Has Microsoft's Patent War Against Linux Begun? 644
Glyn Moody writes "Microsoft has filed a suit against TomTom, 'alleging that the in-car navigation company's devices violate eight of its patents — including three that relate to TomTom's implementation of the Linux kernel.' What's interesting is that the intellectual property lawyer behind the move, Horacio Gutierrez, has just been promoted to the rank of corporate vice president at Microsoft. Is this his way of announcing that he intends going on the attack against Linux?"
Patenting mistakes (Score:5, Informative)
3 patents relate to car navigation systems and I can't really tell who's right...
But patent 5579517 [google.com] is very simple for all to understand: it's the infamous way of Windows 95 to offer long file names (32 characters) over DOS, which only allowed 8-character names.
So Microsoft patented the way to store a cross-reference between the nice, readable filename, and the ugly, DOS name.
Does Linux do that? Sure, there might be a FAT driver somewhere... But I hope TomTom doesn't use FAT. If so, Microsoft is abusing the patent process.
And am I the only one to see irony in the fact that Microsoft patented a software defect?
Re:Patenting mistakes (Score:5, Informative)
FAT32 patents (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft has patented a bunch of stuff related to FAT32 and has aggressively licensed FAT32. They would have pursued this regardless of the OS underneath the TomTom software.
Re:FAT32 patents (Score:5, Interesting)
And where are the lawsuits against Digital Cameras, USB Flash Drives, portable HDD's, the iPod....
Re:FAT32 patents (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:FAT32 patents (Score:5, Funny)
They're on the way, probably.
Probably. Because when you can't produce value, then you're down to monetizing your patent portfolio.
Bring it, Monkeyzilla!
Re:FAT32 patents (Score:5, Informative)
USB flash drives are normally implemented as a USB disk, not a FAT32 "device", so the FAT32 implementation (and patent concerns) are pushed off to the host that reads/writes to the disk. Digital cameras and iPods could be considered hosts in that sense, and they probably already have FAT32 licensed.
Re:FAT32 patents (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
UFDs and portable HDDs don't care what FS you put on them; they're just block devices and don't understand anything FS-level.
To my knowledge the iPhone/iPod no longer uses FAT32.
You might have a point with digital cameras.
Re:FAT32 patents (Score:5, Interesting)
This sort of thing boggles my mind. You, as a company, make a lot of lovely commercials talking about how easy your OS is to copy pictures, and do all sorts of cool things. You employ a kid to pimp your OS. Everything is clouds and rainbows.
In the past, you made it so your OS *only* supports file systems that you hold patents for. It's sketchy, but that's what you did. It even seems convenient to the end user cause they don't need to decide what format to do. Camera and device makers are faced with a choice to either:
A) Use your file system in the storage to make it easy to copy (like in the commercials you make later).
B) Force the makers to create an interface and make the copy process a pain for the end user.
So, most makers choose A since the standard's been published and things seem pretty calm and clear. Happiness abounds, and since the standard is readily available almost everyone else has employed usage of said OS. It's lightweight, does a simple job quite well. Device makers make plenty of products that directly support and utilize your FS and it seems to add value to your OS.
Then, you decide it's time to enforce the patent. Against certain competitors, or you start charging licensing fees. Device makers and the competition has to suffer since your OS dominates the market and there's no way to go back and stop using the FS since that requires recalling your entire product portfolio.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is: WHY DO THIS? Greed.. At least that's a simple answer.
More importantly though, does this qualify as either abusive or anti-competitive? I certainly think so. IANAL, but even if it's neither the former, it's certainly un-ethical. It's certainly a great way to get more people to hate you. It's only a matter of time before someone with enough resources hates you enough to pull you into court or a governmental session and start killing you in the public eye and in the bottom line.
Re:FAT32 patents (Score:5, Insightful)
Boy, you've made a very good argument for an ANTITRUST case. Perhaps the government will look at this and get the antitrust case against Microsoft right this time....
Re:FAT32 patents (Score:5, Informative)
To my knowledge the iPhone/iPod no longer uses FAT32.
I can't say anything about iPhones, but iPods can be plugged in to any Windows XP/Vista computer and be accessed as a plain old USB drive. In order for that to happen, they need to use FAT (of some variety), HPFS, or NTFS. If they are larger than 2GB, they must use FAT32, and to support long filenames, they have to use the VFAT variant.
Which means, they have to have a file system that is patented by Microsoft.
You can format an iPod using HFS+ on a Mac, but then it won't work with Windows until you re-format it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is why I use Polaroid and 35 millimeter film. Yeah it's old-fashioned, but you don't have to worry about your photos self-erasing themselves (like DVD=Rs) or simply dying (like a hard drive).
Analog has a permanence that digital lacks. We still have 150-year-old analog photographs; they've deteriorated a bit but can still be viewed and enjoyed. Who here thinks we'll still be able to read a DVD-R photo album one hundred fifty years from now? Most don't even survive five years, much less thirty times
Re:FAT32 patents (Score:5, Insightful)
What makes you say that? The people who understand software and software patents well enough to understand what's going on already dislike Microsoft. Those who don't aren't going to change their mind over this.
Re:FAT32 patents (Score:5, Insightful)
> What makes you say that? The people who understand software and software patents well enough to understand what's going on already dislike Microsoft. Those who don't
> aren't going to change their mind over this.
Because people who aren't patent/tech nerds but who have tomtoms are going to hear about this and go `what the fuck?`...
Re:FAT32 patents (Score:4, Insightful)
> What makes you say that? The people who understand software and software patents well enough to understand what's going on already dislike Microsoft. Those who don't
> aren't going to change their mind over this.
Because people who aren't patent/tech nerds but who have tomtoms are going to hear about this and go `what the fuck?`...
Nah. Think about what's going to happen with this thing.
Currently Microsoft has filed a suit against TomTom. Most TomTom users probably don't know about it, or don't care. It's TomTom's problem.
If Microsoft loses, all is well, TomTom users won't care.
If Microsoft wins, and TomTom has to pay money to license the patent - TomTom will continue doing business, all will be well, TomTom users won't care.
If Microsoft wins, and TomTom changes their platform as a result, then TomTom users might care if it starts to impact them - but they might not make the connection or blame Microsoft.
If Microsoft wins, and TomTom as a company dies as a result, then TomTom users will probably care. "Where am I gonna get map updates or new, funny voices?" But how likely is this scenario? Microsoft doesn't want TomTom out of business, they just want money... and they want to assert their patents over pieces of Linux code. They can't continue to extract money if TomTom is out of business. And of course, TomTom themselves don't want to lose their lucrative business so they'll be trying to find a way to make this all work...
So I really don't see why TomTom users will get all outraged over this.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Start charging for map updates? I've not hear of a single GPS with free map updates, except limited free updated in the event you bought the unit within like a month of a new update.
Otherwise the maps tend to cost at least half the price of the whole unit.
Re:Patenting mistakes (Score:4, Insightful)
FAT, as the lowest common denominator, is the best choice for flash cards and any other device that has to work in any random Windows, Mac, or Linux box. Otherwise, you'll have to develop and maintain filesystem drivers for your end users.
Re:Patenting mistakes (Score:5, Interesting)
Doesn't this seem like anticompetitive behavior? I think we're needing a new lawsuit.
Re:Patenting mistakes (Score:5, Insightful)
You jest (or at least the mods think so), but actually, you're not so far off the mark. As Windows does not come bundled with support for any file system that isn't patented by Microsoft, lording those patents over people is quite anticompetitive. Or, at the very least, more-so than the whole IE thing which started all this monopoly stuff to begin with.
Then again, the entire point of software patents is to make monopolies, so perhaps this is just what's supposed to be happening.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
IANAL, but if I was I'd recommend filing in the EU rather than the US, given Opera's progress there.
Re:Patenting mistakes (Score:4, Insightful)
As Windows does not come bundled with support for any file system that isn't patented by Microsoft, lording those patents over people is quite anticompetitive.
Well that was the whole fucking point of patents: keeping people away from your invention. Granting you a time-limited monopoly so you can capitalize on it.
Unfortunately said time limit is waaaay too long. Law does not keep up with the exponential nature of technology. That's the real problem, not what MS does with their patents.
Re:Patenting mistakes (Score:5, Insightful)
Physical devices, with huge sunk costs in R&D and fabs make a patent a reasonable tradeoff to incentivise development.
Software, not so much.
Re:Patenting mistakes (Score:5, Insightful)
I think what's really fucked up about this is that Microsoft is just now deciding to do something. FAT has existed for almost two decades, and the FS driver in Linux for quite some time as well. They waited for their FS to become a de facto standard so they could drop the hammer on people.
If you own a trademark you have to actively defend it, lest it become a standard term for the product type. Shouldn't technology and patents be the same way? If you allow entire industries to adopt your patented method without defending it you should lose the patent. Coming in after the fact just so you can grab your competitors by the balls is just crooked.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hmmm, I may be wrong but I'm sure I recall MS suing camera makers for using FAT in their cameras and that was thrown out of court.
This is more about the long filename hack rather than FAT itself.
I'm sure it will end with the same result tho
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
FAT has existed for almost two decades
Making the problem far less serious, as patents run out in 20 years. Too bad copyrights don't, creativity is creativity and all new art, ideas, and inventions hinge on what has come before. Inventors have it far better than artists, since they can make new things out of 20 year old things, while artists can't make new things out of anything made after about 1920.
And I agree, if you don't defend a patent you should lose it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
FAT's been around since DOS, FAT32 since what, 1998? Shouldn't its patent be expiring Real Soon Now?
Re:Patenting mistakes (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, all patents expire. Because of the date on which this patent (#5579517) was filed, it will expire 17 years after the issue date (Nov 26, 1996). So approximately November 2013.
However, it seems clear that Microsoft, as with most companies in this position, will continue to develop new derivative work that can be patented in turn. This will allow them to continue to constraint the filesystem under patent as it will be implemented in 2013, which may or may not matter depending on how the world works in the distant future.
Re:Patenting mistakes (Score:4, Interesting)
This exact patent is the example I use when people ask what's so bad about software patents. It is the most retarded patent I've seen. It's sillier than it seems at first glance.
If you read the Wiki [wikipedia.org], it explains that there are no patents on the basic 8.3 (DOS Filename) FAT itself, or even FAT32. It's a patent on the long filename support.
The basic problem is this: Assume you have a file system which only supports very short filenames. It has directory entries, which are a simple array of 32-byte entries. Setting a certain bit flag will cause the OS to ignore the directory entry.
You wish to add support for long filenames in a backwards-compatible way.
9 out of 10 software engineers, given this task, will tell you exactly this: "What you do is, you create the files as usual, but you also create dummy directory entries (with the "hidden" flag set), containing the extra characters of the filename."
THAT is what this is all about. That is trivial. It is not only not clever. It is obvious, and it is also not a "useful" invention - it's only useful given the horrible mess that is the existing FAT, which is only necessary because Microsoft has a monopoly.
The fact that we need to use this hack is an embarrassment to our industry. The fact that the hack itself is what MS thinks gives them the right to sue everybody else on the planet is laughable.
Re:Patenting mistakes (Score:4, Insightful)
What would be the point of a flash card if you couldn't take it out or update the unit anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
My Tomtom unit can read music and photos off an arbitrary SD card for playback while I'm driving an MP3 player or photo browser. It also supports Ebooks. The device itself shows up as two USB drives when plugged in by USB -- one for the internal memory, one for the flash drive.
Re:Patenting mistakes (Score:4, Informative)
From Wikipedia (cause I'm lazy): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table [wikipedia.org]
Microsoft has recently secured patents for VFAT and FAT32 (but not the original FAT). Despite two earlier rulings against them, Microsoft prevailed and was awarded the patents.
If TomTom uses FAT (12 or 16), then they're in the clear... Unless they're specifically using the VFAT extension.
Re:Patenting mistakes (Score:5, Informative)
Not really, it's been widely debated that the FAT patent would not hold up on a review....so I wouldn't be so jumpy.
Re:Patenting mistakes (Score:5, Informative)
A Darwin award? For using FAT? Like every camera maker on the market? And every DVD player with memory card slots? And TVs that have them for that matter? Not to mention stereo systems with USB plugs.
FAT is ubiquitous for flash storage.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Patenting mistakes (Score:5, Informative)
They've been suing over FAT implementations for years so this one isn't new per say.
Which is funny because it promotes interoperability for windows and doesn't require some funky file system.
If you don't want to pay the microsoft tax... use ext2 and put some cycles into making sure the windows ext2 driver is working well.
Re:Patenting mistakes (Score:4, Interesting)
The "microsoft tax" is unavoidable. Unless you can figure out a way to buy unformatted removable storage, you have already paid MS.
The right answer to this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The right answer to this (Score:5, Interesting)
Look at it this way...
Is your data SAFE in a Microsoft format?
What other patents do they have that my not have been asserted in this case?
Is your company future safe with anything other than pure, fully accepted and vetted open source I.P.?
How about your documents, and your ability to manipulate them at will, without encumbrance or fees?
Microsoft isn't the only company that can play the fear game.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is your data SAFE in a non-Microsoft format? How's that new version of ReiserFS coming along? You're spreading the very FUD people complain about going the other way.
You are completely wrong Saleen. Your data will be fine in ReiserFS format as it's open source and unpatented, hence nobody will be able to hold your data hostage. Which is effectively what Microsoft is doing. Microsoft aren't the only scumbags around that allow a format to gain widespread acceptance before launching widescale blackmail. Rememb
Re:The right answer to this (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Tomtom are a european company (from holland i believe), software patents are not valid in europe therefore they had no reason to waste money.
They also had no choice but to use fat32 in order to interoperate with windows, a potential antitrust issue... Other filesystems are light years ahead but ms don't bother to implement them in windows.
Re:The right answer to this (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That would avoid the two "vfat" patents, but the third patent is 6256642. This could apply to Linux's general strategy for managing Flash memory, no matter which filesystem is used.
http://www.everypatent.com/comp/pat6256642.html [everypatent.com]
I wonder if we will end up with Linux distributions with "vfat" support disabled..
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not a problem. Windows uses an Installable File System (IFS) architecture. All that has to happen is that the filesystem driver gets installed with the hardware driver. This can be entirely transparent to the end-user.
Grandma shouldn't be running Windows (Score:5, Insightful)
If every OS except Windows is able to
then Windows isn't the right OS for Grandma.
I know Windows still has major market penetration in many segments of society, but Grandmas just aren't where it should be. Get 'er a Mac. Or if you'll install it for her, get her Linux.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My grandpa breaks everything despite it being Windows XP.
Every two months... the printer doesn't work, the taskbar is 'missing', the screen won't turn on...
You know what would save half of the world's problems and increase productivity? Killing all printer manufacturers. How the fuck is it in the age of USB and memory protected OS's that printers still don't work seamlessly?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I have a strong feeling that, were it a postscript printer, I would not have these issues.
Actually you probably would. Without proper (colour) calibration with both the screen and printer its not easy getting colours to "look" the same. Low end gear generally can't be calibrated without some cheating. You even need to take the lighting conditions into account. Also you can represent more colours on a printed sheet than you can on a monitor. But BW is easy to calibrate ;) .
My printer is a BW HP P1005 (without ps) and i run only slackware. The OS drivers worked better than the HP ones and its s
Re:Grandma shouldn't be running Windows (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The right answer to this (Score:4, Informative)
I haven't tried plugging in a memory card formatted with ext2fs but does Windows prompt for a driver when it finds an unknown FS or simply ignore it?
No, it shows up as an unknown file system, and if you double click on the drive letter that it gets assigned, it "helpfully" offers to format it for you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It means that an algorithm is a mathematical construct with certain properties. Not that different from a natural number, a graph (as in graph theory), a real-valued function, or a finite state automaton.
You can't (and shouldn't be able to) patent any of these, so why should you be able to patent an algorithm?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you view software as text, as instructions on how do do something, like a recipe, then it is obvious that copyright is the preferred method of protecting your IP.
If instead you say that software isn't just text it's special text that incorporates an algorithm then what you are trying to patent is the algorithm. As has been stated, algorithms are mathematically based, and so this is where the expression "Software is math" comes from. Not that all software is math, (although that can be argued as well), b
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you honestly think MS is going to adopt whatever open source filesystem they choose, you're nuts.
Re:The right answer to this (Score:5, Insightful)
> is to get companies to start using a different FS on memory cards
It's not going to happen, and here's why:
* The royalties are capped. Beyond a certain point, it costs SanDisk, Minolta, and the others nothing in additional royalties for cards produced during a given year.
* As a practical matter, Microsoft can only force you to pay royalties if you sell the card preformatted. Leave it up to the end user to format the drive himself, and Microsoft can't make you pay them a cent. Technically, the end user would be responsible for paying the royalties himself if he formats the card with FAT32, but as a practical matter Microsoft isn't going to come knocking on his door.
Thus, it's self-limiting for large users, and there's a de-facto escape hatch for small users. The limit is high enough to make Microsoft lots of money, but low enough to not be worth the development and support costs of any alternate filesystem for the large users.
In any case, I'll be shocked if Microsoft ever launches into an all-out assault on Linux. Frankly, Microsoft BENEFITS from having a small & noisy group of people loudly insisting there are alternatives to Windows. It lets them point and say, "See, we aren't REALLY a monopoly!
Filesystem 4 flash mem(wasRe:The right answer..) (Score:3, Interesting)
I have been wondering what filesystem I should use for a flash card. Especially if I need compatibility. FAT doesn't quite fit the bill, especially if MS starts suing people over it. UDF [diskinternals.com] seems to be the answer. (Wikipedia page [wikipedia.org])
It already has native drivers in most, if not all operating systems, MS windows (apparently XP doesn't have write support), Macs, Linux and even FreeBSD (as I understand). Frome what I understand, it is intended to reduce the number of writes (intended for rewritable CDs/DVDs), so i
Good LORD, some of you are WHINNERS. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I assume TomTom's devices can use SD cards, and those are by default formatted with a FAT filesystem. Of course it is ludicrous for Microsoft to now suddenly worm out of the woodwork and claim patent infringement but that is a) clear from the start and b) besides the point.
Re:Patenting mistakes (Score:4, Informative)
I think it's a little more simple than that.
1) Is it technology related?
2) Does it work?
3) Does it work better than what we can do?
If you've answered yes to the above questions, Microsoft has the right to sue you.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think I remember that Microsoft wasn't going to enforce their FAT patents? I read it more than a year ago, and my wetware memory isn't perfect, but I really think they claimed it.. IIRC I even went to their site to verify.
(I could be wrong, but I would really like to hear others with better a recollection than I have..)
And now we know why Bill G's house is underground! (Score:3, Funny)
Actual complaint: (Score:5, Interesting)
Skip the ads and get the PDF of the complaint:
http://media.techflash.com/documents/tomtomComplaint.pdf [techflash.com]
A quickie read of it still has me going "WTF!?" a lot. Seriously - they patented such things like:
"Vehicle Computer System with Wireless Connectivity"
"Portable Computing Device-Integrated Appliance"
A quick look at the dates these things were granted, and most gadget geeks' memories should spark something: Most of this crap shouldn't have been patentable in the first place (wish they appended the patents to the complaint, though... it'd make things a lot easier to eyeball and evaluate in one spot).
I'm guessing MSFT is just hoping to force a settlement, so that they can then use it as a cudgel... thing is, Microsoft is using a lot of OSS code nowadays too (IIRC in MSN/Live Messenger, Visual Studio 2008, and etc - linky here [cnet.com]).
Re:Actual complaint: (Score:4, Funny)
That settles it.
I'm going to file a patent for "something cool you can do with technology".
I'll make millions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That would require someone do something cool with technology. Who is? Google may be a nice company, but web mail, craptastically feature-light "office apps", and search engines aren't exactly "cool". And who is doing anything else? (No, Apple isn't doing anything cool, either.)
Re:Actual complaint: (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The BMW iDrive [wikipedia.org] as well as Ford SYNC [wikipedia.org] both run Windows Automotive [microsoft.com].
Linux cannot be stopped... (Score:4, Informative)
But its growth can be stunned. The lawsuits are not designed to stop Linux; a defendant with sufficiently deep pocket can fend off the attack, EVENTUALLY. The real intend of these suits are to stun the growth of Linux through FUD.
Re:Linux cannot be stopped... (Score:5, Funny)
I know suspend/resume on Linux isn't the best supported feature, but it cannot be stopped???!!! Look at me on a freshly installed bash 4.0:
# shutdown -h now
See, it can be stopped perfe
They will face my rage! (Score:3, Insightful)
Netbooks are a serious threat to them, and they know it. To follow the netbooks will be larger machines with limited processing for the avg joes out there.
On a personal note, I find it very delightful that a company that Embraced, Enhanced, Extinguished, might be brought down by a tiny, cheap machine called EEE.
Microsoft's last line of defense (Score:5, Insightful)
I know that it's always silly to try to predict the future, but here I go none the less. For the most part, all of the core computing applications have already been developed. Unless business processes change significantly, there are only so many systems that a company will ever need to deploy. There will be word processing applications, spreadsheets, databases, webpages, file servers, print servers and a slew of other devices. However the core of the network and the computing environment will remain rather static. Over the last decade, Microsoft developed a lot of core business applications in the form of Windows, Windows Server, Office and Exchange. As the room for innovation in the IT world shrinks, Microsoft will have to fall back to the patent portfolio. If their lawyers were smart, they patented every single technology that they could with the foreknowledge that sooner or later, someone else would want to develop software to do the same thing.
I think we are going to see Microsoft leveraging their patents more and more aggressively as time goes on. They have poured untold billions of dollars in R&D. It seems to me like they need to pursue patent litigation to generate some sort of ROI on all those R&D dollars.
Re:Microsoft's last line of defense (Score:5, Insightful)
Record that, and come back to read it in 20 years. Or wait 10 years and ask your information agent to find it for you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're going to say the nanotech revolution (if it ever happens) wasn't innovative, because it was just a hardware upgrade. :(
Why are there so many bitter ancient geezers on /.?
Re:Microsoft's last line of defense (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok lets reverse that think back 10 or 20 years ago and what has truly been innovated today? and is not just an evolution of existing software taking advantage of faster and more widespread hardware?
20 years ago. That would be 1989.
*World Wide Web and everything it entails
*Global positioning system
*Digital Cameras
*3D Graphics cards
*Rewritable Optical Data Storage
*Digital Audio (MP3/iPod)
*Digital Video (DVD)
*Practical Cell Phones
*Wireless Data
*Mobile Computing
*Roomba
*Instant Messaging
The iPhone still feels like it belongs in a Sci-Fi movie. You mean I can pull this small rectangle from my pocket and:
1) Call anywhere in the world.
2) View a movie on it.
3) Hold my entire music collection.
4) Take a picture of someone and send it instantly to anyone on earth.
5) Connect to some whole world network and read or watch the latest news and find out the weather anywhere.
6) Play a video game with 3d graphics that blow away anything from 1989.
7) Have a large photo album on it
8) Find my location anywhere on earth and be able to plot a path from where I am to anywhere in the country.
9) With Google Earth, bring up a satellite image of practically anywhere on earth.
10) Have more classic books than most libraries thanks to Project Gutenberg.
All of this in a device that is 4.5 x 2.4 x 0.46 inches and 4.8 ounces. It may not seem like much since we have been through the changes
gradually, but if you take a step back it is mindblowing.
There are also a host of other technologies that were around in 1989 but were not in widespread use due their cost. Presumably, that means that
there are a host of technologies that exist today that we are barely aware of that will be widespread in 2029.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that most of those really core ideas, like your "retrieving data from a database", were done in the '60s if not earlier... yet the patent system allows companies to dress them up in new language, maybe add an "on the internet" or "in a car", and re-patent the whole thing.
Patent 6,175,789 is exactly this: It's a patent on a computer
I would challenge this... (Score:2)
As the room for innovation in the IT world shrinks, Microsoft will have to fall back to the patent portfolio
You think the room for innovation in the IT world shrinks. It doesn't shrink. If anything, there's more room for innovation than ever as more people recognize the value of software. It's just that, its a lot harder to understand where to innovate than it was before, but the rewards are there.
Microsoft's problem isn't so much that there's no more room to innovate then, its that, its not as sure as wh
patents (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, but I'd watch for the Democrat-majority congress and along with the new Democrat administration to Bono-ize patent terms just as was done for copyright terms. If they'll do it for Disney, why not for the US' largest OS vendor Microsoft?
Because many other large corporations will also be adversely affected by extending patent terms. Also it's not just Democrats who extended copyrights, the Copyright Term Extension Act [wikipedia.org] of 1998 was also called the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act after the artist/
Re:Microsoft's last line of defense (Score:4, Insightful)
Just one problem: They risk stepping on the toes of folks like IBM, Apple (who has more cash in the bank right now than Microsoft does), and other biggies that can make life very, very hard for MSFT.
Also, the payouts aren't as fast or as big as you would think: Sure, a small corp could/would cave in and settle almost immediately, and enough of them would provide an ongoing income for awhile. That said, doing so would force a lot of up-and-comers to simply abandon as much of MSFT as possible, just to avoid potential conflict.
Look at the GIF/LZH patent as an example - the whole damned thing mostly withered and died because Unisys was too desperate and stupid to realize that they could have taken a better approach. World+dog simply avoided using compressed GIFs, instead turning to other tech to get the job done.
I can see people start to do the same things with .NET, ASP, and more, if MSFT becomes an aggressive RIAA-style extortion machine.
To mangle a well-worn phrase: Nowadays, application developers see patent lawsuits as damage, and tries to route around them.
(I can also see other corps banding together and assaulting MSFT just out of preventative self-defense, too... see also SCO's troubles as a model.)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
World+dog simply avoided using compressed GIFs, instead turning to other tech to get the job done.
TomTom not exactly a historically good actor... (Score:5, Informative)
TomTom were found to be a gpl violator [gpl-violations.org] in '04, sued Garmin in '07 and Toyota in '08 [gbpatent.com] for infringing TomTom patents, and have a very restrictive EULA [tomtom.com].
Re:TomTom not exactly a historically good actor... (Score:4, Informative)
They don't seem any worse than any other corporation.
Looking at the EULA, it's really only the US version that has a lot of the typical bullshit, the European versions are much saner. Can't really blame them for doing the same things all other companies operating in the US are allowed to do.
And from the gpl-violations page (which was resolved in a friendly manner) :
As part of the agreement, TomTom will show it's appreciation of the Free Software and technology enthusiast movement by making a significant donation to the Chaos Computer Club (http://www.ccc.de/).
So they may not be exactly saintly, but don't seem overtly evil ... and compared to Microsoft ? Come on !!
Patent Abuse (Score:4, Insightful)
This has been foreshadowed for years (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft has been totally consistent in their rants on this topic. They are all for "Open Source" so long as they get a per copy patent royalty when it gets deployed in a shipping product. Because nobody can do anything without infringing their all encompassing patent portfolio. And they are probably right. And Linux is infringing patents held by every other tech company. Normally they just cross license between each other and little money actually changes hands, it is just a gate keeping new competitors without patents of their own to cross license at a disadvantage. Which is exactly where Linux is.
The patent system needs to be fixed. But every large company has billions invested in the current broken system AND, as noted above, depends on patents to keep new unexpected competitors from springing up.
Re:This has been foreshadowed for years (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft will no doubt tread lightly because IBM and others will not tolerate them taking Linux head on... Hence, why they are trying to go around the edges. Their hope, I am assuming, is classic FUD...
Meaning, in no way will Microsoft ever be able to take on Linux directly.... Doing so would force the hand of IBM to get involved because they have much at stake...
Re:This has been foreshadowed for years (Score:5, Interesting)
> Meaning, in no way will Microsoft ever be able to take on Linux directly....
Which they have no intention of doing, for exactly the reasons you mention. They don't have to. IBM can do what it wants with Linux, safe in the knowledge they are one of the companies with a patent portfolio. Tom Tom on the other hand....
Which is the message they want to send. Only players are allowed to play in the big leagues. If Tom Tom wants to enter the game they must license their IP from someone with a patent portfolio. Somebody like Novell or even IBM. But thinking one can just download Linux and enter the arena without a major defender is going to be shown as too dangerous for VC money, large instituitions, etc. At which point the major potential for market disruption implied by Linux, Open Source, Free Software, etc. is gone. This is just the warning shot. If companies like ASUS and Acer don't get the message expect an example to be made of one of the netbook makers soon.
Software patents (Score:2)
This'll probably mean TomTom will (have to) retract from the US market and leave some 300 million people to find their ways using dead tree maps.
I use a TomTom myself and find it a great little Linux device but I'm less than impressed with the way they treat the Linux community, for example you can only update via a Windows application that doesn't even run in wine.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Even more as their TomTom Home Windows application was built using xulrunner (mozilla).
Having so many Linux developers, yet not wanting to put in any effort to help Linux users. It's a shame, but not uncommon with companies using Linux for embedded devices and appliances.
Linking to a blog about the article...? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why is the third link in the summary to a blog about the first link? Ok so the first link is the story itself then the third one which only has three statements of thought:
It's been in the air for ages, and now it's happening:
/*He copies in some summary sentences from the article. */
Presumably those are the three that relate to Linux, in which case this is likely to have broader implications than just the in-car navigation market.
Here's a nice statement of how Microsoft views all this:
/* He then posts a small quote from the first article. */
In other words, Microsoft "respects and appreciates" open source until it actually starts to replace Microsoft's offerings, in which case the charming smile is replaced with the shark's grimace.
It may not be a coincidence that Gutierrez has just been promoted to the rank of corporate vice president: could this legal action be his way of announcing the direction he and Microsoft will now take in the battle against Linux?
Is someone trying to get page hits here? What's the "direct hits to my blog" form of Slashvertisement?
Those patent numbers (Score:5, Informative)
From the shorter PDF:
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6175789.html [patentstorm.us] — Vehicle computer system with open platform architecture
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7054745.html [patentstorm.us] — Method and system for generating driving directions
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6704032.html [patentstorm.us] — Methods and arrangements for interacting with controllable objects within a graphical user interface environment using various input mechanisms
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7117286.html [patentstorm.us] — Portable computing device-integrated appliance
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6202008.html [patentstorm.us] — Vehicle computer system with wireless internet connectivity
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5579517.html [patentstorm.us] — Common name space for long and short filenames
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5758352.html [patentstorm.us] — Common name space for long and short filenames
http://www.google.com/patents?id=02YIAAAAEBAJ&dq=6,256,642 [google.com] — Method and system for file system management using a flash-erasable, programmable, read-only memory.
Some other text seems necessary in order to type stuff and get links in.
UMSDOS as prior art? (Score:3, Interesting)
Could UMSDOS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umsdos) be seen as prior art for at long file name patent (http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT5579517)?
Microsoft might have tried to push WinCE on tomtom (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect MS has tried to push WinCE on Tomtom to replace Linux, and threatened them to sue them if they refused. These days, we see windows coming on devices where we would not expect it, and it is possible that there is some back pressure from MS.
Similar to the GIF fiasco? (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember back when GIF was the number one image type on the internet? And then there was a licensing issue?
Almost killed the use of GIF as a filetype. Gave rise to the predominance of JPG and the growth of the PNG format.
I can't remember the last time I saw a gif that wasn't animated (Which seems to the be preferred small moving animatic format. For now.)
idiotic patents (Score:3, Interesting)
The patents in question are idiotic.
In two patents, Microsoft basically tries to claim rights to running a general purpose OS on a computer designed for a car and having Internet access on such a machine. This is trying to patent a market niche.
In two other patents, they are trying to claim rights to the awful long/short filenames compatibility hack in FAT file systems. One patent is trying to claim allocating space from flash erasable memory in blocks. And the last patent is related to modes in user interfaces. All of these are trying to patent what any competent software developer would come up with when faced with such a programming task.
I hope Microsoft will be shredded to pieces in court.
Forgt TomTom - what about my in-car entertainment (Score:4, Interesting)
Aside from the FAT issues, these are even more troubling:
6175789 - Vehicle computer system with open platform architecture
6202008 - Vehicle computer system with wireless internet connectivity
There are a lot of people in the geek community who build Linux-based car computers: http://www.mp3car.com/ [mp3car.com] . These patents, at first reading, seem to lock up that entire product space. Or at least, that's how Microsoft is going to spin it...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Short filenames doesn't seem like a "Linux" issue to me since Linux doesn't do this. If Linux does have a driver that does this, then there may be some validity toward their claims. Perhaps that driver should be removed from Linux.
Linux's FAT32 driver does this. Removing the FAT32 driver would cause a lot of interoperability problems that would make Linux unsuitable for huge volumes of applications, e.g. accessing pictures stored on digital cameras (off the top of my head). TomTom needs this driver becaus
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
TomTom needs this driver because they store the system on an SD card with the aim that systems can be upgraded/fixed by directly accessing the filesystem from a Windows PC, so they have to use either FAT32 or NTFS, and as Linux's support of NTFS is essentially a joke
Linux's NTFS support is a joke? When did it stop working? I've been using it without problems for a couple of years now.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
ntfs-3g is the driver to use. I don't remember if they still have the big scary warnings but in the usual Linux trend it was probably to say "do no use this in a mission-critical setting!!!" in the early days, I've used it with write support for years and never experienced any data corruption. I did earlier experience a bug in that writing files past the 2GB (or was it 4GB?) limit on external disks would fail with error, but that's gone too. My read/write speeds are completely on par with Linux file systems