"Doug Mentohl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
amicus_curious wrote:
Apparently the claim is not without some merit, though. The article goes
on to say:
"Martijn den Drijver, analyst at SNS Securities, said given that TomTom
rival Garmin (GRMN.O) has already licensed technology from Microsoft, it
s likely that TomTom will settle the case and pay a licence fee."
"A prolonged legal battle at this point, with an uncertain outcome, does
not make sense,"
Maybe the Open Invention Network and the FSF should get involved with some
of the financing, and any other company out there that don't want to pay
the ms IP innovation tax. What effect would MS losing have on their IP
portfolio?
That is kind of interesting. From cases in the past, when a patent has been
found invalid, whatever happened before that event seems to stick. For
example, if you are found to have infringed on someone's patent and charged
a million dollars, you still owe the million dollars even if the patent is
subsequently invalidated. That seems crazy, but it appears to be true.
In Microsoft's case against Tom-Tom, there are a bunch of patents that don't
have anything to do with Linux involved as well as the FAT filename patents.
Tom-Tom will doubtless settle and nothing will be decided. Your cite said
that Garmin, at least, was already paying for a license to the MS patents
involved.
My own feeling is that the Open Invention Network and the FSF, too, are a
bunch of pud knockers without much money in the bank and not much of a
chance to horn in on this issue. They could try to sue Microsoft for some
sort of infringement somewhere, but they could have done that at any time
they thought they had a case, just as many others have done. Some have won
and others have lost. It is expensive to lose, however, and you need some
real money to get to sit at the table.
If Microsoft's three patents vis-a-vis Linux that are being asserted against
Tom-Tom were found to be invalid, Microsoft could not collect any license
fees in the future for their use, obviously, and that would cost them
whatever revenue stream is derived from that sort of license. I really
doubt that it is very much money, though, compared to the oceans of bucks
that Microsoft runs through each year.
You have to remember, too, that these cases are decided by people who have
next to no technical understanding of anything. If you think the patent
examiners are bad, consider that the jury is likely to see the examiner as
an absolute expert. What chance does logic have here?
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
