| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
LinuxCon: Keeping open source openLinuxCon: Keeping open source openPosted Sep 28, 2009 10:55 UTC (Mon) by epa (subscriber, #39769)In reply to: LinuxCon: Keeping open source open by MattPerry Parent article: LinuxCon: Keeping open source open
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.
(Log in to post comments)
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.
|
|
||||||||||||