OIN Posts Details of Microsoft's Anti-Tom Tom Patents

number6x writes "LinuxDevices.com is reporting that the Open Invention Network has posted the details of three of the eight patents used by Microsoft in the Tom Tom suit (which Tom Tom settled last month), asking the community for prior art. These patents cover aspects of the FAT file system. You can find them on Post-Issue.org — see numbers 5579517, 5758352, and 6256642. OIN CEO Keith Bergelt believes that these three patents are of tenuous validity and will probably not survive a review. Bergelt believes that there's a good chance that the USPTO may well invalidate them before the end of the year.

Comments

Indicative of the brokenness of the system

[Anonymous Coward]

If a few lay-men webanaughts can find prior art in patents that were enough to force a company to settle out of court (for fear of legislation), then clearly the system is so completely broken that I fear it cannot be repaired.

Here is my question: Why should I spend the money that I get from my 9-5 job to start up a new company if a few lazy lawyers can bring me to court and sue me without having any real legal ground? I might as well not bring innovation to the stage and save myself the hassle.

Re:Indicative of the brokenness of the system

[MrEricSir]

Clearly, you should quit your 9-5 job and become a lawyer.

Re:Indicative of the brokenness of the system

[russotto]

It might happen, or the patents may prove to be claimed too narrowly to be invalidated easily. How broad does a patent covering VFAT have to make it difficult for competitors to interact with VFAT and still be a novel, non-obvious solution?

It doesn't matter. The reviews for prior art and the determination of patent infringement are separate. What seems to happen is that the patent is read narrowly when looking for a conflict with prior art, and broadly when looking for infringement. So the patent office and courts can simultaneously hold that a piece of prior art does not invalidate the patent, and that a particular device that uses something substantially similar to that same prior art is infringing.

Re:Indicative of the brokenness of the system

[aynoknman]

... then clearly the system is so completely broken that I fear it cannot be repaired

It's not broken at all. The system clearly fosters innovation.

.... Legal Innovation.

Who can compete?

[assemblerex]

Against a company with that many lawyers and the ability to litigate you to oblivion.

Why didnt TomTom look for this stuff?

[RobertM1968]

I'm curious why TomTom wouldn't have done this work themselves to invalidate Microsoft's claims and avoid any sort of settlement? Couldn't they have stalled this until a determination was made that either the patent was invalid, or that their methods were based on the prior art - just like Microsoft's?

I'm hoping that TomTom just didnt do their homework and someone manages to come up with the info that they did not.

Makes me wonder how much luck this initiative will have - though I am hoping lots.

On another note, I wonder if an effort to invalidate the patents on the basis of "gee, that's obvious" is taking place as well...

Re:Why didnt TomTom look for this stuff?

[FrankSchwab]

Perhaps because Tom Tom's business model involves building and selling GPS devices, and not fighting patent battles?

It becomes really easy to decide to settle such a lawsuit to keep management focused on "job 1", rather than focusing on saving a few pennies per unit by fighting a lawsuit for several years with a very well funded adversary.

The difference between a successful business and an unsuccessful business often comes down to the CEO's ability to make such a business decision without letting the "fairness" of the issue cloud the "business" of the issue. Get too involved in "I'm not going to let them bleed me for what may be an obvious patent with what could be some obliquely-related prior art", and you're not focusing on your core business.

Re:Why didnt TomTom look for this stuff?

[Lead Butthead]

It becomes really easy to decide to settle such a lawsuit to keep management focused on "job 1", rather than focusing on saving a few pennies per unit by fighting a lawsuit for several years with a very well funded adversary.

Because it invites other to sue you too. IBM could have easily bought SCOX to make their little... 'problem' go away, but it did not. Instead it spent millions to BURY SCOX to let all other know that it will not be intimidated into buying out a plaintiff.

Re:Why didnt TomTom look for this stuff?

[harlows_monkeys]

Perhaps because Tom Tom's business model involves building and selling GPS devices, and not fighting patent battles?

I suppose TomTom's suits against Garmin and Toyota were filed because it gets too cold in the Netherlands and they wanted to spend some time in the Eastern District of Texas (their venue of choice when they sue others)?

Re:Why didnt TomTom look for this stuff?

[caerwyn]

I suspect that IBM's motivation was much more related to ensuring that their customers didn't get cold feet about linux than it was to avoid other people trying to sue them. SCO was threatening all linux users- and since IBM makes money off linux at this point, they, that meant SCO was threatening their entire customer base. That made it a very good idea for IBM to trounce SCO in court, proving that their customers were safe (and therefore should keep buying IBM products/services).

The GP is talking about a very different view. MS was never going to sue TomTom's users; they just wanted money from TomTom. It's not at all unlikely that the settlement cost less money than litigation would, and certainly is less distracting, so the GP's point is quite valid.

Chilling effect

[SpaceLifeForm]

I might as well not bring innovation to the stage and save myself the hassle.

That is exactly what the darkside hopes.

Re:Irony?

[Darkness404]

Now while this may be funny, it actually could work in MS's favour. For example, if they can make a big enough deal about this they can perhaps persuade other, smaller vendors to pay the patent extortion money and when the patent is invalidated it really doesn't matter because MS already has the money.

Re:Actual Patent Info

[carlzum]

The best explanation I've read was in a reply to the story when Tom-Tom settled with MS.