|
Microsoft's Complaint against TomTom, as text |
|
Thursday, March 05 2009 @ 11:40 PM EST
|
Here's the complaint filed by Microsoft against TomTom, NV and TomTom, Inc., alleging patent infringement, as PDF and as text. We'll be setting up a Timeline page for it after TomTom files its answer.
We also provide the exhibits, as PDFs, some of which are the patents being litigated. Don't read them unless you are free to look at such patents, as usual. Here's the relief Microsoft is asking for: a judgment that TomTom has infringed each of Microsoft's patents, that it was willful, hence justifying treble damages and pre-judgment interest, plus compensatory damages and interest and costs, and "in no event less than a reasonable royalty", expenses, costs and attorneys fees, and, finally, a permanent injunction.
The filings:
02/25/2009 1 COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT and JURY DEMAND against defendants (NO Summons(es) issued)(Receipt # SEA 24188), filed by Microsoft Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Complaint, # 2 Exhibit B to Complaint, # 3 Exhibit C to Complaint, # 4 Exhibit D to Complaint, # 5 Exhibit E to Complaint, # 6 Exhibit F to Complaint, # 7 Exhibit G to Complaint, # 8 Exhibit H to Complaint, # 9 Civil Cover Sheet, # 10 Transmittal email)(PM) (Entered: 02/27/2009)
02/27/2009 2 REPORT on the filing or determination of an action. E-mailed to the US Patent Office. (Attachments: # 1 AO 120 Form completed by counsel) (PM) (Entered: 02/27/2009)
03/02/2009 3 NOTICE Microsoft Corporation's Corporate Disclosure Statement ; filed by Plaintiff Microsoft Corporation. (Wichman, Adam) (Entered: 03/02/2009)
You might find it interesting to read the USPTO's current examination standards [PDF], in a January 7, 2009 memo from
John J. Love,
Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, "SUBJECT: Guidance for Examining Process Claims in view of In re Bilski", sent to "Technology Center Directors Patent Examining Corps", which I guess means the examiners. Here's the meat of it: We are presently studying the full ramifications of the court's clarification and other recent developments in the law. In view of the Bilski decision, the guidelines are being redrafted to reflect the most current standards for subject matter eligibility. Until the guidelines are completed, examiners should continue to follow the current patent subject matter eligibility guidelines appearing in MPEP 2106, with the following modification.
As explained in a memorandum dated May 15, 2008, entitled "Clarification of 'Processes' under 35 USC § 101", a method claim must meet a specialized, limited meaning to qualify as a patent-eligible process claim. As clarified in Bilski, the test for a method claim is whether the claimed method is (1) tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) transforms a particular article to a different state or thing. This is called the "machine-or-transformation test". It should be noted that the machine-or-transformation test from Bilski is slightly different from the test explained in the May 15 Clarification memo, which was based on the Office's interpretation of the law prior to Bilski.
There are two corollaries to the machine-or-transformation test. First, a mere field-of-use limitation is generally insufficient to render an otherwise ineligible method claim patent-eligible. This means the machine or transformation must impose meaningful limits on the method claim's scope to pass the test. Second, insignificant extra-solution activity will not transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process. This means reciting a specific machine or a particular transformation of a specific article in an insignificant step, such a data gathering or outputting, is not sufficient to pass the test. That last paragraph is the important part. Keep in mind that Microsoft also filed a complaint [PDF] with the ITC, which is described on the new ITC Law Blog.
***************************************************
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
a Washington Corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
TOMTOM N.V., a Netherlands Corporation,
and TOMTOM, INC., a Massachusetts
Corporation,
Defendants.
|
Case No: _______________________
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
INFRINGEMENT
JURY DEMAND |
Plaintiff Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft") for its Complaint
For Patent Infringement against Defendants TomTom N.V. and TomTom,
Inc. (collectively, the "Defendants"), alleges as follows:
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff Microsoft Corporation is a Washington corporation
having its principal place of business at One Microsoft Way,
Redmond, Washington 98052.
2. Founded in 1975, Microsoft is a worldwide leader in computer
software, services and solutions for businesses and consumers.
Since 1979, Microsoft has been headquartered in the Seattle,
Washington metropolitan area, currently employs more than 20,000
people in the Seattle area, and occupies nearly 8 million square
feet of facilities at its Redmond campus.
(1)
3. Microsoft has a long history of technical innovation in the
software and hardware products it develops and distributes. These
software products include operating systems for servers, personal
computers, embedded devices, smartphones, PDAs, and other
intelligent devices; server applications for distributed computing
environments; information worker productivity applications;
business solution applications; high-performance computing
applications; software development tools; operating systems for
automotive applications; and various navigation-related software
products and services.
4. Upon information and belief, Defendant TomTom N.V. is a Dutch
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
Netherlands having a principal place of business at Rembrandtplein
35, Amsterdam 1017 CT, Netherlands.
5. Upon information and belief, Defendant TomTom, Inc. is a
corporation organized and existing under the laws of Massachusetts
and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of TomTom N.V. TomTom, Inc.'s
principal place of business is located at 150 Baker Ave Ext.,
Concord, Massachusetts 01742.
6. Upon information and belief, Defendants are in the business
of developing, manufacturing, and selling portable navigation
computing devices and software for use on those devices, personal
computers, PDAs, and smartphones (hereinafter known collectively as
"Portable Navigation Devices and Software"). Upon information and
belief, Defendants market and distribute their products worldwide,
including in the United States, through their channel business
partners and various retail companies, at retail stores, through
the websites of retail companies, and on their own websites. Upon
information and belief, Defendants do business within the Western
District of Washington.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the
patent laws of the United States, Title 35, United States Code.
(2)
8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
9. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1391(b), 1391(c) and 1400(b). On information and
belief, Defendants are subject to this Court's personal
jurisdiction, consistent with the principles of due process and the
Washington Long Arm Statute, because each Defendant offers for sale
and sells Portable Navigation Devices and Software in the Western
District of Washington, has transacted business in this District,
and/or has committed and/or induced acts of patent infringement in
this District. For example, Defendants' own website (e.g.,
http://www.tomtom.com/page/giftguide?Lid=4&selector=true)
allows users to purchase Defendants' products for delivery within
this District. The website at
http://www.tomtom.com/stores/type.php?ID=2&Country=223 directs
users of the Defendants' website to retail outlets selling
Defendants' products within this District. Additionally, the
website at
http://www.tomtom.com/stores/type.php?ID=1&Country=223 directs
users of the Defendants' website to online merchants selling
Defendants' products for delivery within this District.
PATENT INFRINGEMENT COUNTS
10. Microsoft is the owner of all right, title, and interest in
U.S. Patent Nos. 6,175,789; 7,054,745; 6,704,032; 7,117,286;
6,202,008; 5,579,517; 5,758,352; and 6,256,642 (collectively, "the
Microsoft patents-in-suit"), which the Defendants are directly
infringing and/or inducing others to infringe by making, using,
offering to sell or selling in the United States, or importing into
the United States, products or processes that practice inventions
claimed in the Microsoft patents-in-suit.
11. The Defendants have profited through infringement of the
Microsoft patents-in-suit. As a result of the Defendants' unlawful
infringement of the Microsoft patents-in-suit patent, Microsoft has
suffered and will continue to suffer damage. Microsoft is entitled
to
(3)
recover from the Defendants the damages suffered by Microsoft as
a result of the Defendants' unlawful acts.
12. Defendants' infringement of the Microsoft patents-in-suit
constitutes willful and deliberate infringement, entitling
Microsoft to enhanced damages and reasonable attorney fees and
costs. Microsoft provided defendant TomTom N.V. notice of its
infringement allegations in a June 13, 2008 letter to Peter-Frans
Pauwels, Chief Technical Officer of Defendant TomTom N.V. Upon
information and belief, Defendant TomTom, Inc. received notice of
Microsoft's infringement allegations from its parent, TomTom
N.V.
13. Upon information and belief, the Defendants intend to
continue their unlawful infringing activity, and Microsoft
continues to and will continue to suffer irreparable harm —
for which there is no adequate remedy at law — from such
unlawful infringing activity unless Defendants are enjoined by this
Court.
COUNT I
INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,175,789
14. Microsoft realleges and incorporates by reference the
allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-13.
15. Microsoft is the owner of all right, title, and interest in
U.S. Patent No. 6,175,789 ("the '789 patent"), entitled "Vehicle
Computer System with Open Platform Architecture" duly and properly
issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on January 16, 2001.
A copy of the '789 patent is attached as Exhibit A.
16. The Defendants have been and/or are directly infringing
and/or inducing others to infringe the '789 patent by, among other
things, making, using, offering to sell or selling in the United
States, or importing into the United States, products, including
various Portable Navigation Devices and Software that embody or
incorporate, or the operation of which otherwise practices, one or
more claims of the '789 patent.
(4)
COUNT II
INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,054,745
17. Microsoft realleges and incorporates by reference the
allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-13.
18. Microsoft is the owner of all right, title, and interest in
U.S. Patent No. 7,054,745 ("the '745 patent"), entitled "Method and
System For Generating Driving Directions," duly and properly issued
by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on May 30, 2006. A copy of
the '745 patent is attached as Exhibit B.
19. The Defendants have been and/or are directly infringing
and/or inducing others to infringe the '745 patent by, among other
things, making, using, offering to sell or selling in the United
States, or importing into the United States, products, including
various Portable Navigation Devices and Software that embody or
incorporate, or the operation of which otherwise practices, one or
more claims of the '745 patent.
COUNT III
INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,704,032
20. Microsoft realleges and incorporates by reference the
allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-13.
21. Microsoft is the owner of all right, title, and interest in
U.S. Patent No. 6,704,032 ("the '032 patent"), entitled "Methods
and Arrangements for Interacting with Controllable Objects within a
Graphical User Interface Environment Using Various Input
Mechanisms," duly and properly issued by the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office on March 9, 2004. A copy of the '032 patent is
attached as Exhibit C.
22. The Defendants have been and/or are directly infringing
and/or inducing others to infringe the '032 patent by, among other
things, making, using, offering to sell or selling in the United
States, or importing into the United States, products, including
various Portable
(5)
Navigation Devices and Software that embody or incorporate, or
the operation of which otherwise practices, one or more claims of
the '032 patent.
COUNT IV
INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,117,286
23. Microsoft realleges and incorporates by reference the
allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-13.
24. Microsoft is the owner of all right, title, and interest in
U.S. Patent No. 7,117,286 ("the '286 patent"), entitled "Portable
Computing Device-integrated Appliance," duly and properly issued by
the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on October 3, 2006. A copy of
the '286 patent is attached as Exhibit D.
25. The Defendants have been and/or are directly infringing
and/or inducing others to infringe the '286 patent by, among other
things, making, using, offering to sell or selling in the United
States, or importing into the United States, products, including
various Portable Navigation Devices and Software that embody or
incorporate, or the operation of which otherwise practices, one or
more claims of the '286 patent.
COUNT V
INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,202,008
26. Microsoft realleges and incorporates by reference the
allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-13.
27. Microsoft is the owner of all right, title, and interest in
U.S. Patent No. 6,202,008 ("the '008 patent"), entitled "Vehicle
Computer System with Wireless Internet Connectivity," duly and
properly issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on March
13, 2001. A copy of the '008 patent is attached as Exhibit E.
28. The Defendants have been and/or are directly infringing
and/or inducing others to infringe the '008 patent by, among other
things, making, using, offering to sell or selling in the United
States, or importing into the United States, products, including
various Portable
(6)
Navigation Devices and Software that embody or incorporate, or
the operation of which otherwise practices, one or more claims of
the '008 patent.
COUNT VI
INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,579,517
29. Microsoft realleges and incorporates by reference the
allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-13.
30. Microsoft is the owner of all right, title, and interest in
U.S. Patent No. 5,579,517 ("the '517 patent"), entitled "Common
Name Space for Long and Short Filenames," duly and properly issued
by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on November 26, 1996. A
reexamination certificate was issued by the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office for the '517 patent on November 28, 2006. A copy
of the '517 patent, including reexamination certificate, is
attached as Exhibit F.
31. The Defendants have been and/or are directly infringing
and/or inducing others to infringe the '517 patent by, among other
things, making, using, offering to sell or selling in the United
States, or importing into the United States, products, including
various Portable Navigation Devices and Software that embody or
incorporate, or the operation of which otherwise practices, one or
more claims of the '517 patent.
COUNT VII
INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,758,352
32. Microsoft realleges and incorporates by reference the
allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-13.
33. Microsoft is the owner of all right, title, and interest in
U.S. Patent No. 5,758,352 ("the '352 patent"), entitled "Common
Name Space for Long and Short Filenames," duly and properly issued
by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on May 26, 1998. A
reexamination certificate was issued by the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office for the '352 patent on October
(7)
10, 2006. A copy of the '352 patent, including reexamination
certificate, is attached as Exhibit G.
34. The Defendants have been and/or are directly infringing
and/or inducing others to infringe the '352 patent by, among other
things, making, using, offering to sell or selling in the United
States, or importing into the United States, products, including
various Portable Navigation Devices and Software that embody or
incorporate, or the operation of which otherwise practices, one or
more claims of the '352 patent.
COUNT VIII
INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,256,642
35. Microsoft realleges and incorporates by reference the
allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-13.
36. Microsoft is the owner of all right, title, and interest in
U.S. Patent No. 6,256,642 ("the '642 patent"), entitled "Method and
System for File System Management Using a Flash-Erasable,
Programmable, Read-only Memory" duly and properly issued by the
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on July 3, 2001. A copy of the
'642 patent is attached as Exhibit H.
37. The Defendants have been and/or are directly infringing
and/or inducing others to infringe the '642 patent by, among other
things, making, using, offering to sell or selling in the United
States, or importing into the United States, products, including
various Portable Navigation Devices and Software that embody or
incorporate, or the operation of which otherwise practices, one or
more claims of the '642 patent.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
38. Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, Microsoft respectfully requests a trial by jury on all
issues properly triable by jury.
(8)
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Microsoft prays for relief as follows:
A. For a judgment declaring that each Defendant has infringed at
least one claim of each of the Microsoft patents-in-suit;
B. For a judgment awarding Microsoft compensatory damages as a
result of each Defendant's infringement of the Microsoft
patents-in-suit, together with interest and costs, and in no event
less than a reasonable royalty;
C. For a judgment declaring that each Defendant's infringement
of the Microsoft patents-in-suit, has been willful and
deliberate;
D. For a judgment awarding Microsoft treble damages and
pre-judgment interest under 35 U.S.C. § 284 as a result of
each Defendant's willful and deliberate infringement of the
Microsoft patents-in-suit;
E. For a judgment declaring that this case is exceptional as to
each Defendant and awarding Microsoft its expenses, costs, and
attorneys fees in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and
285 and Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
F. For a grant of permanent injunction pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 283, enjoining each Defendant from further acts of
infringement; and
G. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and
proper.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: February 25, 2009 |
KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP
By: s/ Adam R. Wichman
Adam R. Wichman (WSBA No. 38466)
[email address]
John D. Vandenberg (WSBA No. 38445)
[email address]
[address]
[phone]
[fax] |
(9)
OF COUNSEL:
David E. Killough (WSBA No. 40185)
[email address]
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
[address]
[phone]
[fax]
David T. Pritikin
[email address]
Richard A. Cederoth [email address]
Douglas I. Lewis [email address]
John W. McBride [email address]
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP [address]
[phone]
[fax]
Marc R. Ascolese [email address]
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP [address]
[phone]
[fax]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
(10)
|
|
Authored by: Hyrion on Friday, March 06 2009 @ 12:23 AM EST |
If Any
---
IANAL - But I am very curious and like to research.
There are many kinds of dreams. All can be reached if a person chooses.
RAS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Hyrion on Friday, March 06 2009 @ 12:25 AM EST |
It's extremely helpful to put the news pick in the subject and ensure a
permanent link is added to the thread.
---
IANAL - But I am very curious and like to research.
There are many kinds of dreams. All can be reached if a person chooses.
RAS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Hyrion on Friday, March 06 2009 @ 12:27 AM EST |
Try and keep on topic posts out of this area....
---
IANAL - But I am very curious and like to research.
There are many kinds of dreams. All can be reached if a person chooses.
RAS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Hyrion on Friday, March 06 2009 @ 12:28 AM EST |
Just cause we know you'll show up on this one!
---
IANAL - But I am very curious and like to research.
There are many kinds of dreams. All can be reached if a person chooses.
RAS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 06 2009 @ 12:52 AM EST |
When MS first announced their patents on the FAT filesystem in regards to flash
memory, lo these many years back, I first thought it was to enforce a DRM scheme
on removable flash. And it may well have been, even though they had never acted
on it, but at the time, it would not have been an unexpected move on their
part.
It's interesting to see that this is the place where that particular patent is
rearing its ugly head.
Oh, and welcome back PJ. Whatever made you think Groklaw was going to run out of
stuff to cover? :-)
bkd[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kh on Friday, March 06 2009 @ 04:06 AM EST |
article/blog from computer world
I dug this up
during an e-mail discussion with Horacio Gutierrez, Microsoft's corporate vice
president and deputy general counsel of intellectual property and licensing,
Gutierrez said, "We have a history of licensing the patents in this case through
patent cross licensing agreements with other leaders in the car navigation
space, including Kenwood, Alpine and Pioneer, and through our FAT LFN (File
Allocation Table/Long File Name) patent licensing program, where we have 18
licensees to date." This is being done under Microsoft's FAT LFN File System
Licensing Program.
The most important
reason why the specifics of these deals are under NDA is that any company doing
a patent cross license without covering its downstream recipients, i.e. users,
is a direct violation of GPLv2 section 7, and is even more explicitly a
GPLv3 violation. In other words, if a company admitted to signing such a
deal, it could not legally distribute software or hardware using Linux, licensed
under the GPLv2, or Samba the file/print server licensed over the GPLv3.
Now,
thanks to TomTom's resistance, Microsoft has been forced to admit that they've
already been selling patent protection to open-source using companies.
Regardless of how the Microsoft/TomTom case turns out, this is something that
open-source companies and non-profit organizations must address. These
continuing and blatant violations of the GPL cannot be allowed to
stand
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Peter Baker on Friday, March 06 2009 @ 05:45 AM EST |
I'm wondering, as MS has been busy forcing companies to break teh GPL via a NDA
protected backdoor, is there anything that can be done if a number of these
deals become visible?
To me it's again market abuse, so it would be nice if a collective action would
make them pay back the illegally gained revenue, plus penalty.
Just wondering..
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, March 06 2009 @ 05:47 AM EST |
My legal knowledge and understanding is insufficient to come up with a real
legal opinion. However, the following occurs to me.
First, a general
thought about patented inventions. The patent only covers the invention and how
it works and not what it is used for. If I use a patented mousetrap to catch
voles, I have not suddenly violated other patents on volecatcher
inventions.
Patent No. 6,175,789 ("the '789 patent"), entitled
"Vehicle Computer System with Open Platform Architecture."
There
have been systems like this for many years in autos which, for instance, allow
hand controls to operate radios and environment control. It is obvious to anyone
skilled in such arts that the architecture for such a system must be an open
platform otherwise it cannot be used by a range of manufacturers. Openness is
obvious and therefore non-patentable. The communications protocol might be
patentable like the CAN system, but I suspect Microsoft don't have patents on
the industry standards. Finally, the term 'computer system' is too broad because
it extends from embedded programmable controllers as used in vehicle
entertainment systems and engine management all the way up to an IBM mainframe
in the back of a pickup. It's non-patentable.
Patent No.
7,054,745 ("the '745 patent"), entitled "Method and System For Generating
Driving Directions,"
Method and System. If this can be written on
sheets of paper and followed by a human being with a set of road and street maps
then they can Bilsky off.
Patent No. 6,704,032 ("the '032
patent"), entitled "Methods and Arrangements for Interacting with Controllable
Objects within a Graphical User Interface Environment Using Various Input
Mechanisms,"
There must be lots of published home-automation
computers running an automation program within a windowing, GUI operating
system. Prior art, obvious, and not an invention. British Telecom had a
call-centre system before Microsoft was born whereby calls were answered and
made by touching icons on a computer screen. There were various other input
mechanisms such as illuminated push-buttons.
Patent No.
7,117,286 ("the '286 patent"), entitled "Portable Computing Device-integrated
Appliance,"
Calculator, stock control entry terminal, mp3 player,
anything with an embedded programmable controller: that is why companies like
Microchip have been manufacturing such controller chips as the PIC by the
hundreds of thousands for the last decade. The Intel 4040 was marketed as an
embedded controller if I remember correctly. What is more, the controller chip
companies publish how the chips operate so that designers can use them in
embedded products. Well, duh!
Patent No. 6,202,008 ("the '008
patent"), entitled "Vehicle Computer System with Wireless Internet
Connectivity,"
A TomTom can be used whilst walking along the
street. It is even more useful in a vehicle, but you cannot patent using driving
gloves in a vehicle so why can you patent a laptop or a TomTom just because it
can use wifi or blue tooth or mobile broadband and you can get it into and use
it within a vehicle?
Patent No. 5,579,517 ("the '517 patent"),
entitled "Common Name Space for Long and Short Filenames,"
Already
successfully challenged in Europe and elsewhere AFAIK. It just needs to be
overturned in the US. It is outrageous that compatibility with a device that has
to comply with Microsoft's filesystem in order to be used in Microsoft computers
can be grounds for a violation. All the TomTom does is interoperate with the
Microsoft filesystem and interoperation is not the same as duplicating an
invention.
Patent No. 6,256,642 ("the '642 patent"), entitled
"Method and System for File System Management Using a Flash-Erasable,
Programmable, Read-only Memory"
Why does the filesystem become
patentable when used on a memory device, but not on a memory device? Flash vs
CD-RW vs DVD-RW vs hard drive vs solid-state drive vs floppy disk vs JAZ disk vs
Bernoulli disk vs Zip disk ...
Damages
B. For a judgment
awarding Microsoft compensatory damages as a result of each Defendant's
infringement of the Microsoft patents-in-suit, together with interest and costs,
and in no event less than a reasonable royalty;
TomTom cannot pay
patent royalties because they would then be in violation of the copyright
licences for the code that they use. There are no reasonable royalty payments
and Microsoft are inducing the violation of others copyrights and also using the
courts for restraint of trade and abuse of monopoly (they want embedded Windows
to be used and they have the monopoly in operating systems that use
VFAT).
I will be interested to see what TomTom say in reply. With my
non-legal hat on I see this as Microsoft not being damaged in any way, but
wanting to bully much smaller companies into using their products. On the other
hand, this does not change my opinion of Microsoft one little
bit. --- Regards
Ian Al
Linux: Viri can't hear you in free space. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- First Impressions - Authored by: stegu on Friday, March 06 2009 @ 07:07 AM EST
- First Impressions - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 06 2009 @ 08:59 PM EST
- Read the claims, not the titles - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 10 2009 @ 11:19 AM EDT
- Consider the Really Old Stuff - pre Microsoft - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 10 2009 @ 12:40 PM EDT
- Consider the Really Old Stuff - pre Microsoft - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 10 2009 @ 12:52 PM EDT
- But - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 10 2009 @ 03:11 PM EDT
- Beware of hindsight reasoning - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 10 2009 @ 03:16 PM EDT
- Nah - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 12 2009 @ 02:05 PM EDT
- Nah - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 13 2009 @ 10:46 AM EDT
- First Impressions - Authored by: sagitta on Monday, March 16 2009 @ 05:21 PM EDT
|
Authored by: wowbagger on Friday, March 06 2009 @ 08:11 AM EST |
I believe Sun Tzu's "The Art Of War" stated something like:
Always leave your enemy a path to retreat. If your enemy cannot retreat, then
they must fight to the last man, and defeating them will be far more costly than
if they are allowed to retreat.
Microsoft has not allowed TomTom to retreat:
* If TomTom licenses the VFAT patents but keeps their product Linux based, then
they are in violation of the GPL, and cannot sell their product. Since this is
now public knowledge no "under the table" work is possible.
* If TomTom licenses the VFAT patents and moves their product to WinCE, then
they have to spend a great deal of effort to do so - and during that time they
STILL cannot sell product.
* If TomTom does not license VFAT, then Microsoft will sue them.
They have no meaningful choice - they HAVE to fight. Moreover, due to the public
nature of their dilemma, every other manufacturer that uses Linux and VFAT is in
the same boat. The Nintendo Wii is a Linux machine which speaks VFAT. Sony makes
GPSs that are based upon Linux. Samsung makes TVs that are Linux based and speak
VFAT. I can go on, but I shouldn't need to: what Microsoft has done is back ALL
those companies into a box canyon, and shout "NO QUARTER! NO MERCY! NO
SURVIVORS! DEATH TO ALL WHO OPPOSE ME!"
With luck, TomTom et. al. will see this, and understand that this is, indeed, a
choice of "fight or die".
I *also* wonder this: Microsoft is a big company. Has Microsoft *ever*
distributed a Linux based device with VFAT support? If so, would the fact that,
under the GPL they cannot do so without conveying a patent license to the
recipient that is transferable to anybody the recipient sees fit, and the fact
that Microsoft as owner of the VFAT patents is able to provide such a license
mean that it can be legally assumed they DID provide such a license?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, March 06 2009 @ 09:11 AM EST |
Take this, for example:Microsoft has a long history of technical
innovation in the software and hardware products it develops and
distributes. I think many of us here will recognise the almost
complete lack of innovation. There seem to be other false statements and
exaggerations too, but will leave those to others to find.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Baud on Friday, March 06 2009 @ 10:03 AM EST |
Excuse my naiveness, but I don't really understand that. If a company in the
mobile linux business has a cross licence agreement with MS, it breaches the GPL
only if it states publicly "this portion of linux program is covered by
this MS patent and cannot be sub-licensed". But if the deal is "each
company won't sue each over on these patents", then there is no GPL
infrigment.
At worst, a linux company which has a secret patent NDA with MS breaches its
agreement with MS (by not including a no-sublicense advertisement in its
program) but never breaches the GPL.
Did I say something wrong?
(Not to much activity on the sco side these days...)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: emacsuser on Friday, March 06 2009 @ 11:51 AM EST |
'19. On information and belief, certain portable navigation
computing devices and associated computer software that infringe the Microsoft
Patents are manufactured for TomTom N.V. by third parties located in
Asia', page 4, VERIFIED COMPLANT
IANAL but, why aren't the
third parties explicitly mentioned, why don't MS sue them first. In the text MS
does refer to 'discovery or otherwise'. Is it legal to leave
blanks-to-be-filled-in-later in the 'verified complaint'? Is
this going to turn out to be another long drawn out
diSCOvery.
I thought discovery was to do with the
defense finding out what the prosecution was going to throw at them. Why would
the plaintiff need to go to discovery to discover (sic) its own
evidence.
"Complainant may move to add one or more such producers or
customers to this investigation should they, or the scope of their involvement
with infringing activities, become identified later through discovery or
otherwise", page 5, VERIFIED COMPLANT[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: hAckz0r on Friday, March 06 2009 @ 12:24 PM EST |
It would be interesting if there were a way to research the patent database to
see if any of these patents had a change of the "Assignee". If MS had recently
acquired the assignee designation on any of these patents the the purpose would
be quite clear that the suit was planned in advance. I simply find it odd that
most of the inventors to these patents, at least the ones I tried, are no where
near Redmond Wash. Yes, MS is a big company, but I would have expected patents
filed years ago to be somewhat closer to home.
--- DRM - As a
"solution", it solves the wrong problem; As a "technology" its only 'logically'
infeasible. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 06 2009 @ 03:32 PM EST |
I'm wondering where the Intel/GENIVI open platform for cars (as reported at The
Register) stands in all of this.
"Significantly, in its inaugural press
release (PDF), the GENIVI Alliance specifically states that the IVI reference
platform will be built around an Intel Atom processor running Wind River Linux"
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 06 2009 @ 05:05 PM EST |
Remember Micro$oft has already distributed VFAT and other stuff as part of Linux
under the Novel coupon program. Now may be the time to redeem one of them.
bobm[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Alan Bell on Friday, March 06 2009 @ 06:17 PM EST |
http://ubiubi.kingston.ac.uk/
"David Haskins - Kingston University - Faculty of Computing, Information
Systems and Mathematics
UbiUbi (ubi="where" in Latin, ubiubi="wherever") is a
thirteen year long teaching and research program exploring spatial information
systems design. Experimental integrated transport information systems for
routing and locational analysis with digital mapping have been pioneered in this
period using a variety of programming techniques, some of which can be viewed
here. In 1999 a version, CgiMapScript became a short-lived web product. The UK
government DTI Foresight-LINK ProbeIT project with Jaguar Ford, NavTech and
others used UbiUbi between 20001 and 2004 for in-car navigation mobile data
transmission.
UbiUbi runs under Linux using C++, Apache, MySQL and Gd; is used as a teaching
platform and is not for sale or commercial use"
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, March 06 2009 @ 07:34 PM EST |
Did TomTom test Microsoft's Linux patent lock-down?
hmm I
dont think this is correct... I think he has the wrong end of the stick re
distribution/in-house.
Gavin Clarke:
"In other words,
Microsoft is eroding Linux and open source and slowing their development. A deal
with Microsoft prevents GPL'd code from returning to the ecosystem whence it
came, with any improvements or updates, as companies that do patent licensing
deals with Microsoft must keep it in-house.
This is particularly
damaging for Linux, given consumer electronics companies such as those Microsoft
is tying up are making heavy use of Linux in devices from in-car systems to TVs
and DVD players and could potentially return their improvements to the kernel to
the market."
--- RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: RFD on Friday, March 06 2009 @ 08:18 PM EST |
In a decision issued today, In Re
Ferguson, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has rejected all 68
claims in a patent application "...directed to a marketing paradigm for bringing
products to market." The court cites Bilski and seems to expand a bit on
what is, and is not, patentable. --- Eschew obfuscation assiduously. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 06 2009 @ 08:35 PM EST |
Microsoft's products are so bad that customer movement to alternatives is
inevitable. Patents aren't going to change that.
What has been pointed out elsewhere is worth repeating here.
GIF had a similar position as FAT does now. Unisys tried to cash in, but
alternatives were found. GIF was made irrelevant.
OOXML isn't going anywhere. ODF is the winning alternative.
If find it rather comforting (disabuse me of my notion) that Microsoft's
corporate policy is to keep making enemies of its customers. We'll see where
those customers go when the GIF and OOXML history lesson is repeated.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 09 2009 @ 01:40 AM EDT |
Tom Tom will need to find a "friend" with deep pockets, who uses Linux
extensively, and who has the technology and the legal competence to search for
and deploy prior art and precedent to invalidate MS's ridiculous patents. In my
opinion, Tom Tom are going to be Googled.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: garry bloke on Monday, March 09 2009 @ 06:00 AM EDT |
I didn't know where to post this one but there's a US based
trade/lobby group
called the "Innovation Alliance" and I
haven't seen them mentioned here.
They are against further patent reform on the basis that
system is now
sufficiently skewed away from patent holders
to users.
Might be totally
irrelevant but others might want to take a
look (membership,
intent...)
More here
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|