TomTom, Microsoft Settle Patent Dispute
Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 30th Mar 2009 21:19 UTC
Legal Navigation device maker TomTom and Microsoft have resolved their patent dispute by entering into a settlement agreement out-of-court. The outcome of the agreement is that TomTom will license the infringed patents, but that they will remove the encumbered code from their implementation of the Linux kernel within two years.
E-mail Print r 0   · Read More · 45 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/gdm
Thread beginning with comment 355908
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: I don't get it
by lemur2 on Mon 30th Mar 2009 23:50 UTC in reply to "I don't get it"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

There was a huge thing when microsoft got the patent for fat32 several years ago. There was a huge thing when they set up licensing plans. There was a huge thing when the EFF (afaik, could have been the OSF) appealed the decision and lost. There was a huge thing not that long ago when microsoft said there was technology in the kernel that was patented by them. There was a huge thing when novell signed the patent deal with them. So in the last six years, there has been at least five big stinks over either FAT32, or Microsoft making noises about enforcing their software patents against other companies if they so wish. My question is why the hell is fat32 still in the kernel? As for this specific issue, it is a shakedown plain and simple. This happens all the time when a big company doesn't like the growth of a smaller company in a space they care about, and ends up being ammo against the very people patents were supposed to protect. Both copyright and patent law need sweeping reform.


Firstly, Microsoft's patent is not for FAT32 per se. The patents are about a obvious method (that Microsoft just chose amongst several possibilities) to store long file names (which are an assumed feature of just about every other filesystem) in the FAT directory structure, while maintaining compatibility on disk with a computer without LFN support.

Secondly, the LFN patents are still very much in dispute.

Here is some non-Microsoft spin on it all:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090330181547642

I like this bit:
"SFLC, working with the Open Invention Network and the Linux Foundation, is pleased to participate in a coordinated, carefully graduated response on behalf of all the community's members to ongoing anti-competitive Microsoft conduct."


Edited 2009-03-30 23:58 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: I don't get it
by google_ninja on Tue 31st Mar 2009 01:29 in reply to "RE: I don't get it"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

This is from wikipedia, which is slightly more impartial then a pj quote


According to the PUBPAT press release, "Microsoft still has the opportunity to respond to the Patent Office's rejection. Typically, third party requests for re-examination, like the one filed by PUBPAT, are successful in having the subject patent either narrowed or completely revoked roughly 70% of the time."
On 2005-10-05 the Patent Office announced that, following the re-examination process, it had again rejected all claims of patent 5,579,517, and it additionally found U.S. Patent 5,758,352 invalid on the grounds that the patent had incorrect assignees.
Finally, on 2006-01-10 the Patent Office ruled that features of Microsoft's implementation of the FAT system were "novel and non-obvious", reversing both earlier non-final decisions.[38]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table#Appeal

so as of 2k6, Microsoft has two patents that have stood up.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: I don't get it
by lemur2 on Tue 31st Mar 2009 01:32 in reply to "RE[2]: I don't get it"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

This is from wikipedia, which is slightly more impartial then a pj quote " According to the PUBPAT press release, "Microsoft still has the opportunity to respond to the Patent Office's rejection. Typically, third party requests for re-examination, like the one filed by PUBPAT, are successful in having the subject patent either narrowed or completely revoked roughly 70% of the time." On 2005-10-05 the Patent Office announced that, following the re-examination process, it had again rejected all claims of patent 5,579,517, and it additionally found U.S. Patent 5,758,352 invalid on the grounds that the patent had incorrect assignees. Finally, on 2006-01-10 the Patent Office ruled that features of Microsoft's implementation of the FAT system were "novel and non-obvious", reversing both earlier non-final decisions.[38]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table#Appeal so as of 2k6, Microsoft has two patents that have stood up. "

They stood up in respect of a review by the Patent Office. That is not particularly impressive, considering the things that the US Patent office allows to be registered as patents. AFAIK they haven't yet stood up in court in terms of suing anybody ... AFAIK such a case has never got to court.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Read more of this thread... >
RE[3]: I don't get it
by lemur2 on Tue 31st Mar 2009 04:01 in reply to "RE[2]: I don't get it"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

This is from wikipedia, which is slightly more impartial then a pj quote ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table#Appeal so as of 2k6, Microsoft has two patents that have stood up.


Here is another take on this from Groklaw readers:

http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=200903301306553...

http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=200903301306553...

I have not heard that TomTom does give MS anything in return for using their precioussss FAT patents for the next two years. Let alone the previous years.

Actually, MS gets NOTHING from TomTom as far as I can see. And TomTom gets rid of the suit and does NOT buy a license from MS.

Is this MS fleeing trying to do an orderly retreat?


It looks like OIN worked. I suspect the royalties paid to Microsoft in settlement may have been a nominal amount which allows Microsoft to claim a victory.


I think what happened is that MS discovered that TomTom's Linux software doesn't write to SD cards, and the Windows software uses Microsoft's Windows support for long filenames on FAT so it isn't infringing either. At which point MS cut a deal with TomTom to save face.


Probably so. The pressure was on the Monopoly who had to defend themselves quickly against the MoFos in the Rocket Docket. The speed of settlement means that TomTom gave up little because they had little to give.

It is unusual for Goliath to settle with David while they're still sitting on the bench.


Well, it is an interesting theory anyway that happens to go well with the facts.

Reply Parent Score: 4

Read more of this thread... >