Microsoft v. TomTom heading for round 2?

Microsoft and TomTom have settled their patent dispute, including claims related to the FAT file system and Linux. But the rest of the open-source world, which could be affected, isn't ready to lie down and accept Linux's possibly besmirched reputation.

Red Hat, for its part, declares that "without a judicial decision, the settlement does not demonstrate that the claims of Microsoft were valid." And Pamela Jones of Groklaw, a highly influential open-source legal blog, deprecates Microsoft's claims ("What? You thought Microsoft's spin on things was always gospel?"), citing the Software Freedom Law Center's commitment to sticking up for Linux, even if TomTom quickly caved.

SFLC writes:

The settlement neither implies that Microsoft patents are valid nor that TomTom's products were or are infringing...The FAT file system patents on which Microsoft sued are now, and have always been, invalid patents, in our professional opinion.

SFLC remains committed to protecting the interests of our clients and the community. We will act forcefully to protect all users and developers of free software against further intimidation or interference from these patents.

SFLC, working with the Open Invention Network and the Linux Foundation, is pleased to participate in a coordinated, carefully graduated response on behalf of all the community's members to ongoing anticompetitive Microsoft conduct. We believe in strength through unity, and we think our community's unity in the face of these threats has helped to bring about Microsoft's quick settlement on all issues with TomTom.

This is good news because I admit I read the settlement as an implication that TomTom caved. As ZDNet's Larry Dignan suggests, however, "the settlement doesn't seem to answer a lot." For Microsoft, this may well be a good thing: FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) is as good as a court judgment against Linux.

This was Microsoft's tactic in its Novell patent deal. Every press release about interoperability included verbiage about patents and Linux. I talked with Novell's press team repeatedly during this time and was always told, "Microsoft insisted on including that language. We wanted to focus on interoperability, which is what customers actually care about."

Microsoft may or may not have been trying to sully Linux's reputation with the TomTom lawsuit, and this settlement doesn't clarify things at all. Fortunately, the SFLC is on the case. It's a more than ample counterbalance to Microsoft's worst intentions.

Follow me on Twitter at mjasay.

[kcotham]

What?! Micro$oft spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt!? Never! *healthy dose of sacrasm

[kojacked]

Actually this is Matt Asay spreading the FUD. Microsoft and TomTom settle and Matt claims Microsoft is leveraging it as FUD. Matt's FUD on Microsoft's assumed FUD. Hmmm...

[omniprovident]

Agreed with "Kojacked" - seems Matt's got some FUD of his own (or, peddling it for "PJ" and SFLC). He apparently suffers from a monoculture of guilt(?). You use, you "pay," right? Isn't that what the GPL is about, too - giving back, enforced through IPR? Shouldn't it hold true for property held by MSoft, too? In my professional opinion, I say it does.

[tm_anon]

If a patent doesn't hold up in court, it's not valid.

Now, according to what you two are saying, just because MS claims to own something means that they do. Well, I claim that you both used language that I've patented as my own intellectual property. Pay up or I'll sue.

Come on, pay up. I own your language, you used it.

[odubtaig]

Well, apparently being right for some people is a popularity contest and requires no factual basis... or grammatical structure apparently.

Also carefully ignoring that the question is whether MS really owns anything on FAT32. No-one's questioning whether Ms should be paid for their _valid_ patents, but if this isn't one of those _valid_ patents then that's not the issue.

There's also the usual umbrellaring of Copyright, Trademark and Patents under one single idiotic term as though they were the same thing. You can't invalidate Copyright due to prior art or obviousness (or J K Rowling would never have got anywhere) and you don't have to apply for Copyright. They're very different things with separate laws and meaning.

[mwreed3]

I'm looking at the SFLC statement, and that last line reads like Nixon's "Peace with honor" speech. TomTom settled and is paying Microsoft. Clearly the multi-billion dollar company known as Tom Tom, in conjunction with the SFLC and the IBM-backed OIN, decided that beating the FAT patent would be hard to do.

here's the quote for refresher purposes:

<i>We believe in strength through unity, and we think our community's unity in the face of these threats has helped to bring about Microsoft's quick settlement on all issues with TomTom.</i>

I don't see anywhere in SFLC press release that suggests an ongoing fight on TomTom. In fact, it uses the past tense "has helped".

I don't know about you, but past tense usually means "in the past".

[marcobw]

I have a neutral position on Microsoft...they write some good software but they also make crap that you won't catch me using. With that being said, if Microsoft developed the FAT filesystem, don't they have the right to protect it?

[cabdriverjim]

Simple solution, perhaps, is to disable long filename support. Microsoft owns no patents on FAT itself, afaik. Just on the methodology used to store and mangle long filenames. Plenty of cameras and other embedded devices don't support long filenames at all. That said, FAT is a terribly destructive filesystem for use on flash devices. It really needs to be abandoned for one of the many, many freely available flash filesystems (i.e. not Microsoft exfat).

[pentest]

Microsoft still hasn't learned about going after Linux. They tried it by proxy with SCO, and tried it again, using a Linux user as the proxy.

They really stepped in it now and are going to pay heavily for it.