Weekly Edition
Return to the Front page
| |||||||||||||
Microsoft sues TomTom
As seen in this
TechFlash article, Microsoft has launched a patent suit against TomTom,
a seller of (Linux-based) navigation devices. "It's believed to be
the first time Microsoft has filed a patent suit over Linux, after claiming
for years that elements of the open-source operating system violate its
patents. However, Microsoft says open-source software is not the intended
focal point of the action."
The complaint [PDF] is online. The patents involved are 6,175,789 (Vehicle computer system with open platform), 7,054,745 (Method and system for generating driving directions), 6,704,032 (Methods and Arrangements for Interacting with Controllable Objects within a Graphical User Interface Environment Using Various Input Mechanisms), 7,117,286 (Portable computing device-integrated appliance), 6,202,008 (Vehicle computer system with wireless internet), 5,579,517 (Common name space for long and short filenames), 5,758,352 (Common name space for long and short filenames, again), and 6,256,642 (Method and System for File System Management Using a Flash-Erasable, Programmable, Read-only Memory). Stay tuned, it could be interesting. (Log in to post comments)
FAT patent Posted Feb 26, 2009 0:31 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] Just as a postscript: the '517 patent is, of course, the infamous FAT patent that the Public Patent Foundation worked so hard to invalidate. If they're suing over FAT, then they can only be targeting the FAT support in the Linux kernel.
FAT patent Posted Feb 26, 2009 1:23 UTC (Thu) by mcisely (subscriber, #2860) [Link]
...and according to pubpat, this patent was completely rejected:
http://www.pubpat.org/Microsoft_517_Rejected.htm
So how can Microsoft still be using it as a basis for a lawsuit? Did they not get the memo?
-Mike
FAT patent Posted Feb 26, 2009 2:05 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] Pubpat didn't quite get around to updating their pages to reflect the reinstatement of this patent in 2006.
FAT patent Posted Feb 26, 2009 1:46 UTC (Thu) by dps (subscriber, #5725) [Link]
According to a web page the FAT parent *was* invalidated in 2004. IANAL but surely claiming violation of an invalid patent is useless. I doubt TomTom's kernels include FAT support anyway.
I am one of those that thinks algorithms and data structures are mathematics, so never patentable in any circumstances. Did Fredman and Tarjan miss is a trick by not patenting Fibonacci heaps? Nobody knows a priority heap structure that is asymptopically better.
The USPTO *should* be able to uncover relevant journal articles and read them. Given some of the patents granted I have my doubts about whether they can.
FAT patent Posted Feb 26, 2009 1:59 UTC (Thu) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
TomTom's kernels have FAT support because (most of) their devices allow (in some cases require) you to insert a formatted SD card full of data. Since users will inevitably access this SD card from a PC, it has to use FAT.
FAT patent Posted Feb 26, 2009 4:28 UTC (Thu) by dr_lha (guest, #86) [Link]
Its not just SD card support. The lower end TomToms don't take SD cards, but themselves act like
flash drives when plugged into a computer via USB, allowing for installing of new maps, updates etc. Of course so that the TomTom can be mounted on pretty much every computer, the thing is formatted as FAT.
FAT patent Posted Feb 26, 2009 13:04 UTC (Thu) by dufkaf (subscriber, #10358) [Link] Yes but then linux kernel FAT driver is not used at all, usb storage is block device. It is up to the host computer and its FAT driver to write there.
FAT patent Posted Feb 26, 2009 14:03 UTC (Thu) by klaasjan (guest, #5492) [Link]
I think the navigation unit has to be able to read it's FAT-formatted filesystem to display the maps written there...
FAT patent Posted Feb 26, 2009 20:08 UTC (Thu) by dufkaf (subscriber, #10358) [Link]
You're right, completely forgot about this. But still, aren't those patents about methods of _writing_ long and short file names? Once it is so cleverly and innovativelly written you just read it, no space for creativity there. Would a read only driver violate patent too?
Microsoft sues TomTom Posted Feb 26, 2009 0:32 UTC (Thu) by mem (subscriber, #517) [Link]
So, Microsoft's claims regarding the Linux kernel including stuff covered by their patents finally comes down to VFAT? (those two repeated patents).
Microsoft sues TomTom Posted Feb 26, 2009 0:38 UTC (Thu) by leoc (subscriber, #39773) [Link]
Well, at least this helps me decide what brand of GPS unit to get. Any recommendations on a particular TomTom model?
Microsoft sues TomTom Posted Feb 26, 2009 11:17 UTC (Thu) by ewan (subscriber, #5533) [Link] Before you decide that your enemies enemy is your friend you might want to google "tomtom gpl" a bit. It would appear that TomTom had to be forced into licence compliance by gpl-violations.org in the first place, followed by later claims that the source they make available no longer corresponds to the code that's actually on the current devices.
Microsoft sues TomTom Posted Feb 26, 2009 12:31 UTC (Thu) by lacostej (guest, #2760) [Link]
If so, the FSF should require the correct code to be released before they provide their help (if TomTom wants it).
Microsoft sues TomTom Posted Feb 26, 2009 13:14 UTC (Thu) by armijn (subscriber, #3653) [Link]
The FSF can, of course, only require that for code they actually have copyrights on, which in case of TomTom is not much at all (and which seems to be in compliance anyway). The report on the mailinglist was from over a year ago and was resolved successfully.
Microsoft sues TomTom Posted Feb 26, 2009 22:41 UTC (Thu) by wookey (subscriber, #5501) [Link]
It's true that tomtom didn't provide source when it first started shipping devices back in 2003/4, but it quickly fixed that when Harald and co gave them a hard time, and accepted that that was the right and proper thing to dso. I did some work for them shortly after that time and was impressed with the technical guys still running it, who were smart enough to employ some of the people who had accused them to work on their 2.6 kernel port (as opposed to wanting never to hear from them again). I don't think many companies are that smart.
Having not been involved for the last 4 years I can't say anything about their current attitude/business practices, and the recent failure to supply corresponding code does suggest some backsliding, but in a fight between a purveyor of very fine navigation devices that despises software patents and has been using a linux base for a very long time, and an overbearing patent bully with some thoroughly crappy patents (read them!), I know who's side I'm on.
Of course sorting out their GPL compliance immideiately, if not sooner, would be a really good idea if they want us all to help fight their corner.
Tomtom do now have some patents of their own (28 in EPO, not all software, 269 worldwide, according to espacenet), but I think they can make good case for only doing this as a defensive measure. Their first EPO application was 2005-09.
Tomtom has already had a complicated fight with Garmin who have sued them over various patents on car navigation systems in feb 2006, followed by much countersuing. I guess they'll be thoroughly unimpressed with the swpat situation by now.
In a sensible world anyone would just be able to make satnavs and consumers could choose which ones they liked best. Trying to own the various ideas and techniques involved is just wrong.
Microsoft sues TomTom Posted Mar 4, 2009 14:44 UTC (Wed) by fieroboom (guest, #56956) [Link]
I have a TomTom One V3. Bought it on eBay for $75 shipped. I like it because it's very moddable. I cracked it open, soldered in a 4GB SD card, then upgraded the bootloader, loaded Tomplayer, and Navcore 8 with version 8 maps, so now I have a TomTom that can play MP3s, videos, and has text-to-speech (tells me the road names), and Advanced Lane Guidance (tells you exactly what lane to be in). There's still more I can do with it too.
I personally think MS is grabbing at thin air, and trying to kick TT while they're down, so to speak. MS has already been warned (a couple of times) about non compliance with anti trust sanctions (aka being too much of a monopoly). Do they really need more money? Yes, a patent is a patent, but man, some of those patents are analgous to one of us saying "Hey, you can't use that shovel... I've patented that method of digging".
Microsoft sues TomTom Posted Feb 26, 2009 0:52 UTC (Thu) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
So... It has finally happened.
I can't remember Microsoft acting as a patent troll before, but now they have crossed even that line. They're just scum.
Microsoft sues TomTom Posted Feb 26, 2009 0:59 UTC (Thu) by daniel (subscriber, #3181) [Link] I can't remember Microsoft acting as a patent troll before, but now they have crossed even that line. They're just scum.Right, and in Microsoft's inverted world, the scum starts at the top and floats all the way to the bottom.
Microsoft sues TomTom Posted Feb 26, 2009 1:04 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] 6,202,008 (Vehicle computer system with wireless internet) A vehicle computer system has a housing sized to be mounted in a vehicle dashboard or other appropriate location. A computer is mounted within the housing and executes an open platform, multi-tasking operating system. The computer runs multiple applications on the operating system, including both vehicle-related applications (e.g., vehicle security application, vehicle diagnostics application, communications application, etc.) and non-vehicle-related applications (e.g., entertainment application, word processing, etc.). The computer system has an Internet wireless link to provide access to the Internet. One or more of the applications may utilize the link to access content on the Internet. I would like to meet the clown from the patent office that pushed this through. This isn't just obvious - it's bloody trivial! Requirements: a bracket and two screws from you nearest hardware store. I'm guessing the reason why TomTom want to go to court: someone has to take a stand and get this nonsense out of the way. It's becoming ridiculous. Hope they have deep enough pockets to do it.
6,202,008 Posted Feb 26, 2009 1:09 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] If you read the claims (which really define what has been patented) it's even more obvious. Claim 1 is, in its entirety:
A vehicle computer system comprising: a housing of a size suitable to be mounted in a vehicle dashboard; a computer mounted within the housing; an open platform operating system executing on the computer; and an Internet wireless link to provide access to the Internet. A smartphone in a little plastic holder would seem to qualify.
6,202,008 Posted Feb 26, 2009 1:24 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
or a laptop on a mount (like many police cars have had installed for a decade or more)
'sized appropriately' can mean just about anything
6,202,008 Posted Feb 26, 2009 9:55 UTC (Thu) by sjlyall (subscriber, #4151) [Link]
The movie Terminator 2 was released in 1991 and set in the early 1990s. 12 minutes into the movie a dashboard mounted computer is used to lookup records in a police database.
6,202,008 Posted Feb 26, 2009 10:19 UTC (Thu) by Zhaknafein (guest, #56868) [Link]
even before (1980), in The Blues Brothers movie, when the police uses a "computer" to look up Jack's driving license :)
Another film sighting Posted Feb 26, 2009 10:37 UTC (Thu) by eru (subscriber, #2753) [Link] That reminded me: Right near the begining the Wim Wenders film "Until the End of the World", we see the main character using an in-car computer that works much like a TomTom, except a bit smarter as it warns about a traffic jam ahead on its own. This sci-fi film was released in 1991, the events are supposed to happen in 1999-2000.From a gadget point of view this film is very interesting in other ways as well. The makers obviously tried very hard to predict what technology would realistically be common 10 years in the future, enlisting help from tech companies (Sony figures prominently in many gadgets). Some things they got tight, like very small video cameras and the afore-mentioned car navigator (although that was not yet very common in 1999), but curiously there are no mobile phones, the characters make calls from video-equipped phone booths instead. And no Internet.
Another film sighting Posted Feb 26, 2009 14:20 UTC (Thu) by klaasjan (guest, #5492) [Link]
"an in-car computer that works much like a TomTom, except a bit smarter as it warns about a traffic jam ahead on its own."
The high-end TomTom units contain a GPRS modem and report their position to a central server which is able to detect traffic jams by lots of slowing navigation units ;). So in exchange for TT knowing where you are you get an early warning about traffic jams.
Also, I suppose that's the "mobile internet" feature the patent is about.
Another film sighting Posted Feb 27, 2009 6:58 UTC (Fri) by eru (subscriber, #2753) [Link] Interesting, I didn't know about this feature. I wonder where Wender's team got the idea for the smart navigator shown in the film? Probably ideas related to it appeared in publications already in the 1980's (the film took a long time to make), and could be useful prior art for TomTom.
is there a place to contribute prior art? Posted Feb 26, 2009 1:29 UTC (Thu) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] Is there somewhere we can go to help point out prior art? The patent was files on 9/10/1999, so one needs to find examples of wireless-internet enabled car-mounted computers before then.A quick search on the Factiva news database turns up a number of obvious hits:
There were more, but the above already sound like enough to demolish this patent (or at least, that independent claim). And that's just press articles about commercial technology; I would be surprised if there weren't academic and hacker examples from long before that — Steve Mann has been making wearable computers with wireless networking since the early 1980s, after all!
is there a place to contribute prior art? Posted Feb 26, 2009 1:38 UTC (Thu) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] Actually, if I remember correctly, in the US you can file up to a year after disclosing your invention in public, so one actually needs prior art before 9/10/1998 to be airtight. But one of the press articles I already quoted was from before that, and it seems clear that finding even earlier examples should not be difficult.The really pathetic one is the Fortune article citing Microsoft on this topic from 7 September 1998, more than a year before they filed for the patent on their "invention"!
Filing after publication (in the US and *not* in thee EU) Posted Feb 26, 2009 2:45 UTC (Thu) by dps (subscriber, #5725) [Link]
In the EU any publication, which is broadly defined, prior to the filing date makes it impossible to obtain a patent, period. This is why RSA was never patented anywhere in the EU. There can be no doubt about the inventive steps and non-obviousness of RSA.
I believe the only thing the US allows is for those filing to exclude material they published themselves. If anyone else substantially discloses their invention prior to the filing date then that is prior art (and grounds for the patent application to be refused).
A fortune article prior to the filing date is probably sufficient unless Microsoft can somehow proved they published that. I suspect this is impossible even in Microsoft's universe.
Filing after publication (in the US and *not* in thee EU) Posted Feb 26, 2009 19:13 UTC (Thu) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link] There can be no doubt about the inventive steps and non-obviousness of RSA. That is maybe how you perceive that work, but there is plenty of material in the "History" section of the Wikipedia article on public-key cryptography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-key_cryptography) to make a sound argument against granting monopolies on such works, let alone doing so in a near-arbitrary way based on the vagaries of some patent regime or other.
Filing after publication (in the US and *not* in thee EU) Posted Feb 27, 2009 15:20 UTC (Fri) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
Don't forget ... RSA had been *in* *use* for *seven* years before the patent was applied for.
GCHQ had been using it for secret-agent communications that long ...
Cheers,
is there a place to contribute prior art? Posted Mar 4, 2009 14:54 UTC (Wed) by fieroboom (guest, #56956) [Link]
Found a CarPC created in '87 based on an Atari game system:
http://www.dellabarba.com/ibug/FirstPC.html -Paul
is there a place to contribute prior art? Posted Feb 26, 2009 1:39 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] We don't necessarily need prior art, given the recent Bilski decision. The threshold for obviousness has been raised.But perhaps Microsoft hopes that if it sues on the basis of six questionable patents (or maybe more), at least one will stick.
Bilski Posted Feb 26, 2009 1:59 UTC (Thu) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] Bilski isn't the one about obviousness -- it's the one about a new btest for software patentability: how much of a real-world effect does software have to produce in order to be a patentable process and not an unpatentable mathematical fact. KSR v. Teleflex was about the test for obviousness. We still don't know how the two tests will interact.
6,202,008 Posted Feb 26, 2009 2:40 UTC (Thu) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
I haven't read (and would prefer not to for reasons LWN has discussed previously) this set of claims. But does it ever talk about a housing /not/ mounted in the dashboard?
TomTom's main range of products mounts on the windscreen glass, which is clearly not the dashboard. The usual construction of patent claims is to either add to or expand on the first claim (which is nearly always so trivial it should never have passed examination), but they sometimes miss a trick. It would be amusing if one of their patents is rendered useless by a lawyer's assumption that "mounted in the dashboard" was how new devices would inevitably be added to a motor vehicle. A lot of unusual engineering solutions in the everyday world are the way they are, despite being non-optimal, to sidestep the wording of a patent.
6,202,008 Posted Feb 26, 2009 5:51 UTC (Thu) by eru (subscriber, #2753) [Link] A smartphone in a little plastic holder would seem to qualify.Does it even have to be a smartphone? All cellular phones are basically network-linked computers. "Hands-free" kits for cellular phones have been available about as long as there has been hand-held cellular phones. These hold the phone and provide an external speaker, maybe also a microphone and antenna connection.
6,202,008 Posted Feb 27, 2009 1:50 UTC (Fri) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]
I remember reading an Australian patent once (from Motorola, I think) that had claims to the effect of an electronic device that has software capable of downloading and applying an update to itself. I mean, stuff like that is what your reasonably bright high school kid would come up with. It is entirely ridiculous to give people monopolies over ideas like that.
Unfortunately, powerful lobby groups control the legislation and most people are under the impression that monopoly rights such as copyright and patent are some kind of natural human right. In the meantime, they are the ones paying for it. World really is a strange place...
Microsoft sues TomTom Posted Feb 26, 2009 9:41 UTC (Thu) by k3ninho (subscriber, #50375) [Link]
I don't know if any TomTom has the 'Internet wireless link to provide access to the Internet' which, because it's in every independent claim, is an essential feature of the patent.
6,175,789 (Vehicle computer system with open platform) Posted Feb 26, 2009 6:51 UTC (Thu) by ketilmalde (guest, #18719) [Link]
You just gotta love this - Microsoft patented openness. I guess that since they invented it, it's only right that they are protected from the ruthless copycats who would be open without paying for it.
-k
PS: I actually tried to read the patent text, but it's just a long ream of numbered points with trivial contents, like: Claim 1: a box, claim 2: a computer inside the box, 3: a computer inside a rather small box, 4: a computer inside a small box that can play music... Makes you wonder where technology would be today without the brilliant innovation from Redmond. Or not.
6,175,789 (Vehicle computer system with open platform) Posted Feb 26, 2009 11:22 UTC (Thu) by Cato (subscriber, #7643) [Link]
The reason patents are constructed like this is so that any individual claim that is invalidated does not cause all claims to fail - however if you target the 'root' claims then you could get a 'cascade invalidate' of many dependent claims.
Clear signal from Microsoft against Linux based appliances Posted Feb 26, 2009 8:17 UTC (Thu) by adren (guest, #20906) [Link]
The subliminal signal that Microsoft wants to send to all GPS makers (and therefore all embedded players) is the following :
use our OS (Windows CE) or we will sue you
Therefore this is not only a mean to extend their rent situation but also a way to enforce their monopoly over the embedded market and possibly supplant Linux.
Clear signal from Microsoft against Linux based appliances Posted Feb 26, 2009 15:11 UTC (Thu) by mangoo (guest, #32602) [Link]
That was my first thought when I've read Microsoft is suing TomTom.
Let's watch how this case develops in the next couple of months.
Clear signal from Microsoft against Linux based appliances Posted Feb 27, 2009 23:19 UTC (Fri) by laf0rge (subscriber, #6469) [Link]
In fact, MS is allegedly doing this not only to the car navigation business, but in fact to other large-quantity embedded Linux products, too.
And yes, I agree, the message is quite clear: License our patents, and pay almost as much money as you would have to pay for WinCE.
OT: Which Tom-Tom for pedestrians/bicycle riders? Posted Feb 26, 2009 10:14 UTC (Thu) by debacle (subscriber, #7114) [Link] If any? (For environmental reasons I refuse to own or drive a car.)
OT: Which Tom-Tom for pedestrians/bicycle riders? Posted Feb 26, 2009 11:33 UTC (Thu) by giggls (subscriber, #48434) [Link]
At the Moment tehre are two Options to use Data from Openstreetmap (http://www.oepnstreetmap.org):
1. Go for a Linux based device and Navit (http://navit.sf.net)
2. Any Garmin device, as their proprietary Map Format (.img) has been reverse engineered.
OT: Which Tom-Tom for pedestrians/bicycle riders? Posted Feb 26, 2009 14:58 UTC (Thu) by gerv (subscriber, #3376) [Link]
Sadly, .img is not yet fully reverse-engineered. It's a compound format, and the sub-part which indexes street names is not yet fully known. So you can't search by street name or postcode, only POI.
It would be great if someone could look into this.
Gerv
OT: Which Tom-Tom for pedestrians/bicycle riders? Posted Feb 26, 2009 11:36 UTC (Thu) by shane (subscriber, #3335) [Link]
Since the founders of the company are Dutch, and they have a big office in downtown Amsterdam, I would have been shocked if they did not have support for cyclists, since a typical Amsterdam street looks like this:
http://focused.nl/gallery/4958201_9Andv#271713147_3ZQa5
Googling for "tom-tom bicycle" turned up this as the first link:
http://www.tomtom.com/products/category.php?ID=1
OT: Which Tom-Tom for pedestrians/bicycle riders? Posted Feb 26, 2009 14:14 UTC (Thu) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
The imagery at least suggests that they intend this range for motorcycles. It really wants an audio link to the helmet so that you can hear instructions, rather than constantly look at the screen (and get yourself killed). Most bicyclists don't wear a full crash helmet, and certainly not one expensive enough to justify adding a headphone connection.
For pedestrians software solutions on a handheld GPS or smartphone are probably more sensible than anything related to TomTom's technology. I don't know about cycling because I haven't done it in anger for years. If you like to support Free/Open things then look at OpenStreetmap.org and see what's available in the way of route-planning for the OSM platform.
TomTom is keyed around a motorist's needs. e.g. TomTom offers hundreds of meters of warning for a turn, an unnecessarily long warning for a pedestrian but just about right for a car or motorcycle; and it can re-plan a route very quickly after you miss a turn. But a pedestrian who misses a turn simply turns around and fixes their error, only motor vehicles on roads where U-turns are forbidden need this feature.
Also (and this a big win for OSM) most commercial devices including TomTom don't care about routes which aren't open to motor vehicles. So if you ride a horse, walk or even in some cases cycle, the TomTom dataset is missing your fastest and best options a lot of the time. A lot of OSM is compiled by hikers and cyclists so it has many of those routes even in built-up areas where they're not well reflected in official maps.
OT: Which Tom-Tom for pedestrians/bicycle riders? Posted Feb 26, 2009 17:57 UTC (Thu) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] Actually, using TomTom I recently navigated through the center of Amsterdam by foot without any problems, eager to get some Indian food.Of course, it led me and my girlfriend straight into the Red Light district (the restaurant was called "Kamasutra", which we thought was funny), but technically it was a very good experience.
OT: Which Tom-Tom for pedestrians/bicycle riders? Posted Feb 26, 2009 14:14 UTC (Thu) by klaasjan (guest, #5492) [Link]
You can put most navigation units into "cyclist mode" and there are lots of aftermarket mounts available to fix a nav unit to about any object. Availability of maps containing the smaller roads can be a problem though.
OT: Which Tom-Tom for pedestrians/bicycle riders? Posted Feb 26, 2009 20:31 UTC (Thu) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] Probably any of them. My TomTom One supports walking routes, that's what you need.
OT: Which Tom-Tom for pedestrians/bicycle riders? Posted Feb 27, 2009 4:44 UTC (Fri) by Burgundavia (guest, #25172) [Link]
Except that most of the vehicle GPSes are not designed to get rained on or take any kind of shocks, which are key needs for a bicycle-based system. This is why I use my old Garmin 76Cs instead of my N810 on my bike.
Microsoft sues TomTom Posted Feb 26, 2009 11:33 UTC (Thu) by edmon (guest, #26395) [Link]
Europeans have to stand and say:
FOR HOW LONG STUPID AMERICAN PATENT SYSTEM WILL MAKE FUN OF US AND PLAY WITH US??!?!?!
Open Invention Network? Posted Feb 26, 2009 11:50 UTC (Thu) by mjr (guest, #6979) [Link]
I just sent a mail to OIN directly to make absolutely sure they know about it asap, since they should come to TomTom's aid on those counts that target the Linux kernel specifically. If MS gets a judgment - or hell, even just a settlement - incorporating those, it'll just give them more ammo to go after other Linux users.
Of course, while not all of the claims are not relevant to OIN, all of them are ludicurous and would never be allowed in a society truly appreciative of competition on a free market.
Open Invention Network or LF? Posted Feb 26, 2009 11:58 UTC (Thu) by kragil (subscriber, #34373) [Link]
Shouldn't the Linux Foundation also help?
FAT support is still very essential.
Open Invention Network or LF? Posted Feb 26, 2009 19:29 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] The patents don't cover FAT, but VFAT (that is, the extension of FAT to allow filenames that don't fit the old 8.3 DOS naming restrictions).FAT itself is so old (from the 1970s) that any patents (had there been any; you couldn't patent software in the US in the 1970s) would have expired long ago.
Open Invention Network or LF? Posted Feb 26, 2009 22:05 UTC (Thu) by kragil (subscriber, #34373) [Link]
OK sorry, sure. I meant VFAT.
But I really think it is time for the "nuclear option" and the OIN should retaliate. I can already see a lot of FUD on the web.
Sure it will be MAD,but in the end we will all be using Amigas again because the patent system will take down the industry as we know it ;)
Open Invention Network or LF? Posted Feb 27, 2009 14:49 UTC (Fri) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link] Yes, IMHO this is the main reason something like OIN was created first hand. And Microsoft definitely should know that their action is a call for "nuke me". I'm sure they are vulnerable on the patent front, but if they want real war, they should worry a lot more: Conficker's writers are just a few criminal seeking for a botnet, they are not Linux hackers at war ;-). The other front line of course is the US patent system. E.g. the FAT patent was disputed between 2004 and 2006, and finally, this completely bogus patent was reinstated. While in 2007, a German court ruled out that it is neither new (the Rock Ridge Extension to ISO CDs solves the same problem in the patented way before VFAT), and not an invention anyway (it does not go beyond common state of the art practice). If you have some contact with Obama's team, make clear to them that the current patent system in the US is stifling innovations, and that the solution is to at least ban all patents that were granted during the past decades, where the rules were so lax that every horseshit went through as novel "apparatus for attracting flies".
Wait for the apologists Posted Feb 26, 2009 14:13 UTC (Thu) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link] Microsoft says open-source software is not the intended focal point of the action. Wait for the apologists such as De Icaza to tell us to concentrate on the calming, stroking motions of the left hand (see above) while the right hand continues with its nasty, aggressive acts against not only open source (and Free Software) but also against the very basis of software development as a profession. Observe the paid-up representatives of the legal profession and their idiot helpers excuse patent litigation as a way to "protect IP" without conceding that no-one should be able to patent ideas, business models, algorithms, mathematics and nature. Observe the way the legal profession seeks to profit from other professions by effectively ruining those professions for their practitioners. When SCO initiated their extortion strategy, various projects decided to stop supporting SCO's products in protest. Isn't it time we did the same for Microsoft? It wouldn't just be software developers who could play a role, either. Now that a campaign is underway to persuade people to drop Internet Explorer 6 (supported by Microsoft, no less), why not add to the message about people upgrading their browser and state that the developers of IE6 advocate unethical business practices and extortion through patent litigation? At least the "consumer" would be better informed as a result.
Long file name support needed on TomTom? Posted Feb 26, 2009 14:24 UTC (Thu) by seanyoung (subscriber, #28711) [Link]
If TomTom does not use long file name support in the kernel do those patents become moot in a legal battle?
I have not used any of the recent TomTom models, however when I worked at TomTom four years ago for both reading the SD card and the internal memory for the cheaper models, long files names are not needed. The map and voice files are in the "8.3" format and as far as I know the TomTom never gives a file listing to the user.
Microsoft sues TomTom Posted Feb 26, 2009 16:22 UTC (Thu) by petegn (guest, #847) [Link]
Yet again mickey shaft is at it they got stuffed by Vista so now they are looking for another way to fund windBloWs 7 by trying to screw basicaly Linux
wonder when they are going to announce their Sat Nav unit they have obviously got one in the pipeline why else would they be trying to scupper the opposition
Microsoft sues TomTom Posted Feb 26, 2009 21:01 UTC (Thu) by BackSeat (subscriber, #1886) [Link] "mickey shaft"? "windBloWs"? This isn't Slashdot: the company name is Microsoft and the product is Windows. You don't have to like the company, like their business methods or use their products, but nor do you need to call them names. It's simply puerile. BS
Microsoft sues TomTom Posted Feb 26, 2009 21:26 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Puerile, thy name is petegn. Hadn't you noticed yet?
Microsoft sues TomTom Posted Feb 28, 2009 17:39 UTC (Sat) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] Don't feed the trolls. It's not dangerous, but... have you seen them eat? *shudder*
Looking at FAT patents and the Bilski ruling Posted Feb 26, 2009 18:45 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] Given the recent invalidation of some software patent claims based on the new Bilski tests, I'm wondering if the FAT patent is still valid at all. Looking At Microsoft's Fat Patents Through Bilski Glasses (digg)
Microsoft sues TomTom Posted Mar 14, 2009 20:06 UTC (Sat) by jec (subscriber, #5803) [Link]
Does anyone know if it is possible to make a donation to TomTom to pay legal fees to defend itself?
|
|||||||||||||