TomTom Sues Microsoft For Patent Infringement 166
CWmike writes "GPS device maker TomTom has shot back at Microsoft with a claim of patent infringement, after the software giant raised concerns in the Linux community with a recent lawsuit against TomTom. In a suit filed earlier this week, TomTom alleges that Microsoft infringes on four patents in mapping software Microsoft Streets and Trips. TomTom is asking for triple damages for willful infringement, since it says it had notified Microsoft about its alleged infringement. Microsoft said it was reviewing TomTom's filing and that it remains committed to a licensing solution and has been for more than a year."
Total War? (Score:5, Interesting)
Is this the start of a total patent war? That would be quite entertaining. Hope when the dust settles we're in for a patent reform.
Re:Total War? (Score:5, Insightful)
The funny thing is that, if the summary is true, it could have been TomTom, not MS, that shot first. Maybe MS suing TomTom was just retaliation for TomTom trying to collect royalties.
Re:Total War? (Score:5, Insightful)
What this shows is that firms which take patents are more likely to be involved in patent lawsuits. So the whole "we took defensive patents, now see how we need them" becomes a self-justifying circle.
Re: (Score:2)
No, what this shows is companies who employ full time attorneys are more likely to become involved in lawsuits. The patents are simply the weapon of choice.
EFF understands the threat against OSS and that's why we continue to see the stockpile of defensive portfolios.
Re:Total War? (Score:4, Insightful)
What this shows is that firms which take patents are more likely to be involved in patent lawsuits. So the whole "we took defensive patents, now see how we need them" becomes a self-justifying circle.
Isn't what you're saying circular? TomTom didn't get into this dispute because it had patents; it got into it because Microsoft did. But now, because it has patents, it and Microsoft will eventually be able to settle with a cross-licensing scheme -- whereas if it didn't, then it wouldn't have any bargaining chips.
The only "circle" I see isn't a circle at all but rather a collective action problem: If all companies voluntarily agreed to avoid this patent nonsense, then they'd all be better off. But the individual incentives encourage patenting. See the Tragedy of the Commons [wikipedia.org], the Prisoner's Dilemma [wikipedia.org], or any other canonical example of a collective action problem.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
in response to TomTom notifying them of infringement.
Oh, I'd missed that part of the story... Why on earth would TomTom do such a thing?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What this shows is that firms which take patents are more likely to be involved in patent lawsuits. So the whole "we took defensive patents, now see how we need them" becomes a self-justifying circle.
Huh... Well, I guess that's potentially true in the sense that "involved in a lawsuit" could then go either way - the company would have the option to sue, in addition to the possibility of being sued...
Though, on the other hand - a company that holds no patents basically has no recourse if they're sued under patents someone else claims to own. There's no potential counter-suit, no threat of retaliation to hold off the lawyers... So if someone holds a patent they can claim you're infringing, and you don'
Re:Total War? (Score:5, Informative)
Not likely.
Seriously. TomTom is a much smaller company than Microsoft. It isn't likely that they would launch a patent strike against Microsoft (unless their CEO happens to be Darl McBride ;), a company with a much bigger portfolio and more cash. As a comparison, according to TomTom's 2007 annual report, at that time, they had ~$2 billion in assets world wide. Microsoft has ~$20 billion just in cash.
Re:Total War? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you saying that in the USA the wealthy are at an inherent advantaged over the poor? That justice isn't blind and she looks at the litigants pocket books and leans on the rich person's side of the scale?
I was just wondering because I see the same thing and it is nice to hear that I am not alone.
Re:Total War? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you saying that in the USA the wealthy are at an inherent advantaged over the poor?
You mean, like the rest of the world?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
STFU. In America, the "poor" are only poor because they are lazy or just plain stupid. Anyone who is willing to work hard and make a few sacrifices can easily get as much wealth as they desire.
I'll (sort of) agree with your first part. Most of the "poor" people I know really just don't make the effort to change and improve their life. (Of course, your comment doesn't take into account unlucky streaks, people who have mental health issues, etc.)
As for "making a few sacrifices" and "easily getting as much wealth as they desire" - not so. This works for some people, but if it was so easy, we'd have a lot more rich people. But, instead, we have a lot of middle class. (Which, arguably, for many c
Re: (Score:2)
Really, now. This argument is a little silly.
TomTom has, apparently, been pursuing MS for a year. We have no idea what they've been saying or asking for. TomTom probably felt as you say - that it shouldn't file a lawsuit because this very thing would happen. So maybe they tried to bluff and MS called it. Or maybe they didn't think their terms were unreasonable but MS did.
We don't know what went on in these negotiations, but we do know it's been going on for a year with no license signed. Maybe it's one huge
Re:Total War? (Score:5, Insightful)
it could have been TomTom, not MS, that shot first.
There's a bit of a difference between notifying someone and filing a lawsuit. If Microsoft is infringing on their patents what else should they have done? You can't ignore it. Personally I'd rather receive a letter in that situation than a summons. Maybe that's just me....
Re:Total War? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Total War? (Score:5, Insightful)
True. But if it really has been a year since they sent the notification, it seems pretty clear that 1) Microsoft doesn't think they're infringing or 2) they simply don't want to pay license fees. #1 doesn't seem likely, because of that quote about looking for a licensing solution, so it has to be #2.
So how do you infringe somebody's patent and not have to pay them to continue using it? You trade. But you can't trade unless they're also infringing one of yours -- so you can file a lawsuit, which essentially forces them to counter-sue. Now you're both in the pot and you both have incentive to deal, and agreeing to a patent license swap is certainly the easiest and most pain-free resolution to the conflict.
Note that nowhere in that scenario does any party have to actually prove the other is infringing, nor does it even have to be reality. It just has to have a prospect of losing scary enough that you don't want to let a judge/jury decide an outcome. It can be fear of losing or simply fear of legal costs in pursuing a win -- and having Microsoft's legal department on the other side of the table should go a long way toward that.
And hey, if Microsoft actually succeeds in getting a patent trade without TomTom actually infringing one of their patents... well, they won handily.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But aren't courts tired of getting used for this type of thing? That's like two guys organizing a public boxing match between themselves. They get a ring, a referee, a crowd... As soon as round 1 starts, they look at each other and decide it's not worth fighting. If all they wanted was to compare each other's muscles, couldn't they have done this privately instead of wasting a bunch of people's time?
Re: (Score:2)
But aren't courts tired of getting used for this type of thing? That's like two guys organizing a public boxing match between themselves. They get a ring, a referee, a crowd... As soon as round 1 starts, they look at each other and decide it's not worth fighting. If all they wanted was to compare each other's muscles, couldn't they have done this privately instead of wasting a bunch of people's time?
I'm sure they are pretty tired of drugdealing, homicide, and theft as well - and yet those things keep popping up in court all the time...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What do you mean, you can't ignore it? Of course you can. Patents aren't like trademarks, if that's what you're thinking...
Re: (Score:2)
I have a navigator based on Windows CE. It makes me feel so dirty...
Re:Total War? (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words the Microsoft suit had nothing whatsoever to do with Linux, except to the extent that if your product uses Linux and you try to sue Microsoft for infringement of your own patents you can expect to be sued in return.
This is not a new situation. The car industry discovered that it was impossible to build cars without cross licensing between all the major manufacturers in the 1950s.
Re:Total War? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is not a new situation. The car industry discovered that it was impossible to build cars without cross licensing between all the major manufacturers in the 1950s.
Thus creating a nice high barrier to entry to protect the incumbent oligarchs. Further evidence that the current patent regime is certainly not good for the quality of the market.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The car industry discovered that it was impossible to build cars without cross licensing between all the major manufacturers in the 1950s.
The same goes for the microelectronics industry. Intel, AMD, IBM... they're all cross-licensed to the hilt. Patents are issued very liberally, and the companies don't protest each other's obvious patents, because they know they'll just cross license them effectively-for-free anyway ("I'll pay you ten million dollars for your portfolio, and you'll pay me ten million for mine").
The only thing this achieves in the end, as sapphire_wyvern pointed out [slashdot.org], is to create a high barrier of entry to incumbents.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So TomTom should have just idly stood by while MicroSoft used their patent without paying a license fee? It's not like TomTom tried to sue MicroSoft; they just told them "hey, you're using our patent, you should pay the license fee". Only after MicroSoft didn't give TomTom the same opportunity to buy a license did TomTom countersue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Total War? (Score:5, Funny)
Personally I'm waiting for IBM to jump on the band wagon and sue both TomTom and Microsoft for patent infringement for using electronic devices in implementing data reading. Then Oracle decides they want a slice of the pie and sues everyone for infringing on their patent to use patents to sue other companies. And just when this mexican standoff starts to get hairy, we get HP joining in claiming that everyone has violated their patent of patenting patents. At this point all the big guns come out and the pantent suites start flying until you need a a meter by meter poster to diagram out the connection using a 10pt font. The Lawyers then go to work, bankrupting all the companies and then turn around and ask the US government for a bailout. Which is when AIG strikes claiming that it would violate their patent of receiving government bailouts.
At this point the rest of the world decides to nuke the US to stop the disease from spreading.
Re:Total War? (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, Halliburton [uspto.gov] has the patent on patent trolling.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Surely a patent for patent trolling could never pass the obviousness test?
WHAT ELSE ARE THEY EVEN FOR?!
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this modded funny? It's true, and it's terrifying.
Well, I don't think it's an actual patent, but it's at least true that they applied.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
And then the dominoes will fall like a house of cards, checkmate!
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, it's IBM who has the patent to use other patents to sue other companies [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I'm waiting for Delorme to step into the fight. At the very least, I see them watching intently and weighing their options...
Re: (Score:2)
"The first thing we gotta do is, we shoot all the lawyers..."
Re: (Score:2)
Is this the start of a total patent war? That would be quite entertaining. Hope when the dust settles we're in for a patent reform.
FOOD FIGHT!
Begun, (Score:2)
...the Patent Wars have.
*cue John Williams orchestra music*
Re: (Score:2)
Is this the start of a total patent war? That would be quite entertaining.
You know what would be even more entertaining? If this were actually patent war theater.
Stop the world, I want off (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it just me that is a bit fed up with this sort of situation? The last few years seems to have seen the rise of the legal stalemate based on patent infringement where 90% of the patents are for trivial ideas anyway. I'm sure when the patent and legal system were designed this wasn't what was intended as it helps no one and just ends up costing us, the buyers, more money. I suppose it keeps all those lawyers in business though.
Re:Stop the world, I want off (Score:5, Funny)
Is it just me that is a bit fed up with this sort of situation?
Inter corporate relations look more and more like a kindergarden recess.
You infringed my patent, I will sue !
Did not nyah nyah
Did so, I'm telling on you
Oh yeah ? Well you infringed first, so there !
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stop the world, I want off (Score:4, Interesting)
Without the Internet, just 10 - 15 years ago...you probably wouldn't have heard about any of this unless you happened to be involved in it.
Maybe some trade publications would have covered it, but there were few newspapers that would have.
It's been going on for a while, it is just that the last few years, Slashdot made it front page news for geeks everywhere.
The Internet was a game changing, disruptive technology. Maybe things will change a *little* simply because there are people getting fed up with it. Whereas, in the past, it was just business as usual.
I know after watching what happened to SCO, I would have to have some kind of freaking air tight case to sue a company involved in Linux.
Even if SCO had one, they would have still lost.
Transporter_ii
Re: (Score:2)
It's been going on for a while, it is just that the last few years, Slashdot made it front page news for geeks everywhere.
I'd intended to disagree with you, and I dug up some numbers:
The number of patents [uspto.gov] granted each year spiked dramatically in the US (be sure you're looking at the second row) in 1998, and again in 2006.
Congress' statistics office determined that "the number of U.S. patent lawsuits as a percentage of total patents have not changed significantly over the passed two decades". [wikipedia.org]
This site [patentlyo.com] claims that suits by number of claims rose way up in '04, but the source of the data is not clear.
Likely the '98 jump was th
Re: (Score:2)
At least in the US, it also has to do with the circuit courts suddenly granting software patents in the 90s, despite the fact that SCOTUS has been always been very clear that algorithms are not eligible.
I know some people don't consider software to be algorithms, but I do, and besides, the actual criteria goes deeper than that.
Re: (Score:2)
10-15 years? I've been on Slashdot for over a decade, and since its inception this kind of thing has been covered here. Things like the Microsoft antitrust case has been going on for a while. It's just that big cases haven't been that all common because there's a significant chance of MAD.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right. If we didn't have lawyers we'd just need big sticks and rocks.
MAD (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Does anyone have some information on what percentage of technology patent suits get thrown out of court and how many actually end in settlement or damages?
Re: (Score:2)
But does anything actually come of these lawsuits?
I guess usually not if you have other patents to defend yourself. If you don't, you are probably fucked.
Re:MAD (Score:4, Informative)
In the past 10 years, the most notable patent lawsuits were:
SCO vs. Linux - After hundreds of millions of dollars were blown away in lawyers legal fees, the judge rules that Linux didn't infringe on SCO's intellectual property. Best site for news here is Groklaw [groklaw.com]
3Dfx vs. Nvidia - 3dfx lost and merged into Nvidia [firingsquad.com]
Rambus vs. Hynix vs Micron Technology vs. Infineon Technologies vs. Siemens AG. vs. Samsung
Rambus seemed to be suing just about everyone, and everyone else was countersuing Rambus and each other. Legal letters seem to be flying around like chairs in a Saturday night bar fight.
Hynix to pay Rambus $379 million in patent dispute [theregister.co.uk]
A complete list of legal updates provided by Rambus [rambus.com]
Micron vs. Rambus [cnet.com]
Although it does seem better to settle all patent disputes with cross-licensing as soon as possible, rather than slogging it out into bankruptcy
Rambus and Infineon settle patent dispute [out-law.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You forgot the whole RIM vs NTP debacle.
Settlement reached in BlackBerry patent case
Research in Motion pays NTP $612.5 million; devices to stay on
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11659304/ [msn.com]
Re:MAD (Score:4, Insightful)
Pretty much.
Large companies build up patent portfolios for the sole intention of using them in standoff mode or as defense.
I talked to someone in the digital storage area, and who basically said each company patents all they can so they have a large number as a defense. They basically have to infringe on others patents, and others have to infringe on theirs and they all just agree to go on doing business rather than pay the lawyers to squabble.
It is for these very instances. Company A goes to Company B and says your infringing on my patents. Company B's response is that you (company A) are infringing on mine as well. Nobody will win other than the patent lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
Be cool like Fulgencio Batista
General Carlos Castillo Armas
Augusto Pinochet
Gen. Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq
Or just get the "Patent Reform Bill" passed.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126994.400-us-patent-bill-a-chill-on-innovation.html [newscientist.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Virtual Earth? (Score:4, Interesting)
MS Virtual Earth has been around since the 1990's. How long has Tom Tom been around? Garmin has used Virtual Earth for it's GPS products.
I'm willing to bet Microsoft's case is a lot stronger than TomTom's
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
MS Virtual Earth has been around since the 1990's.
So has TomTom [tomtom.com].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
and when was this patent filed? Streets and Trips has been around since the 1990's as well. we used to use it in the army to drive from italy to germany
Re: (Score:2)
tomtom's first navigation software came out in 2001.
Re: (Score:2)
From wikipedia:
"Originally created in the late 1980s by NextBase Ltd, a UK company, under the name "AutoRoute", it was sold for DOS based PCs and later for the Apple Macintosh. In the early 1990s it was ported to the Microsoft Windows operating system. The company created a version for the United States called AutoMap. In 1994 the product was sold to Microsoft. Microsoft sold products for Windows 95 as AutoMap Road Atlas and AutoMap Streets under the Microsoft Home brand."
MS mapping existed before TomTom wa
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
MS mapping existed before TomTom was even borne
Which means precisely squat. Software changes over time (duh). It should be obvious to anyone that TomTom alleges Microsoft began infringing at some date in the Streets & Trips app. I'm sure they aren't claiming the entire concept infringes but only a part, minor or otherwise.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well for some this will be interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
"Microsoft said it was reviewing TomTom's filing and that it remains committed to a licensing solution and has been for more than a year."
Well until you have licensed you're in a quandary - you can't release, or you can but eventually you'll be sued. If TomTom doesn't want to license, and that's their right, then you are out of luck.
So you try and find some patent in your own portfolio that they might be infringing (even if it's a bit of a shady patent) to try and force them to license. "committed to a licensing solution" in this case simply means corporate bullying and threats ("committed to getting what we want for the least possible money"). With Don Ballmer at the head.
Yet another patent story... (Score:5, Insightful)
... this really need to stop... patent over a mouseclick or a pointer on screen shouldn't be patentable... In fact everything from a computer software shouldn't be patentable... A series of IF and ELSE isn't something new... whatever you do with it... Instead of creating competition in a field (the one that implement the feature the BEST and improve the MOST), we created a huge pot of gold for lawyers... at least it's friday :D
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Check the Firehose for another patent story (some fools tried to claim a patent on SOAP!)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Too lazy to post the link?
http://yro.slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=3828063&art_pos=7 [slashdot.org]
ftfy
Re:Yet another patent story... (Score:4, Funny)
Too lazy to post the link?
No, I'm using Chromium on Linux and though it's fast it crashes whenever I try to paste text. So thanks for posting the link.
Re: (Score:2)
what do you paste in chromium [reptilelabour.com] ?
(off topic) - Chromium (Score:2)
FWIW I work on a netbook (Eee 1000 with eeebuntu) which is small, cheap, robust, and runs for 12 hours on an extended battery.
But Firefox is painfully slow. Chromium warns "This browser is not ready!" but is actually really great.
Apart from that cut and paste bug and a few more.
It's fast, fast, fast, and I don't mind if it crashes. I just restart it, remember to not press Ctrl-V, and let other people post my URLs for me.
I enjoyed Firefox a lot but the speed Chromium runs at makes it a compelling switch, e
Re: (Score:2)
Konqueror is kalling.
Oblig. Red Dwarf quote (Score:5, Funny)
RIMMER: Let's get out of here.
CAT: Wait, I know this game. It's called cat and mouse, and there's only one way to win; don't be the mouse.
LISTER: What are you saying?
CAT: I'm saying, the mouse never wins. Not unless you believe those lying cartoons. We don't run, we strike. It's the last thing they'll be expecting.
RIMMER: No, the last thing they'll be expecting is for us to turn into ice skating mongooses and to dance the Bolero. And your plan makes about as much sense.
LISTER: I say go with it.
KRYTEN: Agreed.
CAT: You're going to go with one of my plans? Are you nuts? What happens if we all get killed? I'll never hear the last of it!
interesting business behavior (Score:2)
Microsoft said it was reviewing TomTom's filing and that it remains committed to a licensing solution and has been for more than a year.
Am I reading this right, "tomtom notified us we are infringing on and profiting from their patent, and we've been trying a combination of ignoring them and trying to make a token payoff to them to make them go away, and now they've had the nerve to sue us over it?"
"When did this start?" (Score:4, Funny)
I am picturing the MS headquarters, and a worried and puzzled Ballmer asking "When did this start, that companies stopped fearing us? And people actually NOT falling in line for each and every new Windows update we shit? And IE's marketshare declining???"
Next scene: chair flies through window.
"Committed to a solution"? (Score:3, Insightful)
[Microsoft] remains committed to a licensing solution and has been for more than a year.
Haha, yeah. And when I download a movie from the Pirate Bay and if I get sued for it a year later, can I claim that I "remain committed to a buying solution and have been for more than a year", too?
(Yes, I know, copyright infringement != patent infringement, but seriously, what kind of response is this? If anything, the only thing they're saying there is a) that they acknowledge TomTom has a valid case, and b) yes, they have indeed not licensed the patents in question, despite using them.)
It is 2009. The binary is no longer the product. (Score:5, Interesting)
That is complete bullshit, and may well be indicative of just how truly clueless M$ is about FOSS. They still think the binary is the product. Since the source code needs to be made available to the end user, the code for VFAT support would be delivered even if not enabled in the build. If they attack anyone, they attack everyone, and they clearly don't get that. It is no wonder they still think they might win in the end.
TomTom enabling the compile flag for VFAT support before doing a make doesn't constitute a "specific implementation". The code is in the vanilla kernel. TomTom didn't add it post facto.
Do they really think we are that stupid, or are they actually that stupid?
Lawyers. Now the Largest Industry in the USA (Score:4, Funny)
Scene in Office of Microsoft Legal team.
Head Honcho to team:-
Guys, this memo from SB says we may have to take a pay cut like other employees.
What can we do?
One of the team replies meekly:-
Sue someone?
Head Honcho:-
Great Idea. Who?
Another team member replies:-
My new car has this awesome sat nav. Shame it is not made by us
Head Honcho:-
Great. Lets sue them into oblivion. That should keep SB from threatening to cut our salaries.
Two of the team leave muttering
Oh Great. My Tom-Tom is great. Now we will all have to remove them from our cars.
Yeah. How are we going to find our way round this place if we don't have a decent SatNav?
Shhhhhh. If SB hears that you will get your pink slip on the spot.
Re:It is 2009. The binary is no longer the product (Score:4, Informative)
HTH
Re: (Score:2)
so they could implement it in php and be done with that ? :> )
(yeah, filesystem in php. bite me
Re: (Score:2)
I wish that was my point and I actually understood. Oh wait!!! That was my point [slashdot.org] and I understand it better than you do! I guess the line: "It's not bullshit; you just don't understand what they're saying." threw me off, what with me being stupid enough to believe everything I read and all ;-)
You're joking right? The M$ developers don't understand how Windows works (Hint: it doesn't ... a
Patent the machine... (Score:4, Interesting)
...not the way you use it.
In other words, software and business method patents shouldn't #!$#@! exist in the first place.
Although ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Even though Microsoft streets used to ship with win95, way before TomTom existed, I guess they must have used some new technology to tie into the streets program, that may have come from the likes of TomTom?
I have not RTA so, I am guessing here.
Re:Although ... (Score:4, Informative)
Even though Microsoft streets used to ship with win95, way before TomTom existed,
someone else who thinks that SatNav is a 21st century invention.
From http://investors.tomtom.com/overview.cfm?Language=1 [tomtom.com]
"TomTom was founded by Harold Goddijn, Peter-Frans Pauwels and Pieter Geelen in 1991"
That'll be 4 years before Win95.
Re: (Score:2)
Although it was 4 years before ms95, it was not 4 years before the first mainstream
gps mapping device
Re: (Score:2)
Their original products were PDA related. They didn't make navigation software until 96 and didn't make GPS devices until 2001/2-ish.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you shouldn't guess.
TomTom has been around since 1991. I think that is prior to 1995, but I didn't RTA to make sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes TomTom, but not a TomTom gps device. Shwarz smoke meat in Montreal has been around
since 1897, but it does not mean they have been serving smoked meat since 1897....even though they are now know as the landmark smoke meat restaurant. I think the same applies in this case...
show me the date of their first gps device...and the maps it was using to update this device and I will show you the first date of map streets by M$
Too Bad That... (Score:2)
What? No Bilski War? (Score:3, Interesting)
I suspect that Tom Tom's patent advocacy is going to prevent them from arguing Bilski.
What a shame.
MS in it for the end (Score:2)
This makes it apparent that MS is in this thing for the end result: namely, patents stifling MS-alternative software, and Linux adoption in particular. They are very likely to be willing to pay the full amount, if it means they've got a club with which they can threaten Open Source competitors.
Re: (Score:2)
Just to be accurate: it is a method of storing a long filename into a disk format that could only store 8.3 filenames.
Now the obvious solution is to add a file called 'filenames' and put the stuff there, and if there was a way to "hide" the file from old software (there was) then use that so it does not appear in the lists.
The "innovation" (and you can argue true/false over whether it is or not) was to use a whole lot of directory entries to store the filenames instead. It just happens that there was a diff
Re: (Score:2)
I know what you mean. It always amazed me the way Windows never crashes! ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
So Microsoft have a patent on windows file system compatibility.
Of course, here in the EU (which is I believe where TomTom are based) there is a specific exception in patent law that enables you to ignore them for the purposes of ensuring compatibility between two different computer systems.
This probably means nothing, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Slow down there buddy! You are posting to the wrong article. This one is about Microsoft patents that are guaranteed to get shot down. I'm not sure what article you thought you were reading.
You would make a great point, except that I have never been laughed out of court and never will be. The reason is probably because I don't think that direct causal r