| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
LinuxCon: Keeping open source openLinuxCon: Keeping open source openPosted Sep 24, 2009 10:48 UTC (Thu) by epa (subscriber, #39769)In reply to: LinuxCon: Keeping open source open by ncm Parent article: LinuxCon: Keeping open source open I had thought that the suit against TomTom was a defensive suit, because TomTom first threatened Microsoft with a software patent lawsuit. The source is this Slashdot comment which admittedly is not the most reliable news source. But it would have been better for the article to address this, whether confirming or denying it. In my opinion, countersuing someone who sues (or threatens to sue) over a software patent is quite a different matter from aggressively using swpats against another company which has not fired first. Which of the two cases describes the TomTom VFAT settlement?
(Log in to post comments)
LinuxCon: Keeping open source open Posted Sep 24, 2009 14:39 UTC (Thu) by wookey (subscriber, #5501) [Link]
That coment is the only thing I've seen suggesting that Tomtom fired first. I find it very hard to believe (having contracted once for TomTom a few years ago and found them a very sound outfit, with really good technical people still at board level). Groklaw seems more likely to be right than random slashdot comments:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090320000835463
LinuxCon: Keeping open source open Posted Sep 24, 2009 15:33 UTC (Thu) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link] I didn't see anything in that Groklaw article saying that Microsoft's lawsuit wasn't in response to a patent threat from TomTom. (Not that it is Groklaw's job to refute every random theory floating around, but I don't see how the article you linked to is relevant here.)You are most likely right about TomTom as a company; I knew they had fought Garmin in court but it appears that was defensive (see here for example).
LinuxCon: Keeping open source open Posted Sep 24, 2009 15:57 UTC (Thu) by jhhaller (subscriber, #56103) [Link]
TomTom and Microsoft are likely to conflict over Sync by Microsoft in Ford vehicles. Since TomTom predates Sync, TomTom likely has earlier and broader patents. That doesn't say who started the dispute first, but where interests collided.
LinuxCon: Keeping open source open Posted Sep 27, 2009 22:59 UTC (Sun) by MattPerry (guest, #46341) [Link]
> I had thought that the suit against TomTom was a defensive suit, because
> TomTom first threatened Microsoft with a software patent lawsuit. The > source is this Slashdot comment which admittedly is not the most reliable > news source.
The parent comment to the one you linked to says otherwise and actually cites a source. Note that the comment you linked to provides nothing to back up their claim.
LinuxCon: Keeping open source open Posted Sep 28, 2009 10:55 UTC (Mon) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]
That Reuters article <http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE52J1...> does not say one way or the other whether Microsoft threatened TomTom first, or whether TomTom started by threatening Microsoft with a software patent suit.
It just says 'The two companies had failed to reach a patent-licensing agreement after more than a year of talks.'
I would be interested to see some source that unambiguously states that Microsoft was the aggressor in this case, or on the other hand, one that unambiguously states that Microsoft sued only after being notified of software patent infringement by TomTom.
LinuxCon: Keeping open source open Posted Sep 28, 2009 14:03 UTC (Mon) by MattPerry (guest, #46341) [Link]
It says clearly in the first sentence that TomTom's filed a countersuit. A countersuit is a one that is filed in response to an initial suit. By definition that means that Microsoft sued first.
LinuxCon: Keeping open source open Posted Sep 28, 2009 14:34 UTC (Mon) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]
Yes, Microsoft filed a suit against TomTom. What I have heard is that TomTom first threatened Microsoft with a lawsuit for infringing on some software patents that TomTom held, and then Microsoft's suit against TomTom was a response to that threat. (The first stage in a patent shakedown is often to formally 'notify' the other party that they are infringing; that way, if they don't settle immediately they will be liable for triple damages for knowing infringement.)
That might be how it happened, or it might not be. But the article doesn't tell you one way or the other. It just tells you which of the two cases was first to court, which isn't very informative.
|
|
||||||||||||