decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books


Groklaw Gear

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

You won't find me on Facebook


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

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

TomTom & Microsoft each file notices of dismissal "without prejudice"
Thursday, April 02 2009 @ 09:03 PM EDT

Two notices of dismissal have been filed with the courts -- Microsoft's in Washington State, and TomTom's in Virginia, each dismissed without prejudice, ending both patent litigations. "Without prejudice" means that either could ramp it up and do this some more in the future, should circumstances arise that made it necessary. But in most cases, it means the litigation, or whatever, is over. Remember when SCO withdrew "without prejudice" its emergency motion to sell its assets, or Novell's assets, depending on your point of view? We never saw that again, did we, despite it being withdrawn "without prejudice".

Since the Microsoft-TomTom agreement supposedly promises Microsoft and TomTom won't sue the other for 5 years, I am guessing that this is protection just in case somebody ... anybody... should fail to stick to the agreement's terms. Not that *that* could ever happen with an agreement with Microsoft. No doubt you've followed the company's history, so you know their word is their bond. It's what they are famous for, business ethics. But you know how picky lawyers are. They like to plan for any contingency, however unlikely.

But in some distant alternate universe, where Microsoft might be kicking competitors to the curb by hook or by crook, were Microsoft to sue TomTom despite promising not to, TomTom could pull out its complaint. Similarly, if TomTom failed to do what it has promised, presumably Microsoft might be interested in trying to rip TomTom's face off in resumed litigation. So to speak. Not that this one worked out very well for Microsoft, as I see it, but since Microsoft is apparently unable to change any spots, I assume they'd try to butt their head through the same brick wall again.

The docket entries now, first in Microsoft v. TomTom:

04/02/2009 - 14 - NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal of case by Plaintiff Microsoft Corporation (Wichman, Adam) (Entered: 04/02/2009)

04/02/2009 - ***Civil Case Terminated. This case is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal (Dkt. # 14 ) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). No defendant has filed either an answer or a motion for summary judgment. (CL) (Entered: 04/02/2009)

TomTom v MS:
04/02/2009 - 7 - NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by TomTom Global Assets B.V. (Corrado, John) (Entered: 04/02/2009)


TomTom & Microsoft each file notices of dismissal "without prejudice" | 150 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
TomTom & Microsoft each file notices of dismissal "without prejudice"
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 02 2009 @ 09:11 PM EDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections Here
Authored by: alisonken1 on Thursday, April 02 2009 @ 09:55 PM EDT
Quick note in the subject line, amplifying information in the box please.

- Ken -
Registered Linux user^W^WJohn Doe #296561
Slackin' since 1993

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off-Topic Here
Authored by: alisonken1 on Thursday, April 02 2009 @ 09:58 PM EDT
Please remember to change Post Mode to "HTML" if you have clickies,
and follow the red notes below the box for html tags.

- Ken -
Registered Linux user^W^WJohn Doe #296561
Slackin' since 1993

[ Reply to This | # ]

Headlines here
Authored by: alisonken1 on Thursday, April 02 2009 @ 10:00 PM EDT
If you have a headline you'd like to see, or have a comment on an already posted
headline, put it under here.

- Ken -
Registered Linux user^W^WJohn Doe #296561
Slackin' since 1993

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft will cripple U.S. technology
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 03 2009 @ 03:26 AM EDT

The TomTom litigation has me thinking U.S. vs. non-U.S. environments.

Microsoft's patents will have a disproportionate effect on U.S. companies and on
foreign companies that do business in the U.S. But software patents are far less
binding outside the U.S. than inside it -- even totally invalid.

Unencumbered by software patents, foreign countries -- whether they are friends
or enemies of the U.S. -- will race ahead of the U.S. in technology, because
neither their hardware nor software will be crippled by such Microsoft
technology as DRM -- which has effects far beyond "premium content."

Will the effects of software patents also go beyond civilian commerce? Does the
U.S. military have to deal with Microsoft DRM? Will the U.S. military have to
pay Microsoft in order not to be limitied in its capabilities? If so, and I'm an
enemy of the U.S. (like al-Qaeda), I would encourage the U.S. to enforce
software patents and therefore limit American computing capabilities.

I see software patents as a threat to U.S. homeland security, and they will also
be a threat to the security of any other country that limits its computing power
by recognizing software patents.

In short, I see software patents turning the U.S. into a technological ghetto --
something America's enemies will devoutly pray for.

[ Reply to This | # ]

TomTom & Microsoft each file notices of dismissal "without prejudice"
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 03 2009 @ 06:58 AM EDT
("According to Scott Guthrie, ASP.Net MVC 1.0 has now been released as open source code under the Microsoft Public License (MS-PL). Whoo-hoo!")

Martin Heller just posted a blog celebrating ASP.Net MVC 1.0 now open source, using Microsoft Public License (MS-PL).

My first response was a reminder that MS sued over the FAT file system.

Some might argue that Microsoft did get a patent on FAT, and it is their property and they should be able to protect it.

They neglect the fact that it is only another example of Microsoft prohibiting competition from working with Windows, which is the main purpose behind all the anti-trust action they've faced.

Until Microsoft open sources FAT, I will continue to remind people of their Tom Tom behavior.

Some people might get tired of my continued carping, and tell me to get over it. However we now know for a FACT that Microsoft will sue over their "precious IP patents", and should be reminded of that.

[ 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 )