TomTom Sues Microsoft For Patent Infringement

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

TomTom Sues Microsoft For Patent Infringement

Posted by timothy on Friday March 20, 2009 @12:08AM from the gentlemen-do-not-consult-each-other's-patents dept.

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."

49 of 166 comments (clear)

Total War? by McGiraf · 2009-03-20 00:12 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.
1. Re:Total War? by something_wicked_thi · 2009-03-20 00:19 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
2. Re:Total War? by Zeinfeld · 2009-03-20 00:22 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
  Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
3. Re:Total War? by pieterh · 2009-03-20 00:24 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  My blog
4. Re:Total War? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-20 00:32 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  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.
5. Re:Total War? by morgan_greywolf · 2009-03-20 00:35 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
  
  --
  My blog
6. Re:Total War? by Shakrai · 2009-03-20 00:37 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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....
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
7. Re:Total War? by Kalriath · 2009-03-20 00:46 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Actually, Halliburton has the patent on patent trolling.
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
8. Re:Total War? by Ioldanach · 2009-03-20 01:04 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
9. Re:Total War? by Dhalka226 · 2009-03-20 01:31 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
10. Re:Total War? by overlordofmu · 2009-03-20 01:53 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
11. Re:Total War? by InsertWittyNameHere · 2009-03-20 02:09 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  And then the dominoes will fall like a house of cards, checkmate!
12. Re:Total War? by sapphire+wyvern · 2009-03-20 02:19 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  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.
13. Re:Total War? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-20 02:57 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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?
14. Re:Total War? by murdocj · 2009-03-20 03:05 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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?
15. Re:Total War? by TerranFury · 2009-03-20 03:17 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
16. Re:Total War? by mea37 · 2009-03-20 03:29 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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...
17. Re:Total War? by TheRaven64 · 2009-03-20 03:39 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
18. Re:Total War? by D+Ninja · 2009-03-20 04:43 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  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.)
Stop the world, I want off by squoozer · 2009-03-20 00:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
I used to have a better sig but it broke.
1. Re:Stop the world, I want off by Fred_A · 2009-03-20 00:18 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  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 !
  
  --
  
  May contain traces of nut.
  Made from the freshest electrons.
2. Re:Stop the world, I want off by kj_kabaje · 2009-03-20 01:00 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It builds paper wealth for some people; much like short-selling and the current Wall Street debacle.
3. Re:Stop the world, I want off by transporter_ii · 2009-03-20 03:17 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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
  
  --
  Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
MAD by INeededALogin · 2009-03-20 00:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
1. Re:MAD by chalkyj · 2009-03-20 00:28 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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?
2. Re:MAD by infalliable · 2009-03-20 00:32 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
3. Re:MAD by adamchou · 2009-03-20 00:47 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  maybe we should get bush to invade these companies building these patents of mass destruction
4. Re:MAD by mikael · 2009-03-20 02:42 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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
  
  --
  Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
5. Re:MAD by merchant_x · 2009-03-20 03:17 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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/
Virtual Earth? by alen · 2009-03-20 00:19 · Score: 3, Interesting

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
1. Re:Virtual Earth? by morgan_greywolf · 2009-03-20 00:38 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  MS Virtual Earth has been around since the 1990's.
  So has TomTom.
  
  --
  My blog
2. Re:Virtual Earth? by alen · 2009-03-20 00:46 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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
3. Re:Virtual Earth? by JustNilt · 2009-03-20 03:10 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  You know the thing about UDP jokes? I don't care if you get it or not.
4. Re:Virtual Earth? by TheRaven64 · 2009-03-20 03:47 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Well for some this will be interesting... by hattig · 2009-03-20 00:19 · Score: 5, Interesting

"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.
Yet another patent story... by GerardAtJob · 2009-03-20 00:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

... 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

--
I can't call that English ;-)
1. Re:Yet another patent story... by heironymouscoward · 2009-03-20 00:22 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Check the Firehose for another patent story (some fools tried to claim a patent on SOAP!)
  
  --
  Ceci n'est pas une signature
2. Re:Yet another patent story... by pieterh · 2009-03-20 00:33 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Too lazy to post the link?
  http://yro.slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=3828063&art_pos=7
  ftfy
  
  --
  My blog
3. Re:Yet another patent story... by heironymouscoward · 2009-03-20 00:35 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  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.
  
  --
  Ceci n'est pas une signature
Oblig. Red Dwarf quote by Seriousity · 2009-03-20 00:22 · Score: 5, Funny

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!

--
This post was made in complete sincere seriousity; as such any attempts to derive humour are doomed to instant failure.
"When did this start?" by blind+biker · 2009-03-20 00:35 · Score: 3, Funny

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.

--
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
"Committed to a solution"? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-20 00:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

[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.)
It is 2009. The binary is no longer the product. by Zero__Kelvin · 2009-03-20 00:52 · Score: 5, Interesting

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?

--
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Patent the machine... by SCHecklerX · 2009-03-20 01:04 · Score: 3, Interesting

...not the way you use it.
In other words, software and business method patents shouldn't #!$#@! exist in the first place.
Lawyers. Now the Largest Industry in the USA by RotateLeftByte · 2009-03-20 01:13 · Score: 3, Funny

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.

--
I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
Re:It is 2009. The binary is no longer the product by Zero__Kelvin · 2009-03-20 01:20 · Score: 4, Informative

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 ;-)

--
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Re:Although ... by gbjbaanb · 2009-03-20 01:22 · Score: 3, Informative

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:Lawyers by cyphercell · 2009-03-20 04:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

--
Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
What? No Bilski War? by MarkvW · 2009-03-20 05:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

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