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?"
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: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: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)
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?
Re:Microsoft's last line of defense (Score:3, Interesting)
World+dog simply avoided using compressed GIFs, instead turning to other tech to get the job done.
Re:Patenting mistakes (Score:5, Interesting)
Doesn't this seem like anticompetitive behavior? I think we're needing a new lawsuit.
Re:The right answer to this (Score:1, Interesting)
Maximum size of FAT12 is ~16mb. Still, if your FS driver doesn't fit in that size, you've got more trouble.
I like the idea.
Re:Patenting mistakes (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..)
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.
Re:The 3 patents (Score:1, Interesting)
Am I missing something? Why is it safe to use MS NTFS but not FAT32??
Re:Patenting mistakes (Score:2, Interesting)
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:Patenting mistakes (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.
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 it should give the longest life to the card. It supports many Posix / Unix filesystem features (hard/sym linking, sparse files, long filenames without ugly hacks, etc...)
However, I have troubles figuring out how to make Linux autodetect UDF, so I am not sure in my experiments I am creating the FS correctly.
What other choices are out there? For linux specific, ext2 seems to be the choice for native stuff, plus cramfs (sp?) for read-only. (I'm thinking of making a bootable flash card for my Asus EEE). I will probably have to use FAT for my digital camera as this is the only format it supports, but it appears to be the old-fashoned DOS shortname (not vfat or 32), so I guess these patents are not a problem?
This is what my research tells me, but it is not much.
Re:The right answer to this (Score:1, Interesting)
windows is susceptible to viruses. someone writes a virus that installs drivers for ext2, ext3, ext4, udf, etc., and otherwise does no damage. bam. problem solved.
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)?
Re:Grandma shouldn't be running Windows (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:Grandma shouldn't be running Windows (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Patents are supposed to be circumvented (Score:2, Interesting)
One thing to add into this debate: Microsoft can have a big imposing patent portfolio and can patent something like the filename table mentioned above, but its patents *can* be bypassed by similar inventions. The original point of the patent system (as I understand it) was both to allow inventors to earn money from their inventions by giving them an exclusive right to them AND to give others an incentive to develop *new* mechanisms to work around patented ideas.
Basically, if your competitor had patented something and was successful, the only way you can make money is if you figure out how to develop around your competitor's patent (thus, supposedly spurring innovation). This is also, I guess, why software patents are significantly more difficult to administer than hardware patents.
It makes many patent cases (and patent portfolios) seem less intimidating when you look at them in this way.
Re:Software patents (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.
Re:FAT32 patents (Score:1, Interesting)
I don't know why TomTom's need FAT32 anyway, almost everyone installs the software, why not install an ext3 driver and save loads of money in the process.
Re:FAT32 patents (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 that long.
Good LORD, some of you are WHINNERS. (Score:3, Interesting)
There was an interesting point in these posts. Linux's FS ARE under GPL. 4 ways around that.
My own suggestion is that the Linux world should consider LGPLing the ext2 FS (yes, have to get ALL the authors to agree, but that is limited).
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: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.
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...
Asimov hates Microsoft (Score:2, Interesting)