|
Two Quick Words About Microsoft v. TomTom: Think Bilski |
|
Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 07:17 AM EST
|
I'm getting a lot of email about Microsoft suing TomTom for alleged patent infringement, first reported by Todd Bishop on TechFlash. I've put lots of links in NewsPicks for you, and here are the two complaints, the regular complaint filed in federal court and the
ITC complaint [PDFs]. I'll restrict myself for now to two quick words:
Think Bilski
Are Microsoft's FAT patents *hardware* patents? No? Then what makes you assume they are valid in the post-Bilski world? Don't even get me started on obviousness. Let alone who really "invented" that stuff. This may turn out to be an opportunity, frankly. If you read the ITC complaint, on page 23, by the way, you'll find that Microsoft is currently dealing with a nullity action in Germany regarding a foreign counterpart to the US FAT patents. It's also dealing with a Canadian challenge. If you are new and wonder what Bilski means, here you go. And to all those who insist that Microsoft has improved, and they should be treated just like anybody else, and included in Linux conferences and all that blah blah blah, would you please take a long walk on a beach or under a starry sky or something and after a little soul-searching, ask yourself: Have I lost my cotton-pickin' mind?
What might I mean about an opportunity? To remind you, after Microsoft squeezed past a reexamination of the patent in the US in early 2006, we were
told of some possibilities going forward:
Sources said, "The re-issuance of the patent is based on the examiners having accepted an argument previously advanced by Microsoft and previously rejected in the history of the patent, so documented on the file wrapper [the docket sheet of activity which accompanies each patent]." Therefore, the PUBPAT (the Public Patent Foundation) is "not precluded from bringing a new re-examination request, and there is every reason to believe that [it] will be doing so."
Officially, Dan Ravicher, PUBPATs executive director and founder, said, "If Microsoft sues anyone for infringing them, the defendant in any such suit can raise any defense they'd like, including invalidity, and even including invalidity in light of this same prior art."
Indeed, "The patent offices' decision has no preclusive effect on a court, and there are indeed cases where the patent office made a decision in a re-examination supporting a patent and a court later looked at the same exact issue, disagreed with the PTO, and found the patent invalid," said Ravicher.
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 07:23 AM EST |
I do not think so. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 07:28 AM EST |
Please place corrections to the article here.
A summary in the title is
nice.
--- "Then you admit confirming not denying you ever said
that?"
"NO! ... I mean Yes! WHAT?"
"I'll put `maybe.'"
--Bloom County [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: esni on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 07:28 AM EST |
My suggestion would be: 'would you please take a long walk on a short pier'
---
Eskild
Denmark
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 07:30 AM EST |
Discuss Groklaw News Picks here.
Please mention the title of the News Pick
you're comment relates to.
--- "Then you admit confirming not denying
you ever said that?"
"NO! ... I mean Yes! WHAT?"
"I'll put `maybe.'"
--Bloom County [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 07:33 AM EST |
Place off topic comments here.
Please break up long lines such as URL's
posted to the text.
NOTE: The RSS feed is down.
--- "Then you
admit confirming not denying you ever said that?"
"NO! ... I mean Yes! WHAT?"
"I'll put `maybe.'"
--Bloom County [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 07:50 AM EST |
I think the case actually could be made that this is a
patent of a valid type, as it does meet the transformative
requirement of a software patent (specifically it makes a
file or directory normally only accessible by 32 bit
systems also accessible by 16 bit ones.)
However, I think Microsoft is going to lose this claim for
a completely different reason: prior art. Now, my old
Macintosh is not running, but when you used it to format PC
floppy disks, it was capable of doing it in a way that
allowed the Mac to see the original Macintosh file names
and resource fork, and provided an 8 and 3 stub name to a
PC.
They released this in 1992.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC_Exchange/
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Regarding the dual filename method - Authored by: JamesK on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 09:56 AM EST
- Regarding the dual filename method - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 10:25 AM EST
- Regarding the dual filename method - Authored by: hAckz0r on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 10:34 AM EST
- ...can be argued... valid type.... question: how is it tied to a specific machine? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 03:27 PM EST
- Number of bits has nothing to do with it - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 03:40 PM EST
- Regarding the dual filename method - Authored by: JimDiGriz on Friday, February 27 2009 @ 12:27 AM EST
- Also UMSDOS in Linux - Authored by: macrorodent on Friday, February 27 2009 @ 01:29 AM EST
- I remember implementing something like that... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2009 @ 08:06 AM EST
- Possible prior art? from MS themselves? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2009 @ 08:09 AM EST
- TRANS.TBL - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2009 @ 09:19 AM EST
- Prior Art: CDROM/Rockridge - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 01 2009 @ 09:17 AM EST
- Regarding the dual filename method - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 02 2009 @ 12:03 PM EST
|
Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 08:05 AM EST |
One of the patents, the "Method and system for generating driving directions" is
described at
www.google
.com/patents?id=Xzt4AAAAEBAJ&dq=7,054,745.
That patent sounds
very basic, an algorithm which tells a driver where to
drive:
A method and system for generating driving
directions composes computer-based instructions that emulate a human driving
perspective. Language-based instructions guide a driver along a route that
encompasses a sequence of roads and intersections. An algorithm applies rules
based on human perception to route components. The algorithm diagnoses road name
changes so that instructions are clear and concise. The algorithm analyzes road
and intersection geometry at confusing areas, such as road forks, roundabouts,
ferry crossings, cloverleaf interchanges, and ramps, to generate instructions
that conform to a driver's natural perspective. The algorithm analyzes the
configuration of an intersection with respect to a driver's field of view to
compose a clear and concise instruction. When appropriate, the algorithm
produces compound instructions for adjacent
intersections.
I don't know how relevant prior art may be
or if the example below is that. Anyhow, the service Map24 has been online for
more than eight years, i.e. three years prior to the Microsoft filing date
Patent number: 7054745
Filing date: Sep 3, 2003
Issue date:
May 30, 2006
There are numerous versions of the Map24 webpage
at:
web.archive.org/web/*/
http://www.map24.com/.
The oldest is from 19 June 2000:
web.archiv
e.org/web/20000925063213/www.map24.com/map24/
and contains the
following German text:
© 1999-2000 NETSOLUT GmbH - powered
by MapTP
Digitales Kartenmaterial von Tele Atlas B.V.
Die Nutzung der
Kartendaten unterliegt Lizenzbedingungen.
Kontakt:
info@map24.com
MapTP is developed by Navteq and can be read about here. <
br>
I cannot claim I know the difference between MapTP or Microsofts patent,
but on a first look the patent seems predated by at least three years by Map24
and/or MapTP.
--- ______
IMANAL
. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: NibbleAbit on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 08:13 AM EST |
Microsoft is not interested in acting legally or illegally. They are just
interested in dominating the market.
If you look at their past pattern from the '80s on, they run a fowl of the law,
get sued and frequently loose the legal case. But by the time the courts have
finished, who cares about loosing the legal battle. The competition has
effectively withered and died.
Now a slight twist. Base your product on Linux and get sued by Microsoft for
patten infringement. They don't care if they win. By the time the courts have
finished, your business is gone. Do this enough times, and new products are
very unlikely to be based on Linux. No one wants to risk being sued for patten
infringement.
So what if a few pattens get invalidated. They have lots. They can sue 10
companies per month for many years and still not run out of pattens, although I
suspect they will only start actions against a few a year.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: nola on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 09:07 AM EST |
Microsoft has been known in the past to have smart lawyers. I'm less sure about
management's willingness to listen, but that's another issue.
I don't have the background to make an informed opinion on the merits of the
claims here. My suspicion is that MS has chosen what they think may be a strong
case with the intention of limiting the damage done by Bilski. I don't see this
a a prime case in itself but as a means to shore up other patents in the
portfolio[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ka1axy on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 09:12 AM EST |
It's surprising to me that MS was able to patent the concept of installing a
computer into the dashboard of a car, and networking it to other car systems.
Perhaps the particular *application* is novel, but the concept of distributed
computing was well known at the time (1999), as was embedded computing (since
other processors in the car are mentioned in the patent).
The patent for a wireless connected car computer in 1999 is also surprising.
Since it's pretty clear that the wireless connectivity they were talking about
is an add-on, and since wireless cards for PCs were generally available at the
time, how does combining a PC (installed in a car) and a wireless interface
become "novel and not obvious"?
Aren't these patents too obvious? Except for the cost involved, it would have
been easy to disassemble a laptop and remount it in a car in 1999. The only
other novel idea was running all the car systems off the same computer...again,
the issue that kept people from doing that was not that they didn't think of
it,. the processors and operating systems at the time weren't up to the task
(but they're patenting the *idea* of a car computer, not its actual design)...
...and, saving the best for last: the patent actually suggests (the real-time
version of?) Win95 or WinNT as the OS to run the whole show; security, audio,
speed control, climate control, etc. Maybe NT could have handled it on a 500
MHz P3, but I shudder to think about using Win95 and getting a blue screen when
I try to shut off cruise control![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- MS has patented the car computer? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 10:12 AM EST
- Obviousness - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 11:46 AM EST
- MS has patented the car computer? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 11:34 AM EST
- KSR INTERNATIONAL v. TELEFLEX - Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 12:29 PM EST
- disassemble a laptop and remount it in a car - Authored by: hAckz0r on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 12:54 PM EST
- Umm, what about empeg? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 01:54 PM EST
- running all systems from one computer? BAD idea - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 05:45 PM EST
- MS has patented the car computer? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2009 @ 04:36 AM EST
- MS has patented the car computer? - Authored by: Arthur Marsh on Monday, March 02 2009 @ 06:21 AM EST
|
Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 09:14 AM EST |
Well, I'd like to share references to VFAT (FAT32) in the Linux
kernel.
First, about naming conventions: It seems to me that what is
called FAT32 in the DOS/Windows world is called VFAT in the Linux world. I
believe there is a slight technical difference that does not matter in
practice.
FAT32 technically describes the size of the FS, and VFAT
describes the 'virtual' long file naming capability.
In practice both
capabilities are assumed whether one says 'VFAT' or 'FAT32'.
(I hope and
expect others to correct this post where I'm incorrect and to expand on
it.)
In the 2.6.26 kernel (current in Debian Sid/Unstable), the VFAT in
Linux is documented at
/usr/ src/ linux/ Documentation/ filesystems/
vfat.txt
The document can be found online for example at vfat.txt.
If I'm understanding my research correctly, the
source code to VFAT has been moved in the kernel tree very recently in the
2.6.28 kernel.
It was at linux/fs/vfat/namei.c (under /usr/src) prior to
November 2008, now it is at linux/fs/fat/namei_vfat.c.
The file can be seen
as a patch (because the whole file was removed from one place an added to
another) at
namei_vfat.c.
Note that much of Linux is documented in the source code,
and that is why I post this. For those unaware comments in C source start with
/* and end with */.
In particular, this comment is in the source (from
2.6.26) (e-mail addresses redacted by me):
/*
*
linux/fs/vfat/namei.c
*
* Written 1992,1993 by Werner
Almesberger
*
* Windows95/Windows NT compatible extended MSDOS
filesystem
* by Gordon Chaffee Copyright (C) 1995. Send bug reports for
the
* VFAT filesystem to [redacted]. Specify
* what file
operation caused you trouble and if you can duplicate
* the problem,
send a script that demonstrates it.
*
* Short name translation 1999,
2001 by Wolfram Pienkoss [redacted]
*
* Support Multibyte characters
and cleanup by
* OGAWA Hirofumi
[redacted]
*/
Linux' "DOS FAT" support is implemented as
a module stack, that I know of these modules are involved: vfat,
fat, msdos, nls_base, nls_utf8, nls_cp437 and
probably nls_* (everything nls). Note NLS is just a naming
system, it stands for National (or Native) Language Support.
In my
experience, vfat is not compiled into the kernel but instead as a kernel
module. The reason for this as I understand it, is that it is not native to
Linux and not needed early in the typical boot. I think this might be different
in embedded systems; they are not my specialty though.
Note that the
source code file for VFAT (namei.c in kernel 2.6.26) is just 24,341 bytes long.
The actual vfat module occupies 14,976 bytes of memory in Debian Sid
kernel 2.6.26-1-amd64 and 13,377 bytes of memory in Fedora 8 kernel
2.6.26.8-57.fc8.
This is a very tiny amount of code, in my
opinion.
I also noted that Debian seems to load the vfat module by
default, making it part of their typical default install. Not sure about Fedora
though, it was loaded when I checked, but I've been messing with SD cards and
USB sticks on that system, so it may have gotten loaded
then.
--- "Then you admit confirming not denying you ever said
that?"
"NO! ... I mean Yes! WHAT?"
"I'll put `maybe.'"
--Bloom County [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 09:17 AM EST |
Just a quick look through and about the only one I can't think of prior art or
obviousness for might be claim 8. I have not dug in to the exact patents but the
names all cover obvious old ideas, as 70s, 80s old.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 09:21 AM EST |
The patent "7,117,286: “Portable Computing Device-integrated Appliance” is
described at:
www.google
.com/patents?id=K_N6AAAAEBAJ&dq=7,117,286
and
reads:
In accordance with one aspect, a portable computing
device determines a type of an appliance in which the portable computing device
is docked. The portable computing device identifies, based on the type of the
appliance, a user interface configuration for the portable computing device, and
configures the user interface of the portable computing device in accordance
with the identified user interface configuration. In accordance with another
aspect, a car stereo includes a docking station into which an off-the-shelf
handheld computer can be docked. The car stereo also includes an input/output
(I/O) component that allows the car stereo to communicate with the handheld
computer when the handheld computer is docked in the docking station of the car
stereo. In accordance with another aspect, an appliance in which a portable
computing device can be docked is an integrated vehicle stereo and portable
computing device docking station.
As I interpret it, it
is about a changing GUI interface when you move the display from one gadget to
another.
Patent number: 7117286
Filing date: Oct 11, 2005
Issue
date: Oct 3, 2006
I am not sure if prior art applies here, but to
me it sounds very much like the FlukeView interface which changes depending on
gadget connected.
FlukeView is developed by Fluke and is an adaptable GUI for multimeter
tools. The FlueView has been around since 1999, according to
us.fluke.com/usen/produc
ts/FVFHistory.htm
If I understood it correctly, the FlukeView is
used on a portable computing device, e.g. a laptop, together with a multimeter.
Here are some features:
Expand the power of the world's
most rugged, accurate handheld test tools with FlukeView® Forms Documenting
Software.
To address the increasing demands for reporting and
documentation, Fluke presents FlukeView Forms documenting software. FlukeView
Forms increases the power of your Fluke tool by enabling you to document, store
and analyze individual readings or series of measurements, then convert them
into professional-looking documents.
Several versions of the product
are available, depending upon the type of cable needed to download data from
your instrument and depending upon the data reporting capability you need.
FlukeView Forms offers two levels of capability: FlukeView Forms Basic, and
FlukeView Forms plus Designer. FlukeView Forms Basic can be used alone to
download measurement data and create reports that can be saved and printed.
FlukeView Forms plus Designer allows a user to edit an existing form or create a
new form to customize the report to individual needs. A common edit might add a
company logo and title. See the [Features] tab on this page for more
information.
Capability Comparison
Capabilities FlukeView®
Forms Basic FlukeView® Forms plus Designer
Transfer data points from
your meter to your PC X X
Number of standard forms 2 9
Able to
modify standard forms No Yes
Includes FlukeView® Forms Designer for
customizing forms No Yes
Number of multiple meters whose data can be
viewed simultaneously 1 8
Number of concurrently running instances of
FlukeView Forms allowed 1 4
Ability to change company name on report No
Yes
Supports multi-page forms No Yes
FlukeView Forms supports the
following test tools:
* Fluke 1550B MegOhmMeter
* Fluke
1653 / 1653B Electrical Installation Tester
* Fluke 180 series
*
Fluke 287 and 289
* Fluke 45
* Fluke 53-II and 54-II
*
Fluke 568 IR Thermometer
* Fluke 789 ProcessMeter
* Fluke
8808A
* Fluke 8845A/8846A
* Fluke 89-IV and 87-IV
*
Fluke 975 AirMeter Test Tool
* Fluke 983 Particle Counter
The
ability of FlukeView Forms to support multiple instruments enables the user to
install and learn only one software application in order to use these multiple
tools fully.
Here are some dates from that history
page:
Revision 3.0 January 2005
- Added support for
the 1550B
- Added new product - FlukeView® Forms Basic for use with 180
Series, 789 and 1550B
- Up to six traces of meter data can be displayed on a
single graph
- Improved usability and many new features in FlukeView® Forms
Designer
- Added the ability to annotate forms with 'sticky notes', to
better explain anomalies
- Added the FlukeView Forms® Demo/Reader tool, a
free download that allows co-workers or clients to open, view and interact with
your FlukeView® Forms files
Release 2.2 February 2004
- Added
support for Fluke 1653 (see also add-ons & updates)
- Possibility to use
localized forms for Germany (ZVEH), Austria (ÖVE) and Switzerland Electrosuisse,
gem. NIV) (see Home ► Quick Link ► Add-ons &
update)
Release 2.1 May 2003
- Forms and data can now be copied between
FlukeView Forms databases: Databases can now be easily managed so that they
contain only the data you want them to.
- The Fluke 789 ProcessMeter™ is now
supported.
- Display Readings tables can be customized in FlukeView® Forms
Designer: The order of the columns and the number of readings displayed per row
can be changed, and custom user annotation columns can also be
added.
Release 2.0 February 2002
- Display data from more than one
meter on a single form
- Added Fluke 45 support
- Improved graphics and
printing functions
Release 1.6 April 2001
- Localized for German,
French, Spanish, Italian, Japanese and Simplified Chinese
Release 1.5
December 2000
- Added support for the Fluke 180 series DMMs
(183,185,187,189) and Fluke 87-IV DMM
- Improved, more powerful interactive
logging
- Faster -- database operations optimized for greater speed
-
Extensive documentation added
Pre-1.5 releases 1999
- Initial
release of FlukeView Forms; supports the Fluke 89-IV DMM and 53/54
Thermometers
- Localized FlukeView Forms for the 53/54-II V1.0 for German,
French, Spanish, Italian, and
Japanese
Well, to me FlukeView is very
much what the patent describes, and, FlukeView is prior art, if that applies
here.
.
--- ______
IMANAL
. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 09:52 AM EST |
This line from the ITC complaint sounds so familiar.
15.
Microsoft's continued success depends largely on its ability to establisch,
maintain,
and protecht uts proprietary technology through, inter
alia, enforcement of its patent rights.
As we all know 99% of
microsofts patents are on software, looks and feel written down as business
practices and hot air.
So after Bilski we can read this line as:
15.
Microsoft's can not continue its success because it depends largely on its
ability to establisch, maintain, and protecht its proprietary technology
through, inter alia, enforcement of its patent rights.
An other
company in a death roll.
/Arthur
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 11:31 AM EST |
I'm just baffled on both sides.
Why would Microsoft want to risk losing this over Bilski?
Why wouldn't TomTom just pay up like everybody else does? It's cheap money -
extortion, sure, but cheap. Why fight?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: CraigAgain on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 11:49 AM EST |
Okay, PJ's back now. (M$ screwed up; they shouldn't have ticked her off.)
---
Don't change your dreams to fit reality. Change reality to fit your dreams.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 03:31 PM EST |
linux umsdos also did long to short filename mapping.
It was in the Linux kernel from 1992 to 2008.
Also Wordperfect 5.1 for DOS did this in 1989 (and perhaps in earlier
versions).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 05:00 PM EST |
Patent 6,704,032: “Methods and Arrangements for Interacting with Controllable
Objects within a Graphical User Interface Environment Using Various Input
Mechanisms” can be read at:
www.google
.com/patents?id=zb0QAAAAEBAJ&dq=6,704,032
and
reads:
Improved methods and arrangements provide user
interface platforms that are capable of meeting the unique requirements of
manufacturers, while also advantageously supporting the development of
independently designed software applications. In accordance with certain aspects
of the present invention, methods and arrangements are provided whereby certain
key events are defined and operatively associated with the hardware suite. These
key events, which are essentially virtual events, can be invoked or otherwise
implemented by the manufacturers and independent software vendor (ISV)
applications. These key events are categorized as being either determinate
events or indeterminate events, and their functionality can be based on
different behavior models. The behavior models consider the notion that the user
interface will most likely include various focusing (e.g., function selection)
and/or editing (e.g., parameter modifying) capabilities. As such, the methods
and arrangements can...
As I interpret that patent, it is
in part about how to simulate "real buttons" with "virtual buttons" yet
controlled by "real buttons".
Some basic facts of the patent
are:
Filing date: Oct 27, 2000
Issue date: Mar 9, 2004
One
group of software which commonly simulate various types of buttons is music
programs. Here one can mention CakeWalk as example, as it has been around for a
long time:
web.archive.org/web/*/www.c
akewalk.com
where the oldest version is from 1996.
Cubase
is another program which use a zillion virtual buttons and developed by
Steinberg:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/www.steinberg.net
At first
sight, I think both these programs are prior art regarding the patent described
above.
--- ______
IMANAL
. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 06:29 PM EST |
Haven't seen this angle discussed yet, the ITC aspect of it.
My feeling is -- go ahead, Microsoft, go after not just U.S. firms
but the rest of the world. Quickest way to get foreign countries
to renounce U.S. patent laws. The fruit of U.S. Patent Office
stupidity and the U.S. Bonus Culture.
In an economy like this. Brilliant.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 07:27 PM EST |
I get the impression from the article by By Erika Morphy that the attack is from a slightly
different angle. Take a couple of quotes:
Microsoft is seeking "to
obtain an exclusionary order barring the importation of TomTom devices at our
border," he said.
Microsoft's Gutierrez, for his part,
has told reporters that the filings are not targeting Linux technology per se,
but rather the manner in which TomTom has used it.
Considering the
Bilkski decision has a requirement to have a patent "tied to a particular
device", it seems to me, the focus of MS' target is not Linux (although I'm sure
they'd love to target that), but the TomTom device itself.
I wonder if MS
would have even bothered if TomTom created the device, modified an appropriate
version (or simply put together the correct packages) and made it available for
download. In short:
Instead of TomTom creating the device and importing it
into the US with all the software installed!
They:
Created the device
importing it into the US without software. Then the software was added in the
US by the customer.
MS wouldn't be able to target the device anymore,
they'd have to target Linux directly.
Second hunch: it's the combination
of software on the device Microsoft doesn't like. Whether it's the combination
or specific software, Microsoft seems to be directly targeting the device to
indirectly target Linux. I wonder if TomTom can use the fact that MS' patents
are not actually attached to a device to have themselves declared
safe.
Either way, with the angle of the attack being trade, it doesn't
appear TomTom has that much time unless they can get a Judge to have anything
else put on hold while s/he makes a ruling on the validity of the Microsoft
patents.
RAS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: hAckz0r on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 08:43 PM EST |
Vehicle computer system with wireless internet connectivity...
A
computer is mounted within the housing and executes an open platform,
multi-tasking, operating system.
Since when has Microsoft ever
had an "open platform" of any kind. In my opinion those words are custom
tailored for Linux. Why would they ever say "open" when dealing with a profit
motivation with a proprietary software operating system as their core business
model?
I don't know a whole lot about the patent business but I notice a
little "B1" right after the patent number, which I might suspect is some kind of
revision number. What are the odds that the word "open" was added in the last
revision? --- DRM - As a "solution", it solves the wrong problem; As a
"technology" its only 'logically' infeasible. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 09:59 PM EST |
I'm sure that M$ weighed the issue of Bliski when this complaint was filed. I
personally think that this is the first many nuisance suits that M$ will file
against Linux and Open Source applications. Though, the M$ complaint will
provide some FUD value it also provides a distraction from other M$ more
immediate plans to roll out Win7 and Silverlight.
What a coincidence that the timing is mere hours after M$'s announcement to
provide computer training - using the M$ Silverlight web presentation algorithm
- to federal and several state governments. Ah, state sanctioned support of a
proprietary non-standard web presentation algorithm, what a sweet plum that
would be.
stage_v
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- They thought - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2009 @ 05:00 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2009 @ 01:53 AM EST |
Again, with working link.... (sorry, but the comment editor is not really
good)
It might have been posted already, but even then, one can not mention it
too often:
MS' claims with regard to FAT are a toothless tiger at least
here in Europe as they already fell flat on their stomach when they tried to
intimidate German competitors with this.
Here is a more detailed
explanation that might be convenient for American lawyers, and the full text of
the verdict.
Please spread this to other places as this might be helpful in
this and the other cases that will follow and might convince als American judges
outside Texas... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Link corrected - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2009 @ 01:55 AM EST
|
Authored by: Winter on Friday, February 27 2009 @ 04:49 AM EST |
From the Heise link: Federal Patent Court
declares FAT patent of Microsoft null and void
Since
December 2003 the software heavyweight has been offering FAT file system
licenses, which range in price from 25 US cents per unit to a maximum one-off
payment of 250,000 US dollars per manufacturer/vendor. By purchasing the license
the licensees acquire permission to format storage media such as flash memory
systems with the file system and apply the protected
technology.
This patent must be a real cash
cow!
This means that MS controls much of the Flash memory market as
every producer of a controller active in the USA must get an MS
license. A license that could, eg, have conditions to harm
competitors.
Rob
--- Some say the sun rises in the east, some
say it rises in the west; the truth lies probably somewhere in between. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2009 @ 06:20 AM EST |
These are the claims from the 5,579,517 Microsoft long file name patent, which
is only 1 of 8 patents involved in the TomTom suit. Most of the others are
related to computers in cars.
As you can plainly see, the claims are tightly tied to a machine.
Accordingly, they clearly meet the requirements of the MACHINE OR Transformation
test decreed in Bilski.
If you look at enough Microsoft claims, you'll soon see that they are all tied
to machine. It's as if they have been anticipating Bilski for 20 years....
1. In a computer system having a processor running an operating system and a
memory means storing the operating system, a method comprising the
computer-implemented steps of:
(a) storing in the memory means a first directory entry for a file wherein
the first directory entry holds a short filename for the file, said short
filename including at most a maximum number of characters that is permissible by
the operating system;
(b) storing in the memory means a second directory entry for a the file
wherein the second directory entry holds a long filename for the file and
wherein the second directory entry includes an attributes field which may be set
to make the second directory entry invisible to the operating system and the
step of storing the second directory entry further comprises the step of setting
the attributes field so that the second directory entry is invisible to the
operating system, said long filename including more than the maximum number of
characters that is permissible by the operating system; and
(c) accessing the first directory entry with the operating system.
2. In a computer system having a processor running an operating system and a
memory means storing the operating system, a method, comprising the
computer-implemented steps of:
(a) storing in the memory means a first directory entry for a file wherein
the first directory entry holds a short filename for the file, said short
filename including at most a maximum number of characters that is permissible by
the operating system;
(b) storing in the memory means a second directory entry for the file
wherein the second directory entry holds a long filename for the file and
storing a checksum of the short filename in the second directory entry, said
long filename including more than the maximum number of characters that is
permissible by the operating system; and
(c) accessing the first directory entry with the operating system.
3. In a computer system having a processor running an operating system and a
memory means storing the operating system, a method, comprising the
computer-implemented steps of:
(a) storing in the memory means a first directory entry for a file wherein
the first directory entry holds a short filename for the file, said short
filename including at most a maximum number of characters that is permissible by
the operating system;
(b) storing in the memory means a second directory entry for the file
wherein the second directory entry holds a long filename for the file, said long
filename including more than the maximum number of characters that is
permissible by the operating system;
(c) accessing the first directory entry with the operating system;
(d) storing in the memory means at least one additional directory entry
holding a next portion of the long filename and a checksum of the short
filename.
4. In a computer system having a processor running an operating system and a
memory means storing the operating system, a method, comprising the
computer-implemented steps of:
(a) storing in the memory means a first directory entry for a file wherein
the first directory entry holds a short filename for the file, said short
filename including at most a maximum number of characters that is permissible by
the operating system;
(b) storing in the memory means a second directory entry for the file
wherein the second directory entry holds a long filename for the file, said long
filename including more than the maximum number of characters that is
permissible by the operating system;
(c) accessing the first directory entry with the operating system;
(d) storing in the memory means at least one additional directory entry
holding a next portion of the long filename and a signature that uniquely
identifies which portion of the long filename.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Friday, February 27 2009 @ 06:38 AM EST |
The US patent "6,202,008 - Vehicle computer system with wireless internet
connectivity" is described at:
www.google
.com/patents?id=crt7AAAAEBAJ&dq=6,202,008
and is summarized
as:
A vehicle computer system has a housing sized to be
mounted in a vehicle dashboard or other appropriate location. A computer is
mounted within the housing and executes an open platform, multi-tasking
operating system. The computer runs multiple applications on the operating
system, including both vehicle-related applications (e.g., vehicle security
application, vehicle diagnostics application, communications application, etc.)
and non-vehicle-related applications (e.g., entertainment application, word
processing, etc.). The computer system has an Internet wireless link to provide
access to the Internet. One or more of the applications may utilize the link to
access content on the Internet.
some facts about the
patent:
Patent number: 6202008
Filing date: Sep 10, 1999
Issue
date: Mar 13, 2001
There are many prophets in the world, and the
submitters are not necessarily among them. But George Gilder may be one of them.
The quote below is from a web page at:
www.seas.upenn.edu/~gaj1/in
ventgg.html
and titled "INVENTING THE INTERNET
AGAIN".
The page is described as follows:
This
series of articles by George Gilder provides some interesting technological and
cultural background that helps prepare readers to better understand and place in
proper perspective the events relative to the National Data Super Highway, which
are unfolding almost daily in the national press. I contacted the author and
Forbes and as the preface below indicates obtained permission to post on the
Internet. Please note that the preface to this article and all footnotes must be
included when cross posting or uploading this article.
The following
article, INVENTING THE INTERNET AGAIN, was first published in Forbes ASAP, June
2, 1997. It is a portion of George Gilder's book, Telecosm, which will be
published in 1997 by Simon & Schuster, as a sequel to Microcosm, published
in 1989 and Life After Television published by Norton in 1992. Subsequent
chapters of Telecosm will be serialized in Forbes ASAP.
According to
Web-Counter, this article has been accessed times since June
23,1997.
While I haven't seen the book Telecosm,
the web page itself predates any filing dates of the patent.
And, what
I find most interesting is a paragraph in the middle of the article, where I
have underlined the most intriguing part in an
excerpt:
Going over the cliff of costs, the industry
can
introduce radically new products. We have just undergone
the epoch of the
personal computer, climaxing in 1996 with
PCs outselling TVs in units for the
first time. We are now
entering a new era when a new form of PC will be
dominant.
It may not do Windows, but it will do doors.
Tetherlessly
transcending most of the limitations of the current PC era,
the
most common PC will be a digital cellular phone.
It will be a
dataphone, as faithful readers of these
pages will know. It will be as portable
as your watch and
as personal as your wallet. It will recognize speech
and
convert it to text. It will plug into a slot in your car
and help you
navigate streets. It will consult electronic
yellow pages and give directions
to the nearest gas station,
restaurant, police headquarters, or hotel. It will
collect
your news and your mail and, if you wish, it will read them
to you.
It will conduct transactions and load credit into a
credit chip on a smart card,
which can be used like cash.
It can pay your taxes, or help you avoid them, or
soothe you
with soft music as you do your calculus homework. It will
take
digital pictures and project them onto a wall or
screen, or dispatch them to any
other dataphone or computer.
It will have an Internet address and a Java
run-time engine
that allows it to execute any applet or program written in
that
increasingly universal language. Or it will dock in a
more powerful machine to
perform more demanding functions.
It will link to any compatible display,
monitor, keyboard,
storage device, or other peripheral through infrared
pulses
or radio frequencies.
And, oh yes, it will unlock your
front door or car
door, open your garage door, or even play Jim Morrison
songs,
if you are old enough to care for those swinging
Doors of the 1960s (amazingly
enough, my teenage daughters
do).
Sorry, though, Nokia, your
model 9000, which comes
closest today to this new machine, will not cut it, at
least
in the United States, because it is based on Europe's
increasingly
obsolescent GSM standard. Also offering the
right form factor but the wrong
access standard is the IBM-
BellSouth Simon, which is based on the U.S. analog
cellular
system (AMPS) or CDPD (cellular digital packet data). The
most common
PC will not be a GSM or CDPD device, because it
will soon need to provide
bandwidth on demand while draining
the lowest possible power, whenever it is not
plugged in.
Thus the first PC of the new paradigm will probably have to
be
CDMA, built from the bottom up to provide bandwidth on
demand, according to
TCP/IP Internet standards, at a handful
of milliwatts of communications
power.
While I haven't yet read all of it, I
think this as close to a blueprint you can come. And, above all, it predates the
filing of the patent with at least two years.
There are numerous
versions of the webpage as listed by www.archive.org. The oldest archived is from 31 July
1997.
--- ______
IMANAL
. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: TiddlyPom on Friday, February 27 2009 @ 10:04 AM EST |
Just an idea.
Before I start, I don't have a TomTom or Garmin
(although I have used/borrowed one) so take this with a pinch of
salt.
Why not format the flash as
EXT2?
I have done this myself (for embedded applications) as this
gets around the stupid 2GB limit of FAT32.
This would allow TomTom to
get around the need to use FAT32 within their own code. They would (of course)
have to provide a little utility for reading/writing EXT2/3 to/from FLASH under
Windows but with code like EXT2IFS and
Explore2FS around, it cannot
be that hard (and I have written Windows device drivers in the
past).
Having done that, they can concentrate on defeating Microsoft
without having to worry about being taken to court over FAT32 (which I view as
viral MS technology much as the NTFS-3G driver and Mono/.NET
is).
Having said all that, hopefully this stupidity should be thrown
out with reference to the Bilski case and Microsoft exposed as the toothless
'patent bully' that they appear to be.
--- Open Source Software -
Unpicking the Microsoft monopoly piece-by-piece. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2009 @ 11:23 AM EST |
I think it is pretty simple...Microsoft want to have the patents against Linux
have a piggyback ride so that patents, that on themselves are doomed to not
stand post-Bliski world, will get more FUD value if TomTom is forced to pay for
Microsoft IP.
If they are successful I think we will see many more patent suits when Microsoft
add some Linux related patents to patents they think can be enforced. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Only in the US - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2009 @ 05:07 PM EST
- Only in the US - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2009 @ 06:36 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2009 @ 07:32 PM EST |
NOT a software method, they actually have just about NOTHING to do with each
other.
To say they are even close to the same thing shows how little you know about
what you're talking about.
About what i would expect from PARAlegal or ex-para.
Learn the law and what your talking about.
SO when are you going after the FSF for taking Cisco to court regarding
COPYRIGHT LAW ???
Groklaw is a joke, paralegals are secretaries NOT lawyers.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2009 @ 11:41 PM EST |
Bilski or not, the lesson of the VFAT patents is that it's perfectly legal to
file for a patent of an ugly kludge. Unix implemented long file names right,
while MS copied CP/M, which in turn had copied other older file systems. They
had to patch it to accept long file names without breaking compatibility. I
sympathize with the poor souls who were assigned to make that work! Wasting
multiple directory entries to emulate a long file name in an 8.3 file-name
system is nothing I'd want my name associated with for all posterity to see.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- So, Software Patents are good! - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 28 2009 @ 06:47 AM EST
- Bad Logic! Software patents are still bad! - Authored by: Hyrion on Saturday, February 28 2009 @ 11:27 PM EST
- Nonsense, all kinds of patents are good - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 01 2009 @ 09:48 AM EST
- Nonsense - Authored by: wjaguar on Sunday, March 01 2009 @ 11:50 AM EST
- Nonsense - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 01 2009 @ 03:25 PM EST
- Nonsense - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, March 01 2009 @ 05:04 PM EST
- Wrong: Discovery = Invention - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 02 2009 @ 01:28 AM EST
- Nice Link, Let's take that a step further shall we? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 02 2009 @ 06:14 PM EST
- Nice Link, Let's take that a step further shall we? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 03 2009 @ 06:13 AM EST
- Nice Link, Let's take that a step further shall we? - Authored by: wjaguar on Tuesday, March 03 2009 @ 06:25 AM EST
- The software cofee maker - Authored by: Winter on Tuesday, March 03 2009 @ 07:31 AM EST
- I did explain, as I said, you just can't seem to grasp the concept. - Authored by: Hyrion on Tuesday, March 03 2009 @ 10:29 AM EST
- I did explain, as I said, you just can't seem to grasp the concept. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 03 2009 @ 10:44 AM EST
- Why do you feel using a patented device for what it was intended deserves to be patented? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 03 2009 @ 02:19 PM EST
- Why do you feel using a patented device for what it was intended deserves to be patented? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 03 2009 @ 03:15 PM EST
- We're talking about two different things... and I wonder if you're being deliberately evasive. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 03 2009 @ 03:36 PM EST
- We're talking about two different things... and I wonder if you're being deliberately evasive. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 03 2009 @ 05:05 PM EST
- I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 03 2009 @ 05:20 PM EST
- I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 03 2009 @ 05:40 PM EST
- Without patents, there is no cure for Cancer - Not True! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 03 2009 @ 06:28 PM EST
- let's take "obvious" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 03 2009 @ 07:47 PM EST
- Lipitor - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 03 2009 @ 07:53 PM EST
- huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 03 2009 @ 07:58 PM EST
- I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 03 2009 @ 06:44 PM EST
- Fashion Patents - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 03 2009 @ 07:17 PM EST
- Shrimp Shelling - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 03 2009 @ 08:01 PM EST
- Shrimp Shelling - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 04 2009 @ 01:38 PM EST
- Shrimp Shelling - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 04 2009 @ 07:09 PM EST
- Why do you feel using a patented device for what it was intended deserves to be patented? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 03 2009 @ 07:06 PM EST
- Nice Link, Let's take that a step further shall we? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 03 2009 @ 06:22 AM EST
- Discovery != Invention n/t - Authored by: Tufty on Sunday, March 01 2009 @ 10:12 PM EST
- Sorry, you and I disagree on patenting software... - Authored by: Hyrion on Sunday, March 01 2009 @ 12:52 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 28 2009 @ 08:54 AM EST |
Microsoft publicly claims that their disagreement with Tom Tom is not about
Linux.
Had that been true, they would never have included patents against Linux in
their complaint.
There are two issues here. Did Tom Tom illegally use one of Microsoft's
non-Linux related patents? If Tom Tom loses, will Microsoft claim they have won
a Linux related patent trial? Maybe not in public, but you can be sure they
will use it in their marketing strategy.
My conclusion: We should do everything we possibly can to make sure Tom Tom
doesn't suffer because of Microsoft bully tactics. So every patent they are
claiming in this case should be re-examined and if possible declared invalid!
Disclaimer. I own a Tom Tom, and like it, except I wish it would quit trying to
find a route from here in the states to the hotel we stayed at when we visited
Maui. Maybe I just need to remove those favorites. But they have fond
memories.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 28 2009 @ 09:25 AM EST |
after you get past the commercials this video talks about challenges TomTom has
been experiencing. Perhaps Microsoft is looking to go after what TomTom would
loose if they cause the company to loose value hence loose investments.
click here for
video
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sk43 on Saturday, February 28 2009 @ 03:47 PM EST |
Dear Mr. Ballmer,
It was with some surprise that I learned that your company has filed a lawsuit
against TomTom, alleging, among other things, that TomTom is in violation of
certain of your patents by making use of functionality in the Linux operating
system necessary to interoperate with the Microsoft (MS) Windows operating
system. As you are undoubtedly aware, Linux is licensed in a way such that
either ALL users are able to benefit from it or NONE. If you believe that
TomTom's use of Linux in this fashion infringes your patents, then ALL,
including myself, would also be liable for infringement.
You are certainly entitled to protect your Intellectual Property rights and ask
for relief if you believe they are being infringed by Linux. In fact, in order
to make sure that your rights are protected, I have taken steps to eliminate ANY
need to interoperate between my Linux and MS Windows systems. I have deleted
ALL copies of MS Windows from ALL of my computers. You need not be concerned
about having to seek relief here. In the future I will avoid the use of ANY and
ALL of your company's products, and, insofar as I am empowered, will ensure that
no purchases over which I have authority involve ANY of your company's products.
In such a way I believe that ALL of your company's Intellectual Property rights
will be maximally protected. Your shareholders should be pleased.
It is disappointing to see that a great company such as yours has decided to
compete with Linux in the Courtroom rather than in the Marketplace, pursuing a
direction dictated by CFOs and Legal Counsel rather than Chief Executives with
vision and imagination. However, that is your choice.
Oh yes, The SCO Group, another company that decided to pursue Linux over alleged
infringement of its Intellectual Property rights, is now listed on the epiq.com
website. Under Bankruptcy, Chapter 11.
Best regards,
Former Microsoft Customer
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Letter is now in the US mail. My last Windows partition has been reformatted as
ext2.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 02 2009 @ 06:02 AM EST |
Groklaw said:
Sorry, creation of new accounts has been temporarily disabled
Me:
Hi I'm Boaz Harrosh.
This is Karma laws: On the technical side TomTom deserves what they have coming
for them, using vfat, why the hell for?
Yes I know all about the conect-as-USB-slave thing, that is not an excuse.
But TomTom, you'll get to redeem your bad Karma and come out on top, by holding
out this litigation, if you hold out you'll win for sure. (Karma laws again)
Free Life
Boaz
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 03 2009 @ 05:42 PM EST |
If there's a settlement I would expect it would cross-license a lot of patents,
possibly the entire stable. If MS wants to enter the navigation arena, does
TomTom have some patents that MS would like to use?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|