Bad News: Microsoft Gets its Way with TomTom

meGenius said on Monday, 30 March 2009

damn such bad company, TomTom, they helped microsoft in its war against Linux

Jose_X said on Monday, 30 March 2009

Did the OIN encourage this settlement? The OIN is backed by many supporters of the patent system. From that perspective, a "reasonable" settlement would be a goal. Such a "reasonable" settlement might dictate that the player with more patents come out ahead. Under this view, OIN would only get involved in the suit if one side became completely unreasonable, in their view.

Jose_X said on Monday, 30 March 2009

Another possibility would be for OIN to recommend that TomTom cede to Microsoft as the "proper" thing to do, but then change away from FAT.

..or maybe there is a larger push going on here to show FAT is an unwise format. OIN could be helping Linux build industry goodwill: Linux patents protect you when you use it, rather than penalize you when you use it.

..maybe it's intended that this result will help push the kernel into a GPLv3. Linus and many others mostly accept the GPLv3, but a change would require a stimulant/catalyst.

Darryl said on Monday, 30 March 2009

TomTom and FOSS brought this on themselves.

They knoew that FAT was Microsoft's and proprietary and patented, and yet even thought FOSS has its own file systems, but Linux and TomTom all have FAT and its because you want to gain some extra market by being able to talk too windows machines easily.

Seems like FOSS like to take the short cuts, and follow the trend and copy instead of lead. MS have market share, so if you can ride the coat tails of MS you'll do better. Except its theft and TomTom caved as they should. They are removing the code, and Linux will be next, the motto of the story is dont copy what you see as other's successes, like UNIX and Windows, if you cant innovate and create your own markets you dont deserve to gain market share by copying someone elses work, you have to do it by yourself.

Re write Linux so its not UNIX or Windows and come up with some real innovation please.

rich3800 said on Monday, 30 March 2009

As a Linux user and Tomtom investor, I was hoping that Tomtom would not fold. I am disappointed and disgusted at spineless Tomtom. Shame on Tomtom.

L1N{}X said on Monday, 30 March 2009

Darryl check your facts before you spout your ignorant nonsense. FAT was used "PURELY" for compatibility, nothing else. FAT was by no means an innovation. Linux supports more processors than any other OS. If you wish to avoid using it, please stop driving your car, using your cell phone, TV, Microwave, dvd player, oh and (assuming you are in the US) don't buy or sell any stocks, as the stock market's backbone runs Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5. If you do even a little amount of research, you will see the innovation Linux and the FOSS community have created. Buying a company and calling it your own does not mean YOU are the innovator. MS is known for this! (see here) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Microsoft_Corporation

Some Bloke said on Monday, 30 March 2009

Darryl, what an ignorant tosser.

Finalzone said on Monday, 30 March 2009

@rich3800,

As suggested by Jose_x, Tomtom may have been instructed to settle the lawsuit then move away from FAT.Apparently, Microsoft is more vulnerable than some people thought used to think a Giant Empire will never collapse. For these reason, those people never learn history than a tiny object can cause a huge fall.

FAT will be replaced as there are other alternative such as ext2 for example. Microsoft will look like a fool for stupid lawsuit. Their stock are plucking given the huge distaters from Windows Vista to Xbox 360.

Fat Pop Do Wop said on Monday, 30 March 2009

There's too much that we don't know, so we're doing a lot of speculating. Maybe TomTom couldn't afford a long drawn-out court case (Microsoft could surely stall and delay even if their claims were crap) and as usual, the actual details of the settlement aren't in the plain sight of the average man. And as for FAT, who cares about this mediocre file system's patent(s)? How can M$ justify a suit after so many years of non-action? I reckon FAT's nothing to do with the real issues here. Let the b@st@rds come out into the open and tell the world just what is making them work like such bullies. You conquer fear with knowledge and preparation. M$ instils fear in some by withholding information. Of course, TomTom won't be able to reveal the details either as M$ will have forced them to sign confidentiality agreements on pain of death-dealing financial sanctions. I think I'll quit the computer support industry and go back to window cleaning . . .

Zoasterboy said on Tuesday, 31 March 2009

This is messed up. Another martyr falls...

Bernard Swiss said on Tuesday, 31 March 2009

As NTP versus RIM demonstrated, when defending a patent-infringement suit against a bigger and a richer opponent, being plainly in the right is not nearly enough.

Recall that NTP eventually garnered well over a half a billion dollars ($612.5 Million) from a long-running, highly-publicized and expensive legal suit -- even though by the end, every one of NTP's patent claims was invalidated and annulled. The mere fact that any patents involved are ludicrous to the technically informed is irrelevant if the defending party is short of cash, in a vulnerable market position, the judge is not technology-savvy, or stockholders are unwilling to take a long-term view or just in it for short-term speculation to begin with.

Anyone who thinks that TomTom retreat indicates that it was ethically or legally in the wrong, is either ignorant or naive. Or possibly just too partisan to draw the logical conclusion from the acknowledged facts.

David said on Tuesday, 31 March 2009

"fully compliant with TomTom's obligations under the GPL"
That little bit is even cleverer - the agreement is 'probably' contrary to the GPL, but as long as both sides keep the actual agreement secret, TomTom cannot be sued for breaching the GPL.

Geoff said on Tuesday, 31 March 2009

I'd always wondered what the TomTom logo was anticipating..

TGM said on Tuesday, 31 March 2009

This is silly... TomTom really can't afford a long winded lawsuit against the sharks MS can afford to hire to sue them. They've put the whole thing off by two years. If Microsoft really wanted to make their money from this they'd have gone ahead with the lawsuit, which means they can't think they have much of a case. The aggression of TomTom is to be applauded in the settlement of this dispute.

Don't forget we haven't heard TomTom's statement yet. They have just told Microsoft to stick FAT up their backsides after all.