in all its guises, needs reform badly. I'm not sure I've seen a good solution proposed anywhere, although there are a number of suggestions out there superior to the current mess. I'll keep my pie-hole shut about which I favor, since I don't want to derail my own point too far.

Re:Stop the world, I want off

[atraintocry]

At least in the US, it also has to do with the circuit courts suddenly granting software patents in the 90s, despite the fact that SCOTUS has been always been very clear that algorithms are not eligible.

I know some people don't consider software to be algorithms, but I do, and besides, the actual criteria goes deeper than that.

Re:Stop the world, I want off

[CAIMLAS]

10-15 years? I've been on Slashdot for over a decade, and since its inception this kind of thing has been covered here. Things like the Microsoft antitrust case has been going on for a while. It's just that big cases haven't been that all common because there's a significant chance of MAD.

MAD

[INeededALogin]

Does anyone else see the entire corporate structure in America as being nothing more than a patent standoff? It is basically the whole "Mutually Assured Destruction" with small companies being the equivalent of 3rd world countries. This is pretty unsettling that the only retort to a patent lawsuit is to fire off a counter from your own portfolio.

Re:MAD

[chalkyj]

But does anything actually come of these lawsuits? I read about infringement claims by trolls against large companies and by large companies against each other all the time, but they never seem to come to anything - or at least the outcome is never publicised.

Does anyone have some information on what percentage of technology patent suits get thrown out of court and how many actually end in settlement or damages?

Re:MAD

[infalliable]

Pretty much.

Large companies build up patent portfolios for the sole intention of using them in standoff mode or as defense.

I talked to someone in the digital storage area, and who basically said each company patents all they can so they have a large number as a defense. They basically have to infringe on others patents, and others have to infringe on theirs and they all just agree to go on doing business rather than pay the lawyers to squabble.

It is for these very instances. Company A goes to Company B and says your infringing on my patents. Company B's response is that you (company A) are infringing on mine as well. Nobody will win other than the patent lawyers.

Re:MAD

[AHuxley]

Like any 3rd world dictator can tell you, sell out to of of the two big powers.
Be cool like Fulgencio Batista
General Carlos Castillo Armas
Augusto Pinochet
Gen. Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq

Or just get the "Patent Reform Bill" passed.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126994.400-us-patent-bill-a-chill-on-innovation.html

Re:MAD

[adamchou]

maybe we should get bush to invade these companies building these patents of mass destruction

Re:MAD

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone else see the entire corporate structure in America as being nothing more than a patent standoff?

Nope. Just the United States.

Re:MAD

[Knuckles]

But does anything actually come of these lawsuits?

I guess usually not if you have other patents to defend yourself. If you don't, you are probably fucked.

Re:MAD

[mikael]

In the past 10 years, the most notable patent lawsuits were:

SCO vs. Linux - After hundreds of millions of dollars were blown away in lawyers legal fees, the judge rules that Linux didn't infringe on SCO's intellectual property. Best site for news here is Groklaw

3Dfx vs. Nvidia - 3dfx lost and merged into Nvidia

Rambus vs. Hynix vs Micron Technology vs. Infineon Technologies vs. Siemens AG. vs. Samsung

Rambus seemed to be suing just about everyone, and everyone else was countersuing Rambus and each other. Legal letters seem to be flying around like chairs in a Saturday night bar fight.

Hynix to pay Rambus $379 million in patent dispute

A complete list of legal updates provided by Rambus

Micron vs. Rambus

Although it does seem better to settle all patent disputes with cross-licensing as soon as possible, rather than slogging it out into bankruptcy

Rambus and Infineon settle patent dispute

Re:MAD

[merchant_x]

You forgot the whole RIM vs NTP debacle.

Settlement reached in BlackBerry patent case
Research in Motion pays NTP $612.5 million; devices to stay on

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11659304/

Re:MAD

[Anonymous Coward]

Legal letters seem to be flying around like chairs in Steve Ballmer's office.

Fixed it for you.

Re:MAD

[Anonymous Coward]

SCO vs. Linux - After hundreds of millions of dollars were blown away in lawyers legal fees, the judge rules that Linux didn't infringe on SCO's intellectual property.

Actually, the courts ruled that SCO did not, in fact, own Unix; Novell owns it. The question as to whether or not Linux violates Novell's patents and copyrights related to Unix was never brought up.

Virtual Earth?

[alen]

MS Virtual Earth has been around since the 1990's. How long has Tom Tom been around? Garmin has used Virtual Earth for it's GPS products.

I'm willing to bet Microsoft's case is a lot stronger than TomTom's

Re:Virtual Earth?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since 1991 according to their website.

Re:Virtual Earth?

[morgan_greywolf]

MS Virtual Earth has been around since the 1990's.

So has TomTom.

Re:Virtual Earth?

[alen]

and when was this patent filed? Streets and Trips has been around since the 1990's as well. we used to use it in the army to drive from italy to germany

Re:Virtual Earth?

[dunkelfalke]

tomtom's first navigation software came out in 2001.

Re:Virtual Earth?

[Anonymous Coward]

Partially correct - the companys first navigation software came out in 1996. The company name was changed to TomTom in 2001.

Re:Virtual Earth?

[cybrthng]

From wikipedia:

"Originally created in the late 1980s by NextBase Ltd, a UK company, under the name "AutoRoute", it was sold for DOS based PCs and later for the Apple Macintosh. In the early 1990s it was ported to the Microsoft Windows operating system. The company created a version for the United States called AutoMap. In 1994 the product was sold to Microsoft. Microsoft sold products for Windows 95 as AutoMap Road Atlas and AutoMap Streets under the Microsoft Home brand."

MS mapping existed before TomTom was even borne

Re:Virtual Earth?

[JustNilt]

MS mapping existed before TomTom was even borne

Which means precisely squat. Software changes over time (duh). It should be obvious to anyone that TomTom alleges Microsoft began infringing at some date in the Streets & Trips app. I'm sure they aren't claiming the entire concept infringes but only a part, minor or otherwise.

Re:Virtual Earth?

[TheRaven64]

Heh, I forgot MS bought AutoRoute. I remember running that software on a 386 (16MHz, I think, with 5MB of RAM). It took around 2-5 seconds for each potential route and around two minutes to find all viable alternatives. Being a DOS program, it included its own printer drivers to output graphics and let you print out a map and set of directions for any of the routes it found. I always think of how long it took back when I use Google maps and watch it recalculate the route in real time as I add waypoints.

Re:Virtual Earth?

[Anonymous Coward]

I always have to add way points since from my house it takes me about 30 miles out of the way. (I live in a suburb of chicago and it wants me going all the way over to a major interstate) Wish there was a way to tell google, start here, I know how to get here better than you do!

Well for some this will be interesting...

[hattig]

"Microsoft said it was reviewing TomTom's filing and that it remains committed to a licensing solution and has been for more than a year."

Well until you have licensed you're in a quandary - you can't release, or you can but eventually you'll be sued. If TomTom doesn't want to license, and that's their right, then you are out of luck.

So you try and find some patent in your own portfolio that they might be infringing (even if it's a bit of a shady patent) to try and force them to license. "committed to a licensing solution" in this case simply means corporate bullying and threats ("committed to getting what we want for the least possible money"). With Don Ballmer at the head.

Re:Well for some this will be interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

TomTom cal always tell them "Turn right here ... turn right here ... turn right here ..." and leave them spinning in circles.

After all, that's what software "patents" do - leave us all spinning in circles.

Yet another patent story...

[GerardAtJob]

... this really need to stop... patent over a mouseclick or a pointer on screen shouldn't be patentable... In fact everything from a computer software shouldn't be patentable... A series of IF and ELSE isn't something new... whatever you do with it... Instead of creating competition in a field (the one that implement the feature the BEST and improve the MOST), we created a huge pot of gold for lawyers... at least it's friday :D

Re:Yet another patent story...

[heironymouscoward]

Check the Firehose for another patent story (some fools tried to claim a patent on SOAP!)

Re:Yet another patent story...

[pieterh]

Too lazy to post the link?

http://yro.slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=3828063&art_pos=7

ftfy

Re:Yet another patent story...

[heironymouscoward]

Too lazy to post the link?

No, I'm using Chromium on Linux and though it's fast it crashes whenever I try to paste text. So thanks for posting the link.

Re:Yet another patent story...

[Anonymous Coward]

A compelling argument to switch to Linux.

Re:Yet another patent story...

[Lazypete]

I agree with you, but not completely. Huge billionaire compagny shouln'd be allowed patent, they dont need them. Take a trip back in time and look at what the patent system was intended for: 1. Protect inventor from being ripped and copied by huge compagny with much more wealth and much more manpower that can produce a similar product at a lower cost. 2. Invite people to be creative without the fear of actually loosing money over their invention. (many small inventor invest quite a big ammount of money to make a product, if it get ripped and sold cheaply by someone else, they can't get into their money. Now take a look how the patent system now work. 1. Big compagny patent absolutely everything just in case someone try to make a product using that idea, then sue them. Most of the time waiting until the product hit the shelves to sue, even if they know someone is currently investing a truck load of money and that they will surely get ruined by the lawsuit. 2. Big compagnies just cross patent their stuff.. Ei: M$ get a software out, IBM says the infringe our patent number 14567, M$ answer yeah well your product XYZ infringe on our patent 76543 so lets call it even. 3. I think everyone knows about the patent trolls.. no need to go into details here.. So.. is it me or.. this system is completely screwed.. What need to be done IMO.. 1. Big compagny can't get patent.. you have more than 2000 employees.. No patent for you.. (the actual number can be discussed..) 2. Patent have a 2 years life time.. at the speed things moves these days.. 20 years is not a long time.. its a lifetime in the techology.. 3. All expired patent goes into CC (Creative commons) and are open. 4. Patent needs to be reviewed by specialist.. you want a computer science patent, fine a computer specialist is going to review you application and its better be a good idea cause if you submit a crap, you'll get a fine for abuse. 5. NO SOFTWARE PATENT PERIOD

Re:Yet another patent story...

[richlv]

what do you paste in chromium ?

Re:Yet another patent story...

[Anonymous Coward]

"...this really need to stop... patent over an engine or a mechanical component shouldn't be patentable... In fact everything physical shouldn't be patentable... A series of levers, wheels, pulleys, and inclined planes isn't something new... whatever you do with it..."

Oh, and off-topic: Why do I keep seeing people using ellipses instead of periods in between sentences? Is it common in another language and just translated to English?

Re:Yet another patent story...

[Anonymous Coward]

More like a ringing endorsement for Chromium.

Re:Yet another patent story...

[Windows_NT]

yes, it is friday, first day of spring, a time for a new beginning. Let today be known as the day of no patents .. wait im gonna patent that idea.
Its snowing outside .. its the first fricken day of spring and its snowing! it took me 20 minutes to drive 6 miles cuz some crazy bitch in a white car could only go 30Mph.. the roads arent that bad, crazy lady ...
Patents? oh, "Today TomTom got sued by FredFred for its alleged infringments on creating a name using the same word twice."
Yes .. thank God it is friday.

Oblig. Red Dwarf quote

[Seriousity]

SIMULANT LIEUTENANT: You have two Earth minutes before we attack.

RIMMER: Let's get out of here.

CAT: Wait, I know this game. It's called cat and mouse, and there's only one way to win; don't be the mouse.

LISTER: What are you saying?

CAT: I'm saying, the mouse never wins. Not unless you believe those lying cartoons. We don't run, we strike. It's the last thing they'll be expecting.

RIMMER: No, the last thing they'll be expecting is for us to turn into ice skating mongooses and to dance the Bolero. And your plan makes about as much sense.

LISTER: I say go with it.

KRYTEN: Agreed.

CAT: You're going to go with one of my plans? Are you nuts? What happens if we all get killed? I'll never hear the last of it!

Re:Oblig. Red Dwarf quote

[robbak]

Your signature does _not_ match your quoting of Red Dwarf.

Re:Oblig. Red Dwarf quote

[Seriousity]

Whoosh!!

Re:Oblig. Red Dwarf quote

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoosh!! yourself.

This post was made in complete sincere seriousity; as such any attempts to derive humour are doomed to instant failure.

Your signature states that the post was made in seriousness and that it cannot be funny, yet the content of your post was from a comedy show and is funny. robbak is correct that the two do not match.

Re:Oblig. Red Dwarf quote

[Anonymous Coward]

I concur with the original Whoosh!! and add an additional Whoosh!! on you. I will provide some analysis to help you understand that strange, strange thing which is "irony".

First, your most significant error in comprehension is when you read the frivolously fabricated word "seriousity" (which one could say does not exist as a commonly accepted word within the standard English lexicon) and interpreted it as identical in meaning to the existing word "seriousness".

The suffix "-ity" is used to mean "quality, state, or degree" (e.g. "alkalinity" representing the degree to which something is alkaline), while the suffix "-ness" is used for "state, condition, quality, or degree". While they mean virtually the same thing, one is the proper suffix to append to "serious", and one is not. Intentionally using an incorrect but more or less equivalent form is a form of humor common among intellectuals. (It is, after all, very closely related to that most venerable of all forms of word-based humor, i.e. the pun.)

If you hadn't bumbled past that obvious tell-tale and thereby failed to understand that the sig was in jest, you would have easily understood "doomed to instant failure" to be humorous hyperbole. It's just another facet of irony, which was so classically defined as "the use of words expressing something other than their literal intention".

Alas, irony is a thinking person's humor.

interesting business behavior

[v1]

Microsoft said it was reviewing TomTom's filing and that it remains committed to a licensing solution and has been for more than a year.

Am I reading this right, "tomtom notified us we are infringing on and profiting from their patent, and we've been trying a combination of ignoring them and trying to make a token payoff to them to make them go away, and now they've had the nerve to sue us over it?"

But what are the patents?

[91degrees]

All we seem to know is that one of them is for long filenames.

Re:But what are the patents?

[Zero__Kelvin]

Actually the patent to which you refer covers mapping an 8.3 mangled filename such as MICROS~1.ASS to a long filename such as Microsoft Sucks.Ass. UNIX had long filenames from the start if I am not mistaken. I am 100 certain it had them way before the toy company in Redmond.

M$'s great innovation is an artificially imposed limitation, which I suppose is their bread and butter, so I can see why they covet the patent so dearly.

Re:But what are the patents?

[91degrees]

True. Microsoft's long filename patent is on a specific implementation of FAT32 that allows compatibility with 8.3 filenames. The thing is, there are probably many ways of achieving this without violating the patent but none would be Windows compatible.

So Microsoft have a patent on windows file system compatibility.

Re:But what are the patents?

[Zero__Kelvin]

The missing operative word is innovation . Microsoft has already been found guilty of anti-competitive practice, and it is this very practice that has made their inferior non-innovative filesystem pervasive. So no they do not hold a VALID patent on fat32.

Re:But what are the patents?

[Anonymous Coward]

Patents aren't invalidated because someone is convicted of a completely unrelated crime.

There's a reason people like you are laughed out of court.

Re:But what are the patents?

[Zero__Kelvin]

"Patents aren't invalidated because someone is convicted of a completely unrelated crime."

Slow down there buddy! You are posting to the wrong article. This one is about Microsoft patents that are guaranteed to get shot down. I'm not sure what article you thought you were reading.

"There's a reason people like you are laughed out of court."

You would make a great point, except that I have never been laughed out of court and never will be. The reason is probably because I don't think that direct causal relationship and completely unrelated are synonymous ;^}

Re:But what are the patents?

[spitzak]

Just to be accurate: it is a method of storing a long filename into a disk format that could only store 8.3 filenames.

Now the obvious solution is to add a file called 'filenames' and put the stuff there, and if there was a way to "hide" the file from old software (there was) then use that so it does not appear in the lists.

The "innovation" (and you can argue true/false over whether it is or not) was to use a whole lot of directory entries to store the filenames instead. It just happens that there was a different way in the 8.3 disk format to make a directory entry "hidden" (a flag that indicated that the directory entry was the name of the disk itself) and the vast majority of existing software apparently ignored a whole lot of these files (they are lucky the software did not crash if there was more than one, however...).

The advantage of this scheme is that if you deleted all the files with an "old" piece of software, that software would really think the directory was empty. If there was a real hidden file the software would probably not think the directory was empty and would refuse to delete it. I'm sure there are some other advantages to this scheme but I am having a hard time figuring them out.

Re:But what are the patents?

[Zero__Kelvin]

"they are lucky the software did not crash if there was more than one, however..."

I know what you mean. It always amazed me the way Windows never crashes! ;-)

Re:But what are the patents?

[julesh]

So Microsoft have a patent on windows file system compatibility.

Of course, here in the EU (which is I believe where TomTom are based) there is a specific exception in patent law that enables you to ignore them for the purposes of ensuring compatibility between two different computer systems.

This probably means nothing, though.

"When did this start?"

[blind biker]

I am picturing the MS headquarters, and a worried and puzzled Ballmer asking "When did this start, that companies stopped fearing us? And people actually NOT falling in line for each and every new Windows update we shit? And IE's marketshare declining???"

Next scene: chair flies through window.

Re:"When did this start?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Followed by trailing cable snagged in Balmers foot, Balmer falls out of window, but he's okay because he's on the ground floor

Re:"When did this start?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Balmers office would be in building 34, top floor, actually.

Interestingly enough, I'm told there was a broken window recently.. not sure how true that is though...

red phone to moscow time

[nebopolis]

It is starting to look like the whole patent cold war that has been brewing for quite some time is about to unload. This could get nasty really fast if any more players get pulled in, and might end up with patent holders just unloading their portfolios on each other (and the business equivalent of a nuclear armageddon).

"Committed to a solution"?

[Anonymous Coward]

[Microsoft] remains committed to a licensing solution and has been for more than a year.

Haha, yeah. And when I download a movie from the Pirate Bay and if I get sued for it a year later, can I claim that I "remain committed to a buying solution and have been for more than a year", too?

(Yes, I know, copyright infringement != patent infringement, but seriously, what kind of response is this? If anything, the only thing they're saying there is a) that they acknowledge TomTom has a valid case, and b) yes, they have indeed not licensed the patents in question, despite using them.)

Re:"Committed to a solution"?

[Anonymous Coward]

you could just say you were downloading a backup copy, but lost the original DVD and since you paid cash for it and threw away the receipt after 14 days after purchasing it since you can't get a return/refund after that long if its unopened.

It is 2009. The binary is no longer the product.

[Zero__Kelvin]

FTA:

"The case is about TomTom's specific implementation of the Linux kernel, Microsoft said.

That is complete bullshit, and may well be indicative of just how truly clueless M$ is about FOSS. They still think the binary is the product. Since the source code needs to be made available to the end user, the code for VFAT support would be delivered even if not enabled in the build. If they attack anyone, they attack everyone, and they clearly don't get that. It is no wonder they still think they might win in the end.

TomTom enabling the compile flag for VFAT support before doing a make doesn't constitute a "specific implementation". The code is in the vanilla kernel. TomTom didn't add it post facto.

Do they really think we are that stupid, or are they actually that stupid?

Patent the machine...

[SCHecklerX]

...not the way you use it.

In other words, software and business method patents shouldn't #!$#@! exist in the first place.

Although ...

[hesaigo999ca]

Even though Microsoft streets used to ship with win95, way before TomTom existed, I guess they must have used some new technology to tie into the streets program, that may have come from the likes of TomTom?
I have not RTA so, I am guessing here.

Re:Although ...

[gbjbaanb]

Even though Microsoft streets used to ship with win95, way before TomTom existed,

someone else who thinks that SatNav is a 21st century invention.

From http://investors.tomtom.com/overview.cfm?Language=1

"TomTom was founded by Harold Goddijn, Peter-Frans Pauwels and Pieter Geelen in 1991"

That'll be 4 years before Win95.

Re:Although ...

[Binestar]

Perhaps you shouldn't guess.

TomTom has been around since 1991. I think that is prior to 1995, but I didn't RTA to make sure.

Re:Although ...

[91degrees]

How did their early products work? This predates GPS.

Re:Although ...

[Zerth]

Their original products were PDA related. They didn't make navigation software until 96 and didn't make GPS devices until 2001/2-ish.

Re:Although ...

[Anonymous Coward]

On February 14, 1989, the first modern Block-II GPS satellite was launched.
So GPS dates to at least that early.

Re:Although ...

[hesaigo999ca]

Yes TomTom, but not a TomTom gps device. Shwarz smoke meat in Montreal has been around
since 1897, but it does not mean they have been serving smoked meat since 1897....even though they are now know as the landmark smoke meat restaurant. I think the same applies in this case...
show me the date of their first gps device...and the maps it was using to update this device and I will show you the first date of map streets by M$

Re:Although ...

[hesaigo999ca]

Although it was 4 years before ms95, it was not 4 years before the first mainstream
gps mapping device

Re:Although ...

[Anonymous Coward]

err, do I remember it right but did win95 actually get released at year 1996, being only one year late?

Re:Although ...

[Anonymous Coward]

someone else who thinks that SatNav is a 21st century invention.

From http://investors.tomtom.com/overview.cfm?Language=1

"TomTom was founded by Harold Goddijn, Peter-Frans Pauwels and Pieter Geelen in 1991"

That'll be 4 years before Win95

and that would be about a decade after the first versions of autoroute which MS own. seriously Ms was not the first, but they certainly own technology that is a LOT older than Tom Tom the company.

Re:It is 2009. The binary is no longer the product

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, no, it's a bit of twisted distinction in the law that they're following.

Plans don't infringe. Implementations do.

I can sell a plan to make a patented Widget and don't have to be the Patent holder to do so. MAKING the thing is an actual infringement of the Patent in question.

Source code, as far as the law is concerned, is the plans. The binaries are the implementation.

Lawyers. Now the Largest Industry in the USA

[RotateLeftByte]

Scene in Office of Microsoft Legal team.

Head Honcho to team:-
Guys, this memo from SB says we may have to take a pay cut like other employees.
What can we do?

One of the team replies meekly:-
Sue someone?

Head Honcho:-
Great Idea. Who?

Another team member replies:-
My new car has this awesome sat nav. Shame it is not made by us

Head Honcho:-
Great. Lets sue them into oblivion. That should keep SB from threatening to cut our salaries.

Two of the team leave muttering
Oh Great. My Tom-Tom is great. Now we will all have to remove them from our cars.
Yeah. How are we going to find our way round this place if we don't have a decent SatNav?
Shhhhhh. If SB hears that you will get your pink slip on the spot.

Re:It is 2009. The binary is no longer the product

[jgostling]

On the other hand, removing the VFAT code could be a derived work (non-infringing Linux kernel), which TomTom distributes together with their product. I don't see why deriving should be restricted just to adding new functionality.

Re:It is 2009. The binary is no longer the product

[Zero__Kelvin]

You missed the point, which is that attacking TomTom for using Linux kernel code is attacking Linux kernel code. Their claim is that they are not doing so, when they are in fact clearly doing so.

HTH ;-)

AWESOME!!!

[EvilIntelligence]

Woohoo!!! Go for it TomTom!! Don't put up with their crap!

Re:It is 2009. The binary is no longer the product

[richlv]

so they could implement it in php and be done with that ?
(yeah, filesystem in php. bite me :> )

Re:It is 2009. The binary is no longer the product

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. They think we are stupid. And they are stupid.

(off topic) - Chromium

[heironymouscoward]

FWIW I work on a netbook (Eee 1000 with eeebuntu) which is small, cheap, robust, and runs for 12 hours on an extended battery.

But Firefox is painfully slow. Chromium warns "This browser is not ready!" but is actually really great.

Apart from that cut and paste bug and a few more.

It's fast, fast, fast, and I don't mind if it crashes. I just restart it, remember to not press Ctrl-V, and let other people post my URLs for me.

I enjoyed Firefox a lot but the speed Chromium runs at makes it a compelling switch, even unfinished. Amazing, no?

Re:(off topic) - Chromium

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought "method and process to create buggy code" was patented by Microsoft. Google better get Chromium running smooth on Linux or they gonna get sued! Hey, that app's crashing! Call the lawyers! Sue! Sue! Sue!

Re:(off topic) - Chromium

[MrNiceguy_KS]

You might want to give Opera a try. They've got a native linux version that is very stable and fast.

Re:(off topic) - Chromium

[Anonymous Coward]

That's funny, on my Acer Aspire One running Ubuntu 8.10, Firefox 3.0.6 is blazing fast. Of course, I run adblock, flashblock, and noscript as well as having my Cache on /dev/shm and my profile stays in tmpfs rsynced at 10 minute intervals with a cron job but YMMV.

Re:(off topic) - Chromium

[atraintocry]

Konqueror is kalling.

Lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

If it weren't for Lawyers, we would'nt need Lawyers.

Re:Lawyers

[cyphercell]

You're right. If we didn't have lawyers we'd just need big sticks and rocks.

Too Bad That...

[Nom du Keyboard]

Too bad that TomTom will likely simply settle for a cross-licensing agreement rather than taking Microsoft to the cleaners over this. The result is that the next company along the way will have to fight the very same battle.

Begun,

[Weaselmancer]

...the Patent Wars have.

*cue John Williams orchestra music*

What? No Bilski War?

[MarkvW]

I suspect that Tom Tom's patent advocacy is going to prevent them from arguing Bilski.
What a shame.

MS in it for the end

[CAIMLAS]

This makes it apparent that MS is in this thing for the end result: namely, patents stifling MS-alternative software, and Linux adoption in particular. They are very likely to be willing to pay the full amount, if it means they've got a club with which they can threaten Open Source competitors.

Re:It is 2009. The binary is no longer the product

[CAIMLAS]

It's not bullshit; you just don't understand what they're saying.

Just because they say it's about TomTom's specific "implementation" of the Linux kernel does not mean that TomTom's specific implementation isn't synonymous with the Linux kernel itself.

They are likely quite aware of how Linux works at this stage (they are, after all, the world's biggest software company's legal team), and approach things from the perspective of the kernel being the source. In short, they want VFAT support out of the kernel.

They aren't that stupid. Though they might want you to think they're that stupid. You seem to forget that MS has gotten where it is today through litigation and hostile takeovers. They're also likely assuming that the judge(s) for the case(s) aren't technologically savvy.

Cross your fingers.

Re:It is 2009. The binary is no longer the product

[Zero__Kelvin]

"In short, they want VFAT support out of the kernel."

I wish that was my point and I actually understood. Oh wait!!! That was my point and I understand it better than you do! I guess the line: "It's not bullshit; you just don't understand what they're saying." threw me off, what with me being stupid enough to believe everything I read and all ;-)

"They are likely quite aware of how Linux works at this stage"

You're joking right? The M$ developers don't understand how Windows works (Hint: it doesn't ... at least not properly ), but you think the legal team understands how Linux works? ROTFLMAO. In fairness, I realize you mean to say "The GPL and Open Source in general" when you say "Linux". One guarantee I can provide is that most at M$ are clueless about FOSS. They just don't get it. Just ask Novell and Red Hat. That being said, you continue to reiterate my points while telling me I don't understand. Hilarious ...

Re:It is 2009. The binary is no longer the product

[Anonymous Coward]

they want VFAT support out of the kernel. They aren't that stupid

If they want VFAT out of the kernel, they are stupid. VFAT is the lingua franka of data exchange, despite its massive shortcomings. Every OS on this planet has VFAT support. If they throw down that gauntlet, they will have to watch some other freely available filesystem take over, one which Microsoft has no control over and comes with a license which doesn't lend itself to proprietarism. Microsoft will be very careful not to get VFAT kicked out of the kernel.