And Here Comes The Patent Nuclear War: TomTom Sues Microsoft Back For Infringement
from the mutually-assured-destruction dept
For years, people in the software industry have noticed that patents have become the nuclear stockpiling of the tech industry. Lots of companies feel the need to stock up on as many patents as possible, not for any good reason -- but to have something to scare people off from suing, knowing that they'll get sued right back. This is especially true today, since almost no tech product can be seen as not violating a whole bevy of patents from others. But, of course, when you're dealing with a nuclear stockpiling for deterrence purposes, eventually, nuclear war breaks out. That seems to be happening with the patent lawsuit between Microsoft and TomTom. While there's been speculation that TomTom really can't settle, apparently it can launch the nuclear war. It's now countersued Microsoft, claiming that the company violates a bunch of its patents. And, once again, the only folks who win are the patent attorneys.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: nuclear war, patents
Companies: microsoft, tomtom
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Yes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MAD
The courts created this monster, who is going to kill it?
I say nuke em from orbit, its the only way to be sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I look to my right, and I see GPS company relatively fresh out of the gate.
In a knock down drag'em out, I know who will have money left at the end. I have a feeling that Tom-Tom may have signed their own corporate death warrant at this point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nono, that was Microsoft who signed their death warrant. If they have to die, they are making it on their terms and will die a martyr.
Good on 'em.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WH
You assume that any pro bono work is subpar ?
Nice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WH
Even if the laywers are entirely free, the amount of research, time, and effort put into defending a lawsuit can run a company in the ground. I just think that Microsoft has pretty much the biggest pile of cash lying around (except maybe google at this point) and they can wait it out as long as they want.
As for Tomtom changing their software, they could do it - but they would have to recall millions of units to undo what is done. That would cost time and money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So since their death knell has already been sounded they might as well start by laying off all nonessential personnel and gathering support from all the M$ haters around. Then use all that money to just fight until one of them (probably tomtom) is dead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: TheStupidOne
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm rather more interested in whether those other patent licensing agreements Microsoft has made with respect to GPLed software are legal since they force a breach of the GPL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Innovation crushed to death
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Innovation crushed to death
Well, they shouldn't have stolen the cutting edge storage system developed at great expense by Microsoft. Now they must pay the price for their arrogance, thinking that they could use something like FAT32 - how dare them !!!!1111
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm
Meanwhile, MS is using the ITC loophole on this. We'll see what happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bill Gate's advice to UK wannabes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
software patents are bogus
How can there be any interchangeability when there is a toll to pay? Consumers do not want to be locked into a one company solution, and in fact would spend more if they had multiple choices. Where is the incentive for a comapny to provide a product which is compatible with other products from a variety of sources? In fact there are rather large disincentives. How, exactly does this promote anything but stupidity and lawyers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents as a nuclear option
However, two things have to happen to fix it:
1. Campaign finance reform, and
2. Funding the patent system rather than having them pay for their operations out of fees.
Meanwhile, I am doing what I can to return us to the original purpose of the system, as shown in the US Constitution!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
history
Not true. Only about 5 percent of patents are ever litigated. The rest cover things that are either never used, or the inventor doesn't have the money to enforce. Further, most patents are rather narrow in scope so if an infringer wishes they can remove that feature from their product and not have to pay. Otherwise, if one has a patent covering one or more crucial feature and the other firm has patents covering other features they simply cross license. That's how Bell did it with Western Union over 100 years ago. Better leave these topics to those who know something about them, or you’ll look like an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: history
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]