decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
TomTom & Microsoft Settle "in a way that ensures TomTom’s full compliance with its obligations under the GPLv2"
Monday, March 30 2009 @ 01:06 PM EDT

TomTom and Microsoft have settled the patent litigation. Actually, both of them. Here's TechFlash's coverage. According to the Microsoft press release, TomTom will remove functionality regarding the FAT patents within two years, which is no big deal, frankly, and in the meantime, they are covered "in a manner that is fully compliant with TomTom’s obligations under the General Public License Version 2 (GPLv2)":
Peter Spours, Director of IP Strategy and Transactions at TomTom N.V., stated: “This agreement puts an end to the litigation between our two companies. 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.”
However, Microsoft calls it a patent agreement. Of course, Red Hat showed a way that it can be done, but is that what has happened here? I don't know yet, but I'll let you know if and when I know more details. If so, it's a major step in retreat for Microsoft's bully campaign or, alternatively, it's a major step forward in Microsoft's more mature handling of GPL issues.

I think it can't be like the Red Hat deal, though, because TomTom is removing the Linux functionality. That leaves not paying a royalty. But the news is that they are paying. Wait. One other possibility, a Novell-like deal? Indeed Ina Fried on CNET gives a hint that is something similar:

As part of the deal, as TomTom will pay Microsoft for patent protection related to mapping patents and file-management patents that Microsoft claimed were infringed by TomTom's use of the Linux kernel....

In the case of the three file management patents, Microsoft is providing an agreement not to sue customers for their use of TomTom's products.

As long as TomTom stays under GPLv2, this might squeak by. But it's hardly ideal. I'd have preferred that TomTom not settle so that the FAT patents could get tested in court, but it's not my dime.

More indications from eWeek's coverage that this is a Novell-like deal:
According to Microsoft, the agreement includes patent coverage for Microsoft’s three file management systems patents provided in a manner that is fully compliant with TomTom’s obligations under the General Public License Version 2 (GPLv2). TomTom will remove from its products the functionality related to two file management system patents (the “FAT LFN patents”), which enables efficient naming, organizing, storing and accessing of file data, Microsoft said. TomTom will remove this functionality within two years, and the agreement provides for coverage directly to TomTom’s end customers under these patents during that time.
Blech. If TomTom doesn't upgrade to GPLv3 code, this might squeak by, on the same concept that the payment isn't a royalty on the code paid by the company to Microsoft, but a payment for the direct promise to TomTom customers from Microsoft not to sue them, but if so, TomTom isn't exactly trying to be a FOSS hero. And Microsoft is already using them to troll for more such deals. Here's a snip from Elizabeth Montalbano's coverage:
Horacio Gutierrez, Microsoft's corporate vice president and deputy general counsel of intellectual property and licensing, said in a statement that he is pleased TomTom chose to resolve the matter out of court and that many companies already license the patents in question, including companies that create products containing both open-source and proprietary code.
Blech. That's the pitch. But then Microsoft statements are always framed as "wins", so far as I've noticed.

Ars Technica sees this difference between TomTom's and Novell's deals:

TomTom will, however, remove the functionality that is covered under the FAT patents. This will guarantee that the code in TomTom's Linux kernel can continue to be broadly redistributed downstream under the GPL without patent encumbrances. This aspect of the agreement, along with specificity about which patents are infringed, are major factors that differentiate this agreement from Microsoft's controversial deal with Novell.
I don't quite get that reasoning, since Novell continues to redistribute, and there are allegedly no patent encumbrances on the code. Remember? It was a direct promise from Microsoft to Novell *customers* not to sue, a covenant. There was no encumbrance on the code; rather a promise. It's a fiction, a work-around to get by the GPL. That's all.

Well. That's enough.

I'd say my first impression is that both companies backed off some, and neither wanted a knockdown, dragout fight over two long file name FAT patents TomTom obviously doesn't need. Who does need them, actually? Anyone? Call your file something short. Presto. In that sense, TomTom did well to decide to just remove them, and I hope everyone follows their lead on that.

Remember when the Samba guys were presented with a list of Microsoft patents, and they said, Nah. We can work around them. TomTom is essentially saying the same thing, but it's going to take longer to get the job done.


  


TomTom & Microsoft Settle "in a way that ensures TomTom’s full compliance with its obligations under the GPLv2" | 136 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections thread
Authored by: gjleger on Monday, March 30 2009 @ 01:19 PM EDT
Post corrections to the article or other Groklaw content here.

Please put a summary in the title.

Thanks.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[NP] News Picks discussion
Authored by: gjleger on Monday, March 30 2009 @ 01:20 PM EDT
Discuss Groklaw News Picks here.

Please say which Groklaw News Pick you are commenting on.

Thanks.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[OT] The Off Topic thread
Authored by: gjleger on Monday, March 30 2009 @ 01:21 PM EDT
Discuss thinks other than The Article, Corrections, or Groklaw News Picks here.

Clickies can be made so that long URL's don't break the page width.

Thanks.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Saddened, but also delighted!
Authored by: tiger99 on Monday, March 30 2009 @ 01:28 PM EDT
Saddened, because FAT has not been dragged through the courts yet again. There always is a good change of the Monopoly losing.

Delighted, because presumably TomTom will use some properly engineered file system like Ext2 (or one of many alternatives), which can handle long filenames without the horrid bodge (kludge in US) of VFAT. They will probably need to write a Windoze driver, if there is any requirement to read/write the cards in Windoze, and that may well have other uses. There are clear advantages to everyone in moving away from FAT.

It may well be that other manufacturers of devices which use various types of memory card will follow. If TomTom release GPL code, it will be easy, and there will be help from the FOSS community.

I suspect that M$ will be the losers in the end.

But, as a side issue, I wonder what will happen to this settlement, if the broken US patent system is fixed? The FAT patent will surely be one of those which will suddenly be worthless.....

[ Reply to This | # ]

TomTom & Microsoft Settle "in a way that ensures TomTom’s full compliance with its obligations under the GPLv2"
Authored by: Stumbles on Monday, March 30 2009 @ 01:29 PM EDT
Too bad for Tom Tom, they just lost a customer and my support.

---
You can tuna piano but you can't tune a fish.

[ Reply to This | # ]

?????????????????????
Authored by: Alan(UK) on Monday, March 30 2009 @ 01:49 PM EDT
TomTom will remove this functionality within two years, and the agreement provides for coverage directly to TomTom’s end customers under these patents during that time.

How can TomTom enter into a patent agreement that only provides a licence to their "end customers" and still be in compliance with the GPLv2?

For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

Am I missing something?

---
Microsoft is nailing up its own coffin from the inside.

[ Reply to This | # ]

TomTom & Microsoft Settle "in a way that ensures TomTom’s full compliance with its obligations under the GPLv2"
Authored by: Steve Martin on Monday, March 30 2009 @ 02:02 PM EDT
Nothing on PACER yet in either District, as of 2:00 PM EDT.

---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night"

[ Reply to This | # ]

TomTom & Microsoft Settle "in a way that ensures TomTom’s full compliance with its obligations u
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 30 2009 @ 02:09 PM EDT

I believe that Gutierrez is basically a thug for the Microsoft Mafia, shaking
companies down for "protection" money etc.

Tom Tom gave away the store by caving in about the linux part - they seem to
have implicitly agreed that the Mafia has a right to interfere with linux.

[ Reply to This | # ]

TomTom & Microsoft Settle "in a way that ensures TomTom’s full compliance with its obligations under the GPLv2"
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 30 2009 @ 02:11 PM EDT
And here I was just about to buy a TomTom GPS just to support them. I'm
disappointed they caved.

[ Reply to This | # ]

TomTom & Microsoft Settle "in a way that ensures TomTom’s full compliance with its obligations under the GPLv2"
Authored by: s65_sean on Monday, March 30 2009 @ 02:12 PM EDT
Was there any news on Tomtom's patent suit against Microsoft? That one was filed
separately, and even in another district if I remember correctly.

Is MS paying tomtom royalties to license Tomtom'spatents, or is Tomtom making a
similar promise not to sue MS's customers?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Both avoided a patentability discussion
Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Monday, March 30 2009 @ 02:30 PM EDT
"I'd say my first impression is that both companies backed off some, and
neither wanted a knockdown, dragout fight"

I also think none of them would like to have a patentability discussion.

Neither of their claims and counterclaims on the navigation algorithms seemed
very well thought out. To me they were a bit... err, underwhelming?

The result was not too surprising in a way. I guess both of them will rather
retain their untested patents than lose both patents and face in court. In fact,
TomTom would have been the greater loser in that case.

I guess Microsoft won this round - they didn't need to expose FAT in court
again. So, threatening with exposing TomTom's cheap patents was a not a very
dear pawn sacrifice.


.

---
______
IMANAL


.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Getting rid fo the FAT patents?
Authored by: paivakil on Monday, March 30 2009 @ 03:04 PM EDT
That would means tom tom products would not be able to read the SD cards, right?
(or need to re-format them, which would make them incompatible with other sd
card readers).

And ensuring "compliance with GPL V.2" code is not a great thing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Could the GPL force agreements enabling compliance to be public?
Authored by: tce on Monday, March 30 2009 @ 03:21 PM EDT
Seems the transparency factor is getting nailed.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I think MS backed down big time
Authored by: Winter on Monday, March 30 2009 @ 03:22 PM EDT
I have not heard that TomTom does give MS anything in return for using their
precioussss FAT patents for the next two years. Let alone the previous years.

Actually, MS gets NOTHING from TomTom as far as I can see. And TomTom gets rid
of the suit and does NOT buy a license from MS.

Is this MS fleeing trying to do an orderly retreat?

What am I missing here?

Rob

---
Some say the sun rises in the east, some say it rises in the west; the truth
lies probably somewhere in between.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Pay me and I won't sue"
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 30 2009 @ 03:55 PM EDT

Is the concept of paying someone for a guarantee not to sue a group of people legal under U.S. law?

It seems vaguely like a Mafia style insurance racket. Pay insurance, and I won't break your house. I think the police call it extortion.

I'm just wondering how legal it is to sell an "insurance" type product in this way. It seems fishy.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hoping MS keeps suing -- and making more enemies
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 30 2009 @ 04:30 PM EDT

Rather disappointed, really. The more threats Microsoft issues, the more enemies
it makes.

I have a feeling, though, Microsoft didn't like the idea of facing MoFo on the
other side of the table. Now, everyone Microsoft tries to extort will want the
same deal.

Well, this still served the purpose, I hope, of a wakeup call (were we getting
complacent?) to never trust Microsoft.

To me, this also shows the dangers of interoperability. Microsoft doesn't really
want it, and we should oblige them. This is what happens when we don't.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Not good
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 30 2009 @ 04:38 PM EDT

First, the agreement seems to lock TomTom in to GPLv2. No Migration to GPLv3.

Secondly: PJ, you must have been suffering some kind of mental block when you wrote:

two long file name FAT patents TomTom obviously doesn't need. Who does need them, actually? Anyone? Call your file something short.

That's a bit like saying, "Who needs a GUI? Anyone? Just do everything from the command line". Many people like to use descriptive filenames, like FederalTax2008.ods, that don't fit into the FAT 8.3 straitjacket.

But, more to the point, the patent does not apply to most filesystems that use long filenames. It applies only to the scheme that Microsoft used to implement VFAT, that enables it to use long filenames while still basically using a FAT filesystem under the hood. A bodge, or kludge, as someone else wrote.

And yes, it's a pity that it never came to court. The patents would fail the test of obviousness if that test were fairly applied. Any competent programmer could come up with a scheme to map long filenames to 8.3 filenames, and hence layer a filesystem with long filenames on top of FAT. But I don't blame TomTom for not trusting US courts to apply the test fairly.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft? mature?? Hahaha!!! (n/t)
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 30 2009 @ 07:41 PM EDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

BadBad TomTom
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 30 2009 @ 08:26 PM EDT
Shame on TomTom for seeking friends when in need and abandoning them as soon as
the threat is gone.

[ Reply to This | # ]

TomTom & Microsoft Settle "in a way that ensures TomTom’s full compliance with its obligations under the GPLv2"
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 31 2009 @ 08:33 AM EDT
Its so funny to see how the FOSS lusers and Groklaw try to spin this to their
advantage, you lost, you said "Think Bilski" and TomTom Foldoed,
probably because OIN took a look at their clain and told them it was a lost
cause.

Sure I would have loved to see TomTom creamed in court, but its clear they
worked out they did not have a chance and folded.

But im sure the Trolls of Groklaw will try to spin it, Im just waiting for the
same action to be taken against the FSF or some "other"
open/free/stolen code company.

Its just sad that FOSS cant come up with anything by themselves that is good or
popular.

Sure you have ext3 or whatever so why did they use FAT ? oh wait,, i know
because its popular and it allows you to operate with MS products and the MS
OS's.

Sure you could have used your own, just like you could have written your own
operating system, its just way easier to steal someone elses ideas. Why write an
OS when you can just clone UNIX right.

Nothing like taking something that is popular, copy it and try to make out you
did it.

Thats why FOSS is living on the bottom of the Software DNA pool.

Its sad that FOSS has chosen this path, it's truly the dark side of software
development.

Why think for yourself when you can moan and cry and steal and cheat to get your
way, and when you caught out, you fold because you know you've been caught with
your fingers in the cookie jar and should get a spanking and sent to bed early..


Im interested to see how PJ (IANAL) spins it, however it is its an EPIC FOSS
FAIL.

[ Reply to This | # ]

feeling smug
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 01 2009 @ 06:54 PM EDT
May I be permitted a brief moment of smugness? Back on the 26th of February I wrote:
More likely, the parties will arrange a settlement that works for both sides. TomTom gets what it needs to stay in business: infringement claims dropped, licensing on GPL-friendly terms, even buying the patents outright, or some combination thereof. MS gets an undisclosed sum of money that everyone can assume is large, and its patents aren't put to the test.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )