|
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 We never saw that again, did we, despite it being withdrawn "without prejudice".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)
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 02 2009 @ 09:11 PM EDT |
Wow [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 -
import std_disclaimer.py
Registered Linux user^W^WJohn Doe #296561
Slackin' since 1993
http://www.slackware.com
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 -
import std_disclaimer.py
Registered Linux user^W^WJohn Doe #296561
Slackin' since 1993
http://www.slackware.com
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- April Fools in Texas? Texas state Senate says NO to Vista - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, April 03 2009 @ 12:32 AM EDT
- Possible signal of dark matter found - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 03 2009 @ 03:33 AM EDT
- MS OS's .NET? OT or not? - Authored by: talldad on Friday, April 03 2009 @ 05:03 AM EDT
- The Big Lie - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 03 2009 @ 05:15 AM EDT
- The Big Lie - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 03 2009 @ 07:01 PM EDT
- The Disappearing Linux - Authored by: DaveJakeman on Friday, April 03 2009 @ 05:33 AM EDT
- General Law Question - Authored by: bsaxberg on Friday, April 03 2009 @ 10:59 AM EDT
- Do Judges make laws? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 03 2009 @ 11:19 AM EDT
- office 2007 sp2 leaked - Authored by: LaurenceTux on Friday, April 03 2009 @ 02:53 PM EDT
- DNS Providers Under Attack - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 03 2009 @ 08:12 PM EDT
- Microsoft And Intel Warn About Limited Capabilities Of Netbooks - Authored by: sk43 on Friday, April 03 2009 @ 10:24 PM EDT
- Part of copyright act held unconstitutional. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 03 2009 @ 10:35 PM EDT
|
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 -
import std_disclaimer.py
Registered Linux user^W^WJohn Doe #296561
Slackin' since 1993
http://www.slackware.com
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|