Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
TomTom - 'Settled, But Not Over Yet' says SFLC (Groklaw)
Groklaw covers
the Software Freedom Law Center's response
to the TomTom settlement. From SFLC: "Today's settlement between
Microsoft and TomTom ends one phase of the community's response to
Microsoft patent aggression, and begins another. On the basis of the
information we have, we have no reason to believe that TomTom's settlement
agreement with Microsoft violates the license on the kernel, Linux, or any
other free software used in its products. The settlement neither implies
that Microsoft patents are valid nor that TomTom's products were or are
infringing."
(Log in to post comments)
TomTom - 'Settled, But Not Over Yet' says SFLC (Groklaw) Posted Mar 31, 2009 21:17 UTC (Tue) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link]
Thank you, SFLC, for the idle saber-rattling. It reminds me of OIN's threat from 2007 that they "stand ready to leverage our IP portfolio to maintain the open patent environment OIN has helped create.".
Now, please spell out what you are going to actually *do*.
Where are these brave talking organizations, and this hefty patent portfolio, when companies being frisked by Microsoft need them?
TomTom - 'Settled, But Not Over Yet' says SFLC (Groklaw) Posted Apr 1, 2009 4:09 UTC (Wed) by PaulWay (✭ supporter ✭, #45600) [Link]
The SFLC can advise, and make public statements, and offer (some) financial and legal support, but they can't actually 'do' anything if TomTom doesn't want them to.
Microsoft waited until TomTom was in a financial bind before attacking - it could have taken any of these patents up at any time in the last 11 years, but it chose now because TomTom wouldn't have the money to pay for a long, expensive lawsuit. Microsoft really doesn't want its patents tested in court - because in this post-Bilski world they may well be thrown out - but it really does need to keep on rattling the sabres about how wonderful its IP portfolio is and its successes in court. If you consider that TomTom can still contribute to the kernel and other GPL development, unlike the many other companies that have been forced into NDA deals (according to Jeremy Allison), then it's actually a considerable back-down compared to Microsoft's usual demands.
It would have been great to see this actually contested in court, but I guess we'll have to wait for Microsoft to make that particular big mistake.
TomTom - 'Settled, But Not Over Yet' says SFLC (Groklaw) Posted Apr 1, 2009 5:00 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] Well, SFLC does participate in some feel-good programs that are diversions from a real solution to the software patent problem. Peer-to-patent is something that patent holders aren't required to cooperate with, and given the way the FAT patents were reinstated, I doubt that the poste-examination version of peer-to-patent can be that effective either. And now we have a defensive publication program that doesn't prevent the creation of patent thickets around the material published "defensively".And did you notice that while SFLC said their professional opinion was that the patents were invalid, they didn't take the opportunity to make a comment about the software patent system. They're good guys, but I'd like to see them be a lot more aggressive on this issue.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing Posted Apr 1, 2009 8:06 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] It would have been great to see this actually contested in court, but I guess we'll have to wait for Microsoft to make that particular big mistake. Microsoft has good lawers and it's not interested in reality check. And good people are doing nothing. To me it looks like all ingridients necessary "for the triumph of evil" are here. This "feed good" response looks hollow. It does not include one jot of future plans. And it does not even include explanation about what can we do about this. If SLFC don't have money, evidence, prior acts or some other ingredients to fight Microsoft then the good idea will be to write what exactly is missing so community can start gathering required ingridients. What they wrote now reads as admission of defeat - and you can be sure it'll be portrayed as such by Microsoft.
TomTom - 'Settled, But Not Over Yet' says SFLC (Groklaw) Posted Apr 1, 2009 11:49 UTC (Wed) by simlo (subscriber, #10866) [Link]
If TomTom is violating a patent by distributing Linux is it is, then also Novell is. Now as Novell do garentee that it's customers are not sued by Microsoft, but can not garentee that, when Linux is redistributed, those users aren't sued, isn't Novell breaking GPLv2?
Couldn't TomTom buy Linux product from Novell and claim that either they and everybody they distribute it to are covered or Novell is breaking GPL?
TomTom - 'Settled, But Not Over Yet' says SFLC (Groklaw) Posted Apr 1, 2009 15:07 UTC (Wed) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] That's perhaps what every other maker of Linux based hardware should consider. Buy Linux from Novell or get sued by Microsoft. I guess Microsoft would be reluctant to sue Novell customers, as it would open a big can of worms. As long as there are other targets.
|
|||||||||||||