Microsoft is Sueing TomTom for...?

[RobertB]

Slashdot continues to be a valuable source of information about the MS/TT spat.

Slashdot | TomTom Can License FAT Without Violating the GPL

"Capped per-unit royalties make FAT licensing agreements permissible under the GPL, and SD Times has found that Microsoft's public license policy caps royalties at $250k. If the royalties are capped ? as they seem to be ? TomTom should be able to license FAT without violating the GPL. And if that is the case ... TomTom needs some serious explaining to do as to why they aren't licensing FAT. That said, Microsoft still needs to explain why it just cannot say that folks won't violate the GPL if they license FAT under its terms."

The text links to this article in the San Diego Times: TomTom can license FAT without violating GPL

The point, apparently, is that TT should have paid MS the $250k protection money like all the others. Because if they had, those guys wouldn't be standing outside with baseball bats and tire irons.

 

[mvl]

Tomtom responded with a countersuit:

TomTom countersues Microsoft in patent dispute | Microsoft - CNET News

 

[Malouff]

TomTom has joined OIN (Open Invention Network) as a licensee. That means that they have suddenly added the strength of 275+ patents to their patent defence/attack portfolio, plus a whole bunch more legal expertise. Also interesting to note this now means all other licensees of OIN have royalty-free access to TomTom patents.

Plus if TomTom now 'gets' Linux, perhaps the linux version of Home may see the light of day - assuming TomTom survives this barrage.

After visiting OIN for the news release I found the following interesting

Linux plays an important role at TomTom as the core of all our Portable Navigation Devices,” said Peter Spours, director of IP at TomTom. “We believe that by becoming an Open Invention Network licensee, we encourage Linux development and foster innovation in a technical community that benefits everyone.”

What does Peter mean they encourage and folster...I thought they have killed there SDK and all plug-in support.

Didn't these plug-ins have benefits for everyone including TomTom who may get sales for features provided by the plug-in(s).
If anything they should have offered them on Home if they receive something like a TomTom seal of approval.

I know I use TomPlayer to watch a movie when I am in a waiting room.
I use the Tomtom with the car adapter to get me to the destination and keep a charged battery. I then use the battery to watch a movie.

I am just thankful that Wolfgar got TomPlayer to work with NavCore 8 without any TomTom support.

TomTom should also rethink maintaining a SDK after doing this.

 

[SpeckyTechie]

Tomtom counter suing is an odd decision for a company in crises, but it may be the best way to get out of the mess. I do believe this is a desperate attempt from microsoft to rid the world of open source linux based aps

 

[mvl]

This OIN is an interesting approach.

Does tomtom get to choose which patents to offer to OIN? For example, if Garmin joins OIN, do they get all of tomtom's navigation/mapping patents for free? Or can tomtom restrict participation purely to its Linux-related patents.

 

[opel70]

They have now settled both suits.

My Way News - TomTom to pay Microsoft to end patent fight

 

[RobertB]

The upcoming Slashdot article (I'm a subscriber, so I see it early) says:

TomTom Settles With Microsoft
It appears TomTom bowed to the pressure and settled with Microsoft over the recent patent infringement claims from the Redmond software giant. In the agreement, TomTom will pay Microsoft for coverage under the eight car navigation and file management systems patents in the Microsoft case. Also as part of the agreement, Microsoft receives coverage under the four patents included in the TomTom counter-suit. TomTom also has to remove functionality related to two file management system patents (the 'FAT LFN patents').

They link to this article: Microsoft and TomTom settle patent dispute - Ars Technica

Other articles I need to look at, from Google News:
Microsoft, TomTom Settle Patent Dispute - News and Analysis by PC Magazine
Microsoft and TomTom settle 'Linux' kerfuffle ? The Register

 

[canderson]

Per Redmond -- "It is drafted in a way that ensures TomTom?s full compliance with its obligations under the GPLv2, and thus reaffirms our commitment to the open source community."

Boy, would I LOVE to see what contorted language they have constructed to make that claim. Given what's in Linux, and given what the GPL says, I cannot imagine a situation where a FAT (w or w/o long name functionality) cross-license and GPL distribution can co-exist. Neither can anyone else I've talked with on the topic.

Since all of these deals are cut under non-disclosure agreements forced into play by Microsoft, no one knows who the other license holders are, nor has anyone ever been able to verify that Microsoft has some miracle language that avoids GPL issues. Nice Catch-22, isn't it?

 

[RobertB]

The posters on Slashdot go into a lot of detail, not all of which I fully understand -- and fully half of which is likely inaccurate. But there's one big thing to remember about FAT: it's not the only file system out there!

EXT2, EXT3, and even ReiserFS (the killer file system) are (AFAIK) fully GPL-compliant file systems, unencumbered by patents. There's no reason why the *unit* needs to care whether it's formatted in FAT, EXTx, or even CP/M. If it weren't for the latency and form factor issues, it could use magnetic drum recording.

Syncing with the PC, though, is another matter. FAT just happens to be the only file system fully supported in a default Windows installation -- which is why it's what you find on every thumbdrive on the market. And sure enough, Microsoft gets $250K from each of those drive manufacturers (or at least the ones who are smart enough to stay out of court). As a result, Microsoft (living up to its "M$" epithet) has no reason to include support for any other file system.

But that still doesn't mean that TomTom has to pay the FAT licensing fee (hey, I don't have $250k lying around, do you?). All they have to do is ship TTHome with a new driver for the filesystem they choose. There were several examples given in the Slashdot article -- the only complaint was that they might not be stable enough for commercial use.

All TT has to do is run the open source extX file system driver code through a few rounds of testing and improvement (uh oh!), give the (hopefully) improved driver code back to the FOSS community, and they've killed two birds with one stone. They've eliminated the need to license FAT, and they've made a few more friends in the Open Source world. That and five bucks will get you a cup of coffee!

 

[mvl]

Per Redmond -- "It is drafted in a way that ensures TomTom’s full compliance with its obligations under the GPLv2, and thus reaffirms our commitment to the open source community."

I'm sure the contract goes something like:

1) Microsoft agrees to drop the suit and not sue tomtom for 2 years for FAT, in exchange for tomtom using some other file system in year 3.
2) Tomtom agrees to pay microsoft *** dollars for the use of YYY navigational patents.

So there would be no technical cost to the linux patent that is covered by GPL.

 

[canderson]

The posters on Slashdot go into a lot of detail, not all of which I fully understand -- and fully half of which is likely inaccurate. But there's one big thing to remember about FAT: it's not the only file system out there!

While true, it doesn't deal with the fact that all of those SD cards are typically preformatted with FAT file systems. And while it doesn't bother TomTom, consider all of those thumb drives out there... What we've got, for better or worse, is a defacto standard.

 

[Peter715]

I still think there's a lot of twist and turns to come in all this. Here's a good article I was reading earlier: Click here.


I'll be honest. I think these people need to start thinking about us a little and not just money. Does anyone know what they settled for?

 

[RobertB]

The Linux/Open Source community hasn't forgotten about the case, even if TomTom and Microsoft are all cozy now. Slashdot is reporting on an article at LinuxDevices.com: Microsoft's TomTom patents posted for patent review. The hope is that by asking the wider Open Source community for examples of "prior art", the US Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) could decide to invalidate Microsoft's FAT patent:

While [Open Invention Network CEO Keith] Bergelt still believes that it makes sense to formulate an alternative to FAT, he now says that there's a good chance that the USPTO may well invalidate the three FAT filesystem patents before that. In fact, he said, the decision could occur as early as the fourth quarter.

The likelihood that the patents will be overturned, and the speed with which it might happen is "is dictated by the quality and quantity of prior art," said Bergelt. The willingness of the USPTO to overturn invalid patents is there, he said, but "the system is operating under a strain due to volume and personnel change and high employee churn rate," he added. "The Linux community has unique knowledge that can't be accessed by the Patent Office examiners in a facilitative way."

I'd say it's a longshot. But if successful, it would be a supreme irony: by attacking TomTom's use of FAT in a Linux system, Microsoft would have opened its own Pandora's Box.

 

[gatorguy]

By partnering with the Linux community one week, then doing an about turn and agreeing with Microsoft and paying up the next, TT did linux developers no favor IMO. I was surprised when they turned their backs on the offer of help from their Linux "friends".

 

[sageuvagony]

Microsoft is being sued right now as well for bundling Internet explorer with their OS in Europe.