Comments on: Microsoft, TomTom settle patent dispute

Software giant announces a deal in which TomTom will pay for coverage related to mapping and file-management patents that Microsoft claimed were infringed by the Linux kernel.

[Mr. Dee]

General Public Lucense Version 2 - guess the typo.

[tgrenier]

Well this was more successful than SCO's efforts. Perhaps MS has a valid claim or TomTom is complicit.

[NPGMBR]

Interesting outcome because I thought this would be a long fight but whats most intriguing to me are the terms of the outcome. What does this say about MS's claims that Linux infringes on its patents? Furthermore, what does it say about Tom Tom's counter claim that MS was infringing on one of it's patents.

[neowolfwitch]

Wow, fast cave by TomTom. Really disappointing.

[Matt Asay]

For me, this means that the Linux community must get its FAT act together, <a href="http://lmaugustin.typepad.com/lma/2009/02/linux-microsoft-and-patents-its-time-to-get-the-fat-out.html">Larry Augustin has written</a>. It seems clear that TomTom was suitably concerned by Microsoft's claims (or its inability to defend cost effectively against them), enough so that we should avoid the problem by coding around FAT.

[eBob1]

It seems to be a non-issue going forward. At some point, these patents will expire regardless. While a switch to a non-encumbered file system might be good, it might not be necessary in all cases.

[odubtaig]

How can anyone code around a patent on having the short progra~1 filename alongside the long "Program Files" filename? There's no way to access a FAT32 filesystem safely without it and that's exactly what the patent is on, having the two names for the one file, specifically having the short 8.3 format filename for backwards compatibility with MS-DOS alongside the 256 char filename for Win95 onwards.

[Matt Asay]

For me, this means that the Linux community must get its FAT act together, as Larry Augustin has written (see http://lmaugustin.typepad.com/lma/2009/02/linux-microsoft-and-patents-its-time-to-get-the-fat-out.html). It seems clear that TomTom was suitably concerned by Microsoft's claims (or its inability to defend cost effectively against them), enough so that we should avoid the problem by coding around FAT.

[spacydog]

TomTom knew they didn't have much legal standing on their end and had to do what was right in the first case. It's as simple as that. People tend to overanalyze everything.

[jlee888]

Right on. I think the patent was all about GPS and TomTom knew it. They tried a last minute hail mary by trying to paint MS vs Linux and that didn't stick. Then they tried a SECOND hail mary by aligning themselves with OpenSource and that didn't fly either.

Finally after their 3rd hail mary - suing MS didn't work, they knew they were up against the wall and settled.

TomTom should have done the right thing and paid MS for the IP that they infringed - plain and simple.

[jlee888]

Sorry I meant lawsuit - not patent - lawsuit was about GPS.

[hello_kittyhawk]

That is utter bull.

[linuxgeek90]

"People tend to overanalyze everything."

Yeah.

And if FAT is the only issue, I don't care if M$ sues. I *hate* FAT, & NTFS. Take that, M$!

[viper396]

So you hate a Filesystem. Do you even realize how asinine it is to get emotional over a filesystem?

Some of you Linux users are so fanatical and blinded by your constant Windows vs Linux rhetoric that you don't even realize how completely stupid some of your comments are.

[sanenazok]

@linuxgeek90 - how dare you say you hate my one and only love - FAT.

[LinuxRules]

First I would like to know why if tomtom uses linux, why they used the fat file system? Was linux file systems not good enough for them, or are they just that stupid? And why they refuse to make a linux interface for a linux computer and endusers to connect the tomtom unit up to, for downloads and what not? Tomtom really disappoints me. I bought a tomtom just because they used linux. And the only one what would link up to a mac.

[rapier1]

FAT, for various reasons, is a widely implemented and widely supported file system. Using it may have made it easier for end consumers to use or provided some other advantage. It may also just have been some poorly thought out decision made years ago but some mid level engineer and it propagated.

[abcd9009]

I agree with @rapier1. FAT file system is so popular than even today when NTFS is the default file system on pretty much all PC sold, FAT is still supported. And you are forgetting the target audience for any product that interacts with computers. Mac and Linux will NEVER be the target audience for any consumer electronic device intented for MASS production. Not saying the products won't work on Mac or Linux but the first priority will ALWAYS be Windows.

[shinji257]

FAT is usable on all platforms. It is also important that they be able to read/write to it. If they used ext2 or ext3 then Windows nor Mac OS users would of been able to read or write to it natively.

[odubtaig]

SD cards. End of story.

[alt117]

The Linux - MS patent battle is a dud so far. The Linux big guns lining up behind Tom Tom didn't seem to bother MS and didn't convince Tom Tom to take one for the team.

[ittesi259]

Taking one for the team could mean losing a lawsuit, solvency, and going bankrupt......and thats a lot of risk to **** off shareholders with.

[Mergatroid Mania]

I would be interested to know just exactly when the fat patent for the FAT file system from the Fat company will run out? Seems to be lasting forever. How come no one ever provides this information in articles like this?
This is pretty well an obsolite file system anyway. Of course, the way the U.S. patent system works, it might never run out.

[t8]

Not sure when it runs out, but a related word to FAT is BLOAT and both are Microsoft patents.
That said, FAT doesn't offer innovation and it is only because of Microsoft's monopoly that they are in a position to sue those that use it or write to it. I think the EU should look into this.

[monkeyfun14]

@t8

EU is a joke.

And you can't claim a monopoly on anyone with a patent that you dislike.

[hello_kittyhawk]

I believe that Gutierrez is basically a thug for the Microsoft Mafia - shaking companies down for "protection" money etc.

Tom Tom gave away the store by caving in about the linux part - they seem to have implicitly agreed that the Mafia has a right to interfere with linux.

[odubtaig]

The only thing that really rankles me about this is MS's insistence on inserting that 'promise not to sue customers'. Has there ever been a case of anyone successfully suing a customer of a company that infringed a patent? Ever? It's just mealy mouthed, unsubtle intimidation tactics. The only entity you can sue is the company/person which infringed the patent. The money owed is already out of the hands of the customer and in the hands of the infringer and it's the infringer that passes that money owed on.

It's typical of MS that they want to give the impression that using anything Linux based is opening yourself up to litigation. This is why, I may find MS's products useful but I despise their actions as a company. For some reason I'm thinking about leopards and their spots.

[CrashPad63]

Why do you open source folks get so wound up? This is a business for profit, plain and simple. One held a patent the other used the patent. The one holding is owed for use by the one using. Its not religion, its not the end to the world and you really need to relax a bit.

[djcaseley]

Can't help but sympathise with CrashPad63's view here. There view would still be will be anti-Microsoft if this case were the other way round, and an OSS author took a patent case to MS.

[odubtaig]

You both need to actually read my comment before replying.

I'll simplify it. At what point are TomTom's customers in any way liable for TomTom's infringement? If there isn't one, why are MS 'promising not to sue customers' for something they can't sue customers for in the first place? Gee, let me think...

It's the same scare tactic MS have been using against F/OSS for years. The nebulously vague threat of being sued should you merely download Linux or buy it from anyone not sanctioned by MS (Novell, Xandros and... oh, Linspire (RIP)) that they paraded just as year or so back along with the 286,202,875,778 patents which no-one know what they are.

I don't give a rats arse if it's a business for profit or not, that's no excuse for sharp tactics. Honestly, some people would excuse selling rat poison to children if it was sold by 'a business for profit'.

[cohaver]

Anyone that don't fear Microsoft Patents should Download PeerGuardian If your using Microsoft OS to Develop your Software Download Peer Guardian your Lab's and Testing Database is a risk to Microsoft pirates for patents. OS level Remote Code

[Viv Collins]

My reading of this is that Microsoft lost completely, a potential customer has walked away and decided to take steps to avoid using Microsoft technology in its products, the rest of the settlement is to protect Tom Tom's customers who have a product using FAT and the current model lineup in production.

For Microsoft this is a disaster in customer relations not a success

[notgonnatellya]

Huh? Most tomtom users are completely unaware of linux and probably unaware of this lawsuit, so it's neither a PR success nor is it a disaster with the general public.

Having Tom Tom as a non-paying customer is meaningless. This is not a loss for MS in anyway.
On top of that, MS got FREE USE of Tom Tom's IP.

I dislike most of these software patents, but as they go, this one seems easier to get behind than most (e.g. the company that patented "Buy It Now" 8-/

[djcaseley]

I have to disagree with a lot of people posting here. To my mind, TomTom has done a great thing here, and taken a bullet in the pocket for the rest of Linux-kind.

This act slows Microsoft down in getting a judgement of its patent assertions against Linux code. If their assertion is valid, then a judgement could be used in quick order against every money-making Linux vendor with US offices. If it's incorrect, and a judge says so, then TomTom will get its money back on that portion of their agreement with Microsoft.

TomTom has slowed Microsoft down in getting this in front of a judge, and has done the right thing on multiple counts. That's a jolly big tip-of-the-hat from me to them.

[redstarSQD]

"I have to disagree with a lot of people posting here. To my mind, TomTom has done a great thing here, and taken a bullet in the pocket for the rest of Linux-kind."

Hehe, here is one linux "rabbidt" that knows that linux is built on sand :)

[RompStar_420]

Not sure if I will buy Tom-Dumb anymore and I was looking for one of those gadgets for my car.

[t8]

The School bully stole Tom Tom's lunch money.

[bruceslog]

I say TomTom pays their patent fees the day Microsoft pays all of it's EU and other lost lawsuit fees.