Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Rjack wrote:
7 wrote:
Rjack the stupid 1 wrote:
"Microsoft and TomTom have settled their controversial
patent dispute, which included allegations that the Linux
kernel infringes on Microsoft's filesystem patents. TomTom
has licensed the patents from Microsoft, but intends to
remove from its Linux kernel the code that is covered by
the patents."
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/03
microsoft-and-tomtom-settle-patent-dispute.ars
That is one of the fastest settlements I have seen for a big
corp. Usually propellor heads will rachet up the ante all day
and all night for years before making a move.
I wonder what forced micoshaft to change their mind?
Even a turd head like you is capable reading the rest of
referenced article:
"TomTom has paid to license Microsoft's patents, including
those covering FAT."
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/03/microsoft-and-tomtom-settle-patent-dispute.ars
SFLC's spin-doctoring:
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/mar/30/settled-not-over-yet/
------ March 30, 2009
Settled, But Not Over Yet
Today's settlement between Microsoft and TomTom ends one phase of
the community's response to Microsoft patent aggression,
Is "patent aggression" (being a patent plaintiff) anything like
"copyright aggression?" (being a copyright plaintiff)?
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and
then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy
brother's eye ...
and begins another. On the basis of the information we have, we
have no reason to believe that TomTom's settlement agreement with
Microsoft violates the license on the kernel, Linux, or any
other free software used in its products. The settlement neither
implies that Microsoft patents are valid nor that TomTom's
products were or are infringing.
The FAT filesystem patents on which Microsoft sued are now and
have always been invalid patents in our professional opinion.
"In our 'Professional' opinion"? This from "Professionals" who filed
five consecutive copyright infringement cases for clients who had no
registered copyrights. ROFL
SFLC remains committed to protecting the interests of our clients
and the community. We will act forcefully to protect all users
and developers of free software against further intimidation or
interference from these patents.
SFLC, working with the Open Invention Network and the Linux
Foundation, is pleased to participate in a coordinated, carefully
graduated response on behalf of all the community's members to
ongoing anti-competitive Microsoft conduct. We believe in
strength through unity, and we think our community's unity in the
face of these threats has helped to bring about Microsoft's
quick settlement on all issues with TomTom. ------
<chuckles>
Red Hat's "Legal Team":
------ Comment on TomTom-Microsoft Settlement
by Legal Team
Red Hat was not a party to this case. Even so, without a judicial
decision, the settlement does not demonstrate that the claims of
Microsoft were valid. Patent litigation is a difficult process,
and there are many reasons besides the merits of the case that a
defendant such as TomTom might have chosen to settle in the
present economic environment. As the terms of the settlement
license have not, to our knowledge, been made public, it is not
possible to comment on their compliance with open source
requirements and principles.
This entry was posted by Legal Team on Monday, March 30th, 2009
at 2:58 pm and is filed under IP. You can follow any responses to
this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are
currently closed.
Comments are closed. ------
regards, alexander.
-- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive
derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as
GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU
cannot.)
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss