TomTom surrenders to Microsoft in patent fight
Summary: With TomTom unwilling to go beyond what is in Microsoft's press release, it seems pretty clear the company has surrendered to the company's patent demands.A TomTom spokesman confirmed to me just now that TomTom will not post a release on the settlement to its own Web site, leaving the final terms as follows:Patent cross-licensing with TomTom paying Microsoft and Microsoft getting TomTom's patents.
With TomTom unwilling to go beyond what is in Microsoft's press release, it seems pretty clear the company has surrendered to the company's patent demands.
A TomTom spokesman confirmed to me just now that TomTom will not post a release on the settlement to its own Web site, leaving the final terms as follows:
- Patent cross-licensing with TomTom paying Microsoft and Microsoft getting TomTom's patents.
- TomTom removing its FAT LFN support from its product within two years.
- TomTom claims its actions are in compliance with GPLv2.
The Software Freedom Law Center has not yet hired a patent attorney, a job search it began online March 4, and the Open Innovation Network has not gone beyond its acceptance of TomTom's membership, alongside that of Novell, released March 23.
So that's it, then. TomTom folded like a house of cards. They went down almost as fast as a Busybox defendant.
Anyone have something to add?
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
It sounds quite obvious
MS living off the FAT
Is that true?
Its not what they said a month ago. were they liars then and honest now?
The FAT patents
which Microsoft patented in FAT, within two
years.
That's how they claim compliance.
FAT-LFN, not FAT.
I am confused, violate the agreement for two years
Never seen anything in the licnese that indicated this was acceptable. In fact it pretty much says the opposite if I read it correctly.
Setting a precident like this (violate the license freely as long as you promice to correct it in the future) would seem extrememly dangerous and detrimental to the GPL and its enforcement.
MS has enough billions of $$$ to make anyone fold like a house of cards. nt
Would you fight if ...
It was never about the licensing fees since the amounts were minor, it was about TomTom not violating the GPLv2 since this would have totally eviscerated any TomTom technology that used the GPLv2 source code.
If TomTom is only using the FAT32 patents for 2 years before stripping them out you can believe that any payments made to Microsoft are a "token" and nothing more.
Most likely Microsoft had them included so they can wave them around as a propaganda victory. I wouldn't be surprised in the settlement amount was $1.00.
Why not say that from the very beginning then?
technology was $0.25 per device for a maximum of
$250,000 while the cost to defend would easily
eclipse that amount?[/i]
No! they had to spin the issue a bit, ha!
Let say they pay $0.0000000000001 to MS, it still
remains that TomTom was illegally using MS'
patents and not because they are paladins of open
source they were above the law
Even a token amount of $1.00
In return TomTom gets out from under, drops their own patent claims.
MS still gets to rattle the saber, recoups their costs, and TomTom lives. Everybody walks away with all their limbs still attached.
That's generally how these things go anyway.
The FAT patents
technology out of its products within two years,
in addition to making a financial settlement on
a cross-license.
Since they're not licensing what Microsoft
claims is its technology in Linux, TomTom is not
in violation of GPLv2.
I rather thought that's what I said
That something else is most likely damages for using a patent without permission. (shrug)
TomTom did infringe the patent, did pay for that transgression, and will stop using the tech. The rest is just weasel-wording for the anal retentive.
Can MS rinse and repeat with another company? Sure, if anyone is stupid enough to repeat TomTom's mistake.
Exactly ...
I don't think that many here understand that the cost to defend such a suit can easily out strip the cost of licensing such patents, whether they are valid or not. TomTom needed to protect its product line with GPLv2 compliance and not go down the road to a Pyrrhic victory from a patent suit.
Oh I don't think that is true...
Frankly, I believe this violates the very spirit of open source code and the GPL license as it can not be distributed freely and unencumbered.
You can only sue for the amount lost, and only more
Well, until we know the amount paid, not much to say. If the amount is
Funny how right after they joined the OIN
Most likely the more people that viewed the code/patents, the more people urged TomTom to settle at any cost.
My guess would be that they did NOT want to have any attention focused their way.
Or, was it MS that decided that OIN was too much for them and their patents
Right! That's why they will be PAID by TomTom
Yes, and HOW MUCH did TomTom pay?? Was it significant??