'"We reject the claim and will vigorously defend ourselves," TomTom
spokesman Taco Titulaer said, adding that Microsoft sent a letter to
TomTom's U.S. office informing it of the action'
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINLQ40872620090226?rpc=44
TomTom finances ..
http://www.ibtime
Doug Mentohl wrote:
> '"We reject the claim and will vigorously defend ourselves," TomTom
> spokesman Taco Titulaer said, adding that Microsoft sent a letter to
> TomTom's U.S. office informing it of the action'
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINLQ40872620090226?rpc=44
The most
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 c
"Doug Mentohl" wrote in message
news:goen0a$8v...@news.datemas.de...
'"We reject the claim and will vigorously defend ourselves," TomTom
spokesman Taco Titulaer said, adding that Microsoft sent a letter to
TomTom's U.S. office informing it of the action'
Apparently the claim is not withou
"Doug Mentohl" wrote in message
news:goetik$su...@news.datemas.de...
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 license
On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 17:20:57 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
>
> 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 in
amicus_curious wrote:
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 ..
What effect on the case would it be if Tom-Tom eliminated all
proprietary software and used a purely GPL solution
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 11:47:50AM +, Doug Mentohl wrote:
> amicus_curious wrote:
>
>> 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 ..
Get real, the Linux kernel supports FAT.
>
"Doug Mentohl" wrote in message
news:gogh16$6n...@news.datemas.de...
amicus_curious wrote:
In Microsoft's case against Tom-Tom, there are a bunch of patents that
don't have anything to do with Linux involved as well as the FAT filename
patents ..
What effect on the case would it be if To
"Vincent" wrote in message
news:gofhco$mi...@news.albasani.net...
On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 17:20:57 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
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 t
amicus_curious wrote:
What effect on the case would it be if Tom-Tom eliminated all proprietary
software and used a purely GPL solution?
All of the previously shipped Tom-Tom units would have to be recalled or else
Tom-Tom would have to pay for a license for them.
Wouldn't it be simpler f
"Doug Mentohl" wrote in message
news:goh4rf$c8...@news.datemas.de...
amicus_curious wrote:
What effect on the case would it be if Tom-Tom eliminated all
proprietary software and used a purely GPL solution?
All of the previously shipped Tom-Tom units would have to be recalled or
else Tom-T
amicus_curious wrote:
Wouldn't it be simpler for the endusers to go to the Update Site ..
How could Tom-Tom prove that they did? The hammer would be on Tom-Tom as an
infringer a ..
That's assuming Tom-Tom are found guilty. The code would be available on
the server. All MS has to do is p
"Doug Mentohl" wrote in message
news:goj2jr$rp...@news.datemas.de...
amicus_curious wrote:
Wouldn't it be simpler for the endusers to go to the Update Site ..
How could Tom-Tom prove that they did? The hammer would be on Tom-Tom as
an infringer a ..
That's assuming Tom-Tom are found g
amicus_curious wrote:
That's assuming Tom-Tom are found guilty. The code would be available on the
server. All MS has to do is point it out. As such and in a court of law, it is
up to the plaintiff to prove the case not the other way round.
Yes. I said "if Tom-Tom were found to be infringi
amicus_curious wrote:
A big problem for Tom-Tom is that, if they lose, they have to pay for the
Microsoft effort required to uncover the infringement along with the rest of
the legal expenses. Given the uncertainty of a jury decision (remember OJ?) it
is a tough decision to make.
What expen
amicus_curious wrote:
All of the previously shipped Tom-Tom units would have to be recalled or else
Tom-Tom would have to pay for a license for them.
Wouldn't it be simpler for the endusers to go to the Update Site ..
How could Tom-Tom prove that they did? The hammer would be on Tom-Tom
"Doug Mentohl" wrote in message
news:gpj4s7$sc...@news.datemas.de...
amicus_curious wrote:
That's assuming Tom-Tom are found guilty. The code would be available on
the server. All MS has to do is point it out. As such and in a court of
law, it is up to the plaintiff to prove the case not th
amicus_curious wrote:
Yes. I said "if Tom-Tom were found to be infringing...". Could they avoid
paying by getting all their customers to download new, non-infringing firmware? NO is
the answer.
No one can be sued for distributing 'non-infringing firmware', your statement
is legalistic n
"Doug Mentohl" wrote in message
news:gpjl44$77...@news.datemas.de...
amicus_curious wrote:
Yes. I said "if Tom-Tom were found to be infringing...". Could they
avoid paying by getting all their customers to download new,
non-infringing firmware? NO is the answer.
No one can be sued for
20 matches
Mail list logo