TomTom Realizes Microsoft's Pointy Patent Stick Is Too Sharp... Settles Patent Dispute
from the cheaper-to-settle-than-fight dept
Well, it looks like the ongoing patent battle between TomTom and Microsoft has come to a quick end, with TomTom caving. The company is paying Microsoft to "license" its patents, while dropping its own patent lawsuits against Microsoft. This really isn't too surprising. Microsoft's obviously got plenty of money to spend on just such a legal battle (exactly what the company counts on to get companies to pay up), so at some point, the calculation on TomTom's part has to be whether it's cheaper to fight or to just pay up. In this case (like so many), the company obviously felt it was cheaper to pay up, rather than fight what it believed were highly questionable patents. That's too bad -- but shows just why the patent system is so widely abused. It's almost always cheaper to simply pay up rather than fight -- which is exactly the sort of situation that Microsoft counts on, as it hypes up it's "successful patent licensing program," failing to concede that most of that licensing is done at the end of a large and very pointy stick.What's still unclear, however, is how this settlement deals with the questions that were raised over GPL'd software used by TomTom. As we noted, the GPL license that covers components of TomTom's software forbid it from putting any restrictions on the distribution of the software. A deal with Microsoft could violate the GPL and cause trouble for TomTom down the road. Perhaps the company is betting that any legal battle on that front would be cheaper than fighting Microsoft's patent lawyers in court.
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: fud, patents, pointy stick, settling
Companies: microsoft, tomtom
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
3 years of discussion leads me to think theres more to this.
Perhaps TomTom had some technology Microsoft wanted, but wouldn't license, pushing Microsoft to file a FAT32 licensing suit against TomTom. We'll probably learn more as Microsoft launches some GPS thingy in the next few months, whose main, whizbang feature is something TomTom had in 2003. Maybe downlowadable maps or something else real dumb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 3 years of discussion leads me to think theres more to this.
Last week, he sent a little predictive programming article out where he mentioned his dad worked for Ford, and was going to sell his land rover now that the brand is no longer owned by Ford...
So yeah some crappy feature TomTom had for years will probably be a standard feature on Ford Cars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 3 years of discussion leads me to think theres more to this.
Yup... Must be near "GO-time" for some crappy product launch. Whatever it is, remember to wait for SP 2 or 3.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legal Salary Cap
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Legal Salary Cap
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Legal Salary Cap
and
B. I think my original description was just as, if not more accurate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just Because it's Accidental..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Legal Salary Cap
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lockin and forced upgrade are their claim to fame.
Looks like their MO is not sustainable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The sad part is, other vendors wouldn't even make their own apps interoperable. You had to get a 3rd party tool to get information from one app to another.
Lockin, yes, but forced upgrade? Come on. Forced upgrade is when a company turns off an app after a certain calendar date, like Apple did with QuickTime. (Yes, it happened to me!) I have yet to see Microsoft do such a stupid thing. Not saying they didn't, I just haven't seen it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
My mistake - I thought interoperability meant that different systems could operate together, regardless of who built and sold it.
2) Forced Upgrade
Again, my mistake - I thought lack of backward compatibility implied a forced upgrade. But then you really do not need those old docs. Hint, have you ever opened/saved an older doc in a newer version of office and then tried to open said doc in the old office? They do not turn off old stuff, they just no longer support it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sometimes that's the best you can do to make things backwards compatible, but still move forward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
According to the Ars Technica article on the subject, TomTom is maintaining GPL compliance by removing the code covered by MicroSoft's patents.
So while they may have nominally "licensed" the patents, in reality they just paid to make the lawsuit go away.
Source
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
groklaw coverage
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090330130655372
Also, TomTom joined OIN so we will see how that affects things too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Good, and I wont say anyhthing about how I wont say anything about what you said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Still a GPL Violation
TomTom intends to make the requisite changes to the FAT code within the next two years. The company's agreement with Microsoft provides a guarantee that it will not sue TomTom users in the interim.
An agreement not to sue for 2 years won't satisfy the GPL. While MS and AT may claim that such an agreement is GPL compliant, I doubt that the FSF would agree. I bet the agreement TT has with MS also calls for MS to defend TT if the FSF sues. Basically, TT is now thumbing its nose at the FSF and the GPL with MS standing behind them daring the FSF to make something of it. Now lets see if the FSF has the balls to do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Since Weird Harold is such an Expert on FAT32...
Some examination questions for Weird Harold:
1. Will Weird Harold please discuss the use of the continuation card in FORTRAN II and FORTRAN IV, using punched card program input. (ref: Paul Cress, Paul Dirkson, and J. Wesley Graham, FORTRAN with WATFOR and WATFIV, 1968, 1970).
2. Likewise, will he please discuss the system of termination codes overlapped with index numbers for automatic array bounds used in the IBM 370's PL/I compilers, circa 1980, and the notion of spanning records, discussed in the Programmers's Guide and Execution Logic Manuals for the PL/I Optimizing Compiler.
http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/370/pli/
http://www.bitsavers.org/
[It's amazing! I typed the stock numbers from my old IBM 370 manuals into Google, and voila!, they are now freely available on the internet.]
I would say that both references obviously bear on the way in which long records are incorporated into the FAT32 directory database. Perhaps Weird Harold could explain why not?
3. With respect to the system of generation of short file names in FAT32, will Weird Harold please explain why the removal of illegal characters is unobvious, and why the system of assigning successive numbers to names within a category is unobvious?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patents
With as stupid as some of the stuff our patent office allows through, I would give you a 80% chance of success on that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mama always said the longer the title, the bigger the bullshit artist
So TomTom created a sign on Microsoft's Road, and was sued. In the process, when slapped, TomTom offered the other cheek.
Hopefully "Corporate vice president and deputy general counsel of Intellectual Property and Licensing" can fix it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]