Microsoft and TomTom settle patent dispute

would certainly involve a TOS violation.

as would mine...

"Microsoft says"... TomTom says nothing.

Translation: TomTom is offered something in reward for keeping silent, and I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft is lying here. Probably TomTom only had to sign NDA and not pay as long as Microsoft can tell they _do_ pay.

That ain't a TOS violation, is it?

I am very disappointed !

I will now recommend to my friends and family that they not buy TomTom.

Is anyone really surprised?

linux defenders/oin/linux foundation.... my assszzz! clobbered (again)..... :-(

Too bad no one will enforce sections 4-8 of the GPLv2. Had TomTom stood its ground and fought, they would have had huge support from the community, instead they caved, I say that TomTom should now be barred from using the Linux kernel at all under sections 4-8.

The FSF may yet do that. And TomTom's lawyers are probably already looking it over.

Herein lies the hazards of IP roulette, it doesnt matter how you play it, if you play it at all you have to be willing to put the gun to your head and pull the trigger.

Depending on which GPL would cover this, either TomTom could be barred from use ... or, MS may have inadvertently granted a carte blanch on these patents. Either way though, TomTom has pulled the trigger, it remains to be seen if the chamber was loaded or not.

Since it would require a complaint from an interested party, Linus, the maintainer for that section of kernel code, or someone else who has been directly impacted by the action to get a case off the ground. I would say that the odds of anyone doing anything about it are slim ... still, it would be nice.

I agree with azerthoth. While there may well be GPL violations involved nothing will come of it and nothing good will come of this settlement. Microsoft proves once again that money talks and everything else walks. Nobody in the tech field has more money than Microsoft.

In reading the groklaw bit on this ... oops went back for a link and there was another one, seems that the SFLC has decided that there is no violation of the GPL because ... they dont consider the patents themselves to be valid to start with.

Um, isnt that up to a court to decide. All the other parties are behaving as if the patents are valid. So the SFLC has just called TomTom idiots for paying protection money on something that doesnt exist. This is what the courts are for, MS and now obviously TomTom believe in the validity, the SLFC doesnt. Since the SFLC doesnt that means there isnt any violation.

That smells distinctly of cop out to me. The SLFC turned to their accountants and asked "do we have the money to take on MS?" and the accountants haven't stopped laughing since. Yes I know who I just said rolled over on his back and waved his feet in the air, and he should know better. A lawyers opinions are just that until tested in court, and from the sounds of it, they just also said they had a slam dunk case. If that was so, why did TomTom fold and pay when they could have recovered court costs after the fact?

As I said before though, I dont see anyone actually acting on this anyway, because no one who can bring a case forward is interested in bringing it forward.

p.s. the links

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090330181547642

and

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090330130655372

Quoting:the SFLC has decided that there is no violation of the GPL because ... they dont consider the patents themselves to be valid to start with.

Um, isnt that up to a court to decide.

I thought they already did, with the Bilski decision.

until its overturned in A) court or B) patent office its still a valid patent. Bilski and opinions have no automatic magical relevance. Bilski can be used in the argument to overturn it ... but again, it needs to face review in one of those two arenas for it to happen.

> Is anyone really surprised?

Not particularly, no. I wasn't really expecting anything different once TomTom launched their countersuit.