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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

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 !

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.

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.

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

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!

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?

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 ;-)