March 30, 2009 12:28 PM PDT

TomTom settlement leaves key questions unanswered

by Ina Fried
  • Font size
  • Print
  • 25 comments

While reaction to Microsoft's settlement with TomTom was varied on Monday, there seemed to be a consensus that it will do little to settle the many questions related to whether Linux infringes on Microsoft's intellectual property.

Attorney James Gatto, the leader of the intellectual property section at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, said the quick settlement in the case may have as much to do with a pragmatic business decision by TomTom as it does with the legal merits of Microsoft's case. Complex litigation, such as the patent suit and countersuit in this case, could easily add up to $10 million to $15 million in costs, Gatto said.

"I don't think this answers any questions in terms of whether Microsoft's patents in any way cover Linux," Gatto said. Microsoft has long asserted that various implementations of Linux do infringe on its intellectual property and has struck a number of patent deals with companies that either distribute Linux or use it in their products.

The TomTom case, however, marked the first time that Microsoft had made those allegations in court papers.

Open-source pioneer Bruce Perens criticized the settlement, saying that it may instill fear in other companies that are using embedded Linux and thus have something of a chilling effect.

"What strikes me is the un-justice of it all," said Perens, who is the chief executive of open-source software development company Kiloboot. "Microsoft's patents (in the TomTom case) are not innovative, yet TomTom is forced to pay for the patents when a court would probably find them invalid. But rather than spend the money to prove the patents are invalid, because they probably can't afford to go to court and fight it, TomTom licenses the patents."

Gatto said that Microsoft's TomTom move doesn't necessarily mean the company is ready to go to war with Linux.

"Microsoft, over the last several years, has been much more aggressive about asserting its patents," he said. "It's not just about Linux. They have been doing it across the board."

Red Hat, one of the Linux companies that has been most vocal about not striking a deal with Microsoft, noted in a statement the many things left unanswered by the settlement.

"Without a judicial decision, the settlement does not demonstrate that the claims of Microsoft were valid," Red Hat said in a statement. "Patent litigation is a difficult process, and there are many reasons besides the merits of the case that a defendant such as TomTom might have chosen to settle in the present economic environment."

Gatto noted that, if anything, Microsoft has been trying to tread lightly around the Linux issue. While patent disputes among companies generally are of little interest outside those companies, Gatto said that Microsoft is aware that its moves vis a vis Linux impact the company's relationship with the open-source community as a whole.

"There are a lot of repercussions," Gatto said. "Microsoft has been somewhat tiptoeing around this."

As for what lessons open-source companies should take away from this, Gatto said that all businesses need to be aware of the intellectual property issues around their products.

"Patents are prevalent in every industry," Gatto said. "Software is no exception and open source is no exception. There is no greater or lesser need for attention to patents for open source. Every company these days needs to be vigilant with respect to intellectual property, both offensively and defensively."

A second issue raised by the settlement is whether, in fact, Microsoft and TomTom were indeed able to comply with the terms of the General Public License in crafting their deal. The two companies did not go into detail on the settlement, but noted it includes a covenant not to sue TomTom's customers--a tactic similar to the approach it took with Novell and other companies.

"As the terms of the settlement license have not, to our knowledge, been made public, it is not possible to comment on their compliance with open source requirements and principles," Red Hat said in its statement.

Update: Comments continue to come in.

Van Lindberg, an attorney at Haynes and Boone and author of "Intellectual Property and Open Source," said that "both companies backed down from the brink because they both had a lot to lose."

"Microsoft probably didn't want to test the FAT patents in court, and may have been worried about facing an expensive battle over the (Open Innovation Network) patent portfolio," Lindberg said in an e-mail interview. "TomTom was probably worried about a long and expensive patent battle about technology that was not central to their product."

He noted that Microsoft continues to try and structure deals in ways that conform with open-source contract terms.

,p> "Not too many years ago, Microsoft was publicly questioning whether Linux would be a viable competitor," he said. "Microsoft has obviously come to the conclusion that Linux--and the GPL--are market participants that need to be handled on their own terms."

Lindberg said that, to him, the most interesting element of the TomTom agreement was the company's decision to remove the FAT (File Allocation Table) file system from their product within two years. "That seems like a win for Microsoft, but in the long run it may end up reducing Microsoft's patent leverage, just as the GIF patent did for Unisys," Lindberg said, noting that Perens has already called for the removal of FAT from Linux devices.

The Software Freedom Law Center, meanwhile, sought to claim victory with the TomTom settlement.

"Today's settlement between Microsoft and TomTom shows the strength of our community's resistance to patent aggression by Microsoft," the group said in a statement. "TomTom avoids protracted expensive litigation and will continue to be the world leader in Linux-based navigation devices. It will innovate on its own and the community's behalf to prevent even invalid patents from being used to inhibit our community's ability to make software."

The group initially stated that the settlement agreement does not violate the terms of any open source license, but amended that statement later on Monday to say "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 organization added that it believes "the settlement neither implies that Microsoft patents are valid nor that TomTom's products were or are infringing."

CNET News' Dawn Kawamoto contributed to this report.

During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft. E-mail Ina.
Recent posts from Beyond Binary
Visual Studio launch delayed by 'a few weeks'
Glitches mar launch of Livescribe app store
Windows 7 leaving Redmond's help desk less busy
Microsoft top lawyer: EU deal opens new chapter
Microsoft: We did copy Plurk's code
Boeing's 787 takes flight
Hands-on with the Entourage Edge
Microsoft's server chief talks cloud (Q&A)
Add a Comment (Log in or register) (25 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
by jtjt145 March 30, 2009 2:03 PM PDT
Micro$oft has become monster, blackmailing those, that it can't squash out of business. It will be best for the rest of the world if they go out of business.
Reply to this comment
by Renegade Knight March 30, 2009 2:17 PM PDT
When they don't listen to customers, don't have customers interestes at heart, and turn into a bean counting company they have outlived their usefulness. The world would be better served if a corporate raider bought a controlling interest and then sold off the pieces 80's style. I know that would probably do more for the stockholders than their current plan to fail slowly.
by omniprovident March 30, 2009 2:32 PM PDT
Their property, their rights. They should ask for compensation for their risk / investment.
by JuggerNaut March 30, 2009 6:21 PM PDT
@omniprovident

Their property huh?... Microsoft has yet to disclose what they think is theirs. I think Linux Torvalds has even challenged Microsoft to either put up or shut up on the so called patents Linux infringes on and I have to agree. But makes it even funnier is that Microsoft also has been guilty of infringing on patents owned by other companies, but goes out of its way to have the patents invalidated. I personally think Microsoft will lose its battle against Linux because there are too many BIG backers behind it (IBM, HP, Dell, Intel, etc...)!
by FutureGuy March 30, 2009 7:48 PM PDT
@JuggerNaut really you think MS is bluffing? Why do you think TomTom was so quick to settle and pay up? They are a multi billion dollar company if MS was bluffing they would have gone to court and seeked compensation instead of paying up. So yes its "their property."
And ohh I am sure you think 2009 is the year of Linux or may be its 2010?2020? 20020??
by tm_anon March 30, 2009 9:50 PM PDT
@FutureGuy

I patented something in your response. Pay up. I'll license you to use it as much as you want but first you have to pay me. I'll sue you if you don't pay.

Oh, so you want to know what I patented? Pay up anyway. That goes for everyone else. If you use the line I patented, I'll sue you too.

If anyone doesn't realize that was a way to point out how ridiculous the claims made by MS are then you really should go back to school.

And FutureGuy, change your sn, it's obvious you're still looking at the past when MS might have been halfway decent instead of the bully who forces everyone else to do homework because he's too dumb to do it himself and then threatens them if they turn in their own work.
by omniprovident March 30, 2009 2:12 PM PDT
Bruce - isn't this the pot calling the kettle black. The GPL has never been tested in court (the non-copyright provisions), yet we presume it's legit (well, some do).

MSoft's property - their rights against those who use it without their permission.
Reply to this comment
by Renegade Knight March 30, 2009 2:19 PM PDT
If the idea isn't obvious, if they in fact did "invent something" Linux uses, and not vice versa. The roots of Linux predate Windows. Seems like at best MicroSoft could force a rewrite of some sections of code and that's about it.
by odubtaig March 30, 2009 4:45 PM PDT
The GPL hasn't been tested in court in the USA (Germany is another matter, it's been proven there) because no-one's stupid enough to test it that far. Apart from one or two anomalous cases, enforcement of the GPL is uniformly settled out of court and no-one can say the SFLC has so much legal muscle as to be able to make defense prohibitive.

Unlike Microsoft.
by massfat March 30, 2009 2:50 PM PDT
@ Renegade Knight, it matters not who predates who, what matters is that Microsoft has the patents, not GNU/Linux, so Microsoft can exercise their rights to their patents at any time they wish.
@ The retards posting way above there ^, patented technology is essential to the consumer. Without patents, the consumer cannot possibly hope to get a decent product. The whole system relies on rewards for investment, and patents play a large role in this. If you were inventors, you would understand it, because you wouldn't want other people to steal your ideas and profit from them.
Reply to this comment
by Dalkorian March 31, 2009 2:48 PM PDT
Massfat, your comment reads like it came from Ballmer's backside and your argument smells the same. Why would you think "it matters not who predates who"? Do *NOT* review what happens to obvious patents, particularly patents given on pre-existing technology. You have important junior high school work to finish and I don't want to interrupt that.
by March 30, 2009 3:29 PM PDT
I am puzzled by the Bruce Perens quote here regarding the "un-justice of it all". As many commentators have already noted, Tom Tom is a big company with the resources to fight this in court (as they did both offensively and defensively in previous patent lawsuits). It?s not clear just how strong the Microsoft patents are, but this settlement suggests they are not as weak Perens wants to assert they are.

Somehow the fact that the case was settled without going to court represents a failure of the system - yet the Software Freedom Law Center, the FSF and others have always chosen settlement over litigation in their defense of the GPL. I know Bruce isn't an lawyer, but he does understand that the power of the GPL flows directly from intellectual property law (copyright instead of patent).

Tom Tom expects others companies to respect its patents rights or be willing to face legal repercussions. Shouldn?t they be held to the same standard? That seems pretty ?just? to me.
Reply to this comment
by keith_braithwaite March 31, 2009 2:35 AM PDT
It does seem strange. Isn't this outcome an example of the intellectual property system working exactly the way it is supposed to? Perens might not like the outcome, but the Open Source movement relies upon current IP law just as much as does a commercial outfit collecting a rent on a patent.
by t8 March 30, 2009 6:30 PM PDT
I hate Microsoft even more after this.
Reply to this comment
by Hey_Radar March 30, 2009 8:18 PM PDT
Sounds like a smart move on TomToms part.

Pay a small license fee for now, which may only add up to a few hundred thousands or even low millions. And work on getting rid of FAT support from their product as fast as possible to eliminate the license fee.

Most likely cheaper than the court costs.
Reply to this comment
by opiapr March 30, 2009 8:23 PM PDT
TomTom isn't a small shop. So if they belived to have a strong case they for sure had the resources to fight. If they decides to settle it only means it was on thier best interes (and linux) to not test the waters in court.
Reply to this comment
by RighteousSoutherner March 30, 2009 9:53 PM PDT
Perens man, why do refuse to accept the fact that patents in this country are valid? Maybe I can answer the question for you, lol. But then again I don't have time to commit to what would be a mile long answer.
Reply to this comment
by ahickey March 31, 2009 1:41 AM PDT
If the problem is with FAT support then I hope this is the wake up call that consumer device manufactures need to look at alternatives.
FAT is great because you can plug in an external drive/SD car/Flash drive and it will just work on any system. Windows/Mac/Linux?

If Microsoft is going to enforce this patent to the fullest them the extra fee for a pre-formatted SD card or flash drive will push prices up.

Purely for financial reasons I would like to see consumer device manufacturers using an alternative file system. I?d be happy to install a driver on my machines if it meant I didn?t have to pay extra. A bit annoying in the short term, but if it means lower costs in the future I?m in.
Reply to this comment
by keith_braithwaite March 31, 2009 2:41 AM PDT
The problem seems to be the usual long names mechanism for FAT. So, eliminating that technology alone would mean the usability of such devices being reduced. An abandonment of FAT itself would open the doors to yet another pointless format war, a gigantic waste of time and effort for us all.

Maybe you would be happy to install new drivers, I suspect that a lot of the general public wouldn't (we're mostly talking about commodity consumer electronics here).
by KayakFun March 31, 2009 4:06 AM PDT
No wonder people hate Microsoft.

Their deep pockets allow them to bully any small company into paying license fees for imaginary patents because it's cheaper to settle than to go to court. This business practice reminds me of the Mafia.

To make an end to this mafia-type extortion scheme, software patents must disappear, Open Standards must become the mandatory norm for all government data, and Neelie Smit Kroes must punish Microsoft once more.
Reply to this comment
by monkeyfun14 March 31, 2009 9:15 AM PDT
It's a valid patent.

If it was "Imaginary" TomTom wouldn't have to pay would it?

Go create something and when someone rips off your product are you not going to sue while they make millions off of it?
by Dalkorian March 31, 2009 2:55 PM PDT
What patent is valid, monkeyboy? Hint: M$ isn't saying. Ergo, it's all FUD and BS. But to prove that, you have to have more and better lawyers than M$ can afford. Doesn't that sound fair? NOT!
by fhadff April 2, 2009 12:00 PM PDT
According to my records, the topic you are trying to reply to does not exist. If you're just trying to be annoying, well then too bad.
Reply to this comment
by fhadff April 2, 2009 12:00 PM PDT
<p><strong><a title="????? ??????" href="http://www.5alej.com/">????? ?????? </a>&nbsp;<span lang="ar-kw">?????
??????</span></strong></p>

<p><strong><a title="??? ??????" href="http://www.5alej.com/">??? ?????? </a>
<span lang="ar-kw">&nbsp;??? ??????</span></strong></p>

<p><strong><a title="??????" href="http://www.5alej.com/">?????? </a>
<span lang="ar-kw">&nbsp;??????</span></strong></p>

<p><strong><a title="????? " href="http://www.5alej.com/">????? </a>
<span lang="ar-kw">&nbsp;?????</span></strong></p>

<p><strong><a title="?????" href="http://www.5alej.com/">?????</a><span lang="ar-kw">
?????</span></strong></p>

<p><strong><a title="???" href="http://www.5alej.com/">??? </a>
<span lang="ar-kw">&nbsp;???</span></strong></p>

<p><strong><a title="??? ??????" href="http://www.kuw9.com/cat-57.html/">??? ?????? </a>
<span lang="ar-kw">&nbsp;??? ??????</span></strong></p>

<p><strong><a title="??? ??????" href="http://www.chat.5alej.com/">??? ?????? </a>
<span lang="ar-kw">&nbsp;??? ??????</span></strong></p>

<p><strong><a title="????? ??????" href="http://www.vb.5alej.com/">????? ?????? </a>
<span lang="ar-kw">&nbsp;????? ??????</span></strong></p>

<p><strong><a title="????? ??????" href="http://www.5alej.com/voice.htm/">????? ?????? </a>
<span lang="ar-kw">&nbsp;????? ??????</span></strong></p>

<p><strong><a title="??? ????" href="http://www.kuw6.com/">??? ???? </a>
<span lang="ar-kw">&nbsp;??? ????</span></strong></p>

<p><strong><a title="???" href="http://www.6rbj.com/">??? </a>
<span lang="ar-kw">&nbsp;???</span></strong></p>

<p><strong><a title="??? ?????" href="http://www.suivip.com/">??? ????? </a>
<span lang="ar-kw">&nbsp;??? ?????</span></strong></p>

<p><strong><a title="????? ?????" href="http://www.kuw6.com/">????? ????? </a>
<span lang="ar-kw">&nbsp;????? ?????</span></strong></p>

<p><strong><a title="????? ??????" href="http://www.dir.kuw6.com/s2.html/">????? ?????? </a>
<span lang="ar-kw">&nbsp;????? ??????</span></strong></p>

<p><strong><a title="??? ??????" href="http://www.kuw9.com/">??? ?????? </a>
<span lang="ar-kw">&nbsp;??? ??????</span></strong></p>

<p><strong><a title="??? ?????" href="http://www.suivip.com/">??? ????? </a>
<span lang="ar-kw">&nbsp;??? ?????</span></strong></p>

<p><strong><a title="??? ?????" href="http://www.vipkwt.com/">??? ????? </a>
<span lang="ar-kw">&nbsp;??? ?????</span></strong></p>

<p><strong><a title="??? ???????" href="http://www.emrtih.com/">??? ??????? </a>
<span lang="ar-kw">&nbsp;??? ???????</span></strong></p>

<p><strong><a title="??? ????" href="http://www.qtr6rb.com/">??? ???? </a>
<span lang="ar-kw">&nbsp;??? ????</span></strong></p>

<p><strong><a title="??? ??????" href="http://www.bhrvip.com/">??? ?????? </a>
<span lang="ar-kw">&nbsp;??? ??????</span></strong></p>

<p><strong><a title="??? ?????" href="http://www.omnvip.com/">??? ????? </a>
<span lang="ar-kw">&nbsp;??? ?????</span></strong></p>

<p><strong><a title="??? ??????" href="http://www.digitaldivide.net/comm/docs/view.php?DocID=1247/">??? ?????? </a>
<span lang="ar-kw">&nbsp;??? ??????</span></strong></p>

<p><strong><a title="??? ??????" href="http://www.kuw6.com/">??? ?????? </a>
<span lang="ar-kw">&nbsp;??? ??????</span></strong></p>


<p><a href="http://www.5alej.com/" target="_blank">?????<br>
??????</a><span lang="ar-kw"> ????? ??????</span></p>
Reply to this comment
by Notjub July 22, 2009 10:54 PM PDT
I agree.
(25 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
advertisement

15 sites that went kaput in 2009

Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.

Top 10 news stories of the decade

Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.

About Beyond Binary

During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft.


Beyond Binary is a look at how technology is changing our lives and the people behind all that life-changing stuff, with an extra emphasis on that which emanates from Redmond, Wash.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Beyond Binary topics

Binary Bits

    Follow Ina on Twitter (Twitter name: InaFried)
    advertisement
    advertisement

    Inside CNET News

    Scroll Left Scroll Right