Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 28th Apr 2010 14:31 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 421344
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-02-17
TomTom could have used a Linux kernel that did not violate Microsoft's FAT patents (which, BTW, is not a patent for FAT itself, but rather a patent for a method of writing both a long filename (LFN) and a short filename (the old 8.3 style filename) for the same file on a FAT32 filesystem).
See here:
http://www.osnews.com/permalink?421336
However, Microsoft probably offered TomTom a deal such that it was far easier, quicker and cheaper to settle out of court with Microsoft rather than take this to court.
I'd imagine that most of these issues are similar. Linux doesn't infringe but it is easier and cheaper to settle with Microsoft out of court than it would be to take it to court.