Right then, does anyone now believe Microsoft is going to snuggle up to Open Source? Is there anyone who likes Linux that is now going to forgive Microsofts past? I didnt think so.

For the record, then moment i get any way to kill that bloated piece of crap Microsoft i will. Any way i can i will make sure they dont get inside any organisation i am responsible for , ever.

I urge everyone to do the same. Never trust this arogant American made monopoly. Kill them.

There have been some attempts to portray this as being a lawsuit against TomTom specifically, not against Linux. But the FAT filesystem implementation is a standard part of the mainline Linux kernel, and lots of distros include it, not just TomTom. So it's disingenuous to claim this isn't a threat against the whole Linux community.

I think it's too early to get a clear picture of what MS intends to accomplish. For all we know, Ballmer spent a few nights at the Darl McBride School of Bad Business - or perhaps it was a Unisys cocktail party?

At any rate the FAT part is frivolous - what non-obvious and significant changes have been made to FAT in the past 17 years or so? Although the USPTO review didn't throw FAT out the door, that is no guarantee that the patent is defensible in court.

I wonder what recourses TomTom will have available against MS within the EU. MS is seeking a really nasty injunction against TomTom - if the injunction is granted TomTom stands to lose mountains of money. To win, TomTom needs to win all court battles and appeals and survive long enough to sue MS for the damages caused. Hmmm. It brings back memories of Coca-Cola vs RC Cola and Coke vs Pepsi in the cola wars. Cocal-Cola successfully bankrupted RC and almost drove Pepsi bankrupt. MS is doing the same thing here but employing the courts rather than specifically engaging in blatantly obvious unfair practises via direct monopoly influence of the markets.

I think it's a game of bluff - TomTom will be counselled to settle rather than risk losses and MS gain another alleged victory - then move on to strong-arm the next company as it builds up its case of 'defending patents'.

The case is interesting:
a) the patents are very weak and it should be possible to invoke prior art, one patent was recently nullified in Germany. Just let a person in the industry read the patents and they will find out that the software patent regime has gone nuts.
b) TomTom is from the automotive business which get high priority attention from policy makers in Europe. Linux manufacturers will solidarise with TomTom. Policy makers, too. If TomTom bows in then for financial reasons, not because its case was lost.
c) Microsoft dresses us as a devil, puts on horns and sulfur. I don't think it scares anyone. It is rather a silly costume. Everyone in the software business is well aware that the software patenting regime needs reforms.
d) The software patent abolishionist movement in the industry is getting a boost.

For those of you who don't read Russian, the post above says:

Marianne:
Thanks for the information

We should see that large army of lawyers begin to create job security with Microsoft laying off thousands of its loyal and dedicated employees - you know the ones that were over paid their severance pay and were asked for the money back?

Whats your point? That any Tom, Dick and Harry can file a lawsuit against MS but MS should not do it?

Mr Wilcox is always biased - not a good thing for a blogger.

Looks like MS wants to push the RIAA and MPAA right down the list of unpopular companies. Like the RIAA and MPAA tactics have caused huge consumer boycotts of their industries, so too will the MS lawsuits.
Does this signal that MS can no longer sell their products, so it doesn't matter that they piss off all their customers? Does this signal that MS is so bad off financially that they need to start using a lawsuit strategy to hang on to their monopoly.
Remember that any drop in quarterly revenue knocks billions off the market capitalization. Notice that today the MS stock price set a new 52 week low (after doing the same Friday). Sounds like they are getting desperate and that its affecting their judgment.

Re: "Mr Wilcox is always biased - not a good thing for a blogger."

Being biased is the whole point of a blogger. Bloggers are not reporters. They offer their opinions. Duh.

Re: "Whats your point? That any Tom, Dick and Harry can file a lawsuit against MS but MS should not do it?"

No, not at all. In fact, it is my belief that Microsoft welcomed patent lawsuits from every Tom, Dick, and Harry. By rolling over and playing dead, they could then build the (false) impression that the patent system offers protection for the little guy. Then, with the small outlay of several hundred million dollars in lawsuit losses behind them, they can then turn around and use that patent-system-gone-amuck to make it illegal to compete with Microsoft.

The Big Lie. Josef Goebbels understood how to use it with chilling effectiveness. Bill Gates does too.

Some of the patents in question here, particularly the ones pertaining to the FAT FS, are in their twilight years. This isn't about the money. This may be one of Microsoft's last chances to use them to beat on anybody they don't like. Clearly, they don't like TomTom around and want into that business themselves. There are millions of cars produced every year, and the convenience of moving maps is rapidly getting to look like a necessity to many people. Before you know it, they'll be standard equipment on all cars, and license plates won't be the only licenses you'll be paying for annually.

For the most part, this is not a Linux/FAT issue.

During the last year, the prices for premium personal navigation devices have dropped substantially as low-cost competitors have copied most features. At the same time, these features are protected by patents that are held by many different companies and licenses to some of them do not come cheap*. It is likely that one or more licensees (or one exclusive licensee) of the Microsoft GPS-related patents complained to them that other companies (i.e, TomTom) were infringing them. The inclusion of FAT-related patents in the lawsuit is probably to get TomTom to remove the devices from the market entirely because this could not be fixed by a firmware update.

* This is the reason why early versions of Microsoft's Streets and Trips (and related) software did not include real-time navigation (it updated every ~10 seconds) and is also the reason why the iPhone does not include this feature. Some of the patents in the area of GPS navigation also ensure that companies cannot be forced out of the market by one or more acquisitions by a competitor (e.g., if Google were to acquire Navteq from Nokia).

So the Penguins, who for years have been saying "bring it", are now arguing that MS shouldn't because it's bad press?

MS has a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders and existing patent licensees to protect company-held patents regardless of the attention it draws. They have been pursuing Tom Tom for well over a year and have already licensed most of its competitors. So this isn't a vendetta, it's just business. Krangel's suggestion is idiotic, like much of SAI's commentary.

Among other things, I beleive Microsoft is sending a message to the EU.

"MS has a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders..."

to refrain from starting frivolous lawsuits based on broadly obvious and long-outdated technology and instead concentrate on innovation and growth.

@Paul,

You say that "MS has a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders and existing patent licensees to protect company-held patents regardless of the attention it draws.". Well, let's see what Bill Gates himself has to say:

“If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today’s ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today.”

–Bill Gates (when Microsoft was smaller)

But now, Microsoft is vastly larger but facing a crisis of potential extinction. And what does a large lumbering has-been do when faced with new ideas from others while they continue to wallow in their own increasing ineffectiveness? Why, they change their minds, making themselves to be nothing more than a gaggle of lying bullies whose once-strong empire is rotting from within:

www.techflash.com/microsoft/Microsoft_sues_TomTom_over_patents_in_case_with_Linux_subplot_40305732.html

“Microsoft filed suit against TomTom today, alleging that the in-car navigation company's devices violate eight of its patents -- including three that relate to TomTom's implementation of the Linux kernel.”

And yet they have no problem stealing the "I.P." from others? Greedy thieves always protect what is theirs at the same time that they feel that is their diving right to steal what is yours:

www.eweek.com/c/a/Windows/Open-Source-Code-Finds-Way-into-Microsoft-Product/

“"MPI is key middleware that was designed by a consortia of all the supercomputing vendors in the 1990s to allow the easy portability of code. It abstracts away things like low-latency interconnect, and our focus is making it super easy for ISVs to move their code," Kyril Faenov, Microsoft's director for High Performance Computing, told eWEEK in a recent interview at Microsoft's campus in Redmond, Wash.

"Actually, we are probably the first team at Microsoft that will actually ship an open-source component inside of our solution, but we haven't made a lot of noise around this yet," he said.”

Imagine, Microsoft has to use viral, substandard code put together by hippie hackers because a multi-hundred-billion-dollar professional software development company lacks the ability to do it themselves.

Microsoft built its huge shareholder value without the encumbrance of software patents. It owes its shareholders the same level of innovation and growth that it accomplished without patents, and especially without frivolous patents.

In return, those shareholders you mention owe themselves some due diligence of their own. If they stupidly keep their money in Microsoft stock without careful review of that company's recent performance, and don't understand that patent suits are the mark of a dying giant, are investors that deserve to lose their money.

@ Philosopher

When you become a patent lawyer and get briefed on the full details of this case, then your opinion of its merits and the strength of the underlying patents may carry some weight. Until then, what I said is accurate.

When I become a patent lawyer, I will have lost my soul, my morals, my ethics, and become a blood-sucking drain on society. And if I post the details of a case on a blog comment section, I will also likely be disbarred.

Those statements that you generously attribute to my opinions are in fact the statements of others. Including practicing and retired lawyers. And also of Bill Gates his very own self. But thank you for your vast, if somewhat misdirected, confidence in my credentials.

And thank you for your steadfast belief that my god-like powers are so profound that by merely attaining status as a patent lawyer, I will render your statements inaccurate. I just don't know what to say. Wow!

Oh, I've been disbarred already! MS Watch dropped all my post-doctorate letters and left me to take a P on this blog! :-)

"Those statements that you generously attribute to my opinions are in fact the statements of others. Including practicing and retired lawyers."

The statement I attributed to your opinion is this one:

to refrain from starting frivolous lawsuits based on broadly obvious and long-outdated technology and instead concentrate on innovation and growth.

As it contains no quotations marks or sources, it's either your opinion or you're a plagiarist. I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

Quote "So the Penguins, who for years have been saying "bring it", are now arguing that MS shouldn't because it's bad press? "
-
Microsoft has, and always will be its own master (IMO) trying to make the rules and then change them in order to retain dominance in the marketplace. The TOMTOM case (IMO) has the potential to completely destroy the value of MS's patent portfolio should it fail.
-
You get many sarcastic posters here asking "will this be finally the year of the Linux desktop" and my answer to that is, I dont know, but maybe those pro-MS posters (some honest, some not so) could answer this question:
-
Regardless of market penetration figures for any alternative to Microsoft products, why is it that in recent times we've seen a bigger migration away from Microsoft than ever before (IMO) are you suggesting that millions of people have taken leave of their senses and are actively seeking out "inferior" alternatives to Microsoft or maybe, just maybe, theres is actually a benefit in not limiting your choices to what Microsoft offers?
-
Id love to hear any pro-MS opinion explain the increases in migration away from MS.
-
In the meantime, if the EU has issues with IE (and to be fair, theyve jumping in a little late since FF is already eating away at IE's userbase as users see the benefits of it) I cant see the EU standing by and allowing Microsoft to swing its portfolio at any alternative.
-
I personally welcome these cases, because I believe it will mark the end of the whole silly patent issue and the fact that (IMO) the only benefit to a patent is to stamp out innovation and competition in the marketplace.

@Paul,

Re: "The statement I attributed to your opinion is this one: `to refrain from starting frivolous lawsuits based on broadly obvious and long-outdated technology and instead concentrate on innovation and growth.' As it contains no quotations marks or sources, it's either your opinion or you're a plagiarist."

Do you take issue on this to everyone who posts comments on this blog, or just to those whose views are dangerous to the continuation of a certain powerful monopoly? Just curious.

(And your name-calling, re: Penguins, isn't exactly right up there near the top of professionally attributed sources either.)

But nit=picking aside, here is both the source and several quotes from that source on which my statement was based. I do recommend that everyone reads the entire article; my quotes don't do justice to its overall balanced view.

And also my opinion, clearly marked as such.

From www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html

"I think the problem is more with the patent office than the concept of software patents. Whenever software meets government, bad things happen, because software changes fast and government changes slow. The patent office has been overwhelmed by both the volume and the novelty of applications for software patents, and as a result they've made a lot of mistakes."

In my opinion, condemning software patents follows the same reasoning that condemns the logic, "Fully automatic AK-47s don't kill people, people with fully automatic AK-47s kill people". We ban ownership of fully automatic AK-47s (at least to law-abiding people) because they are viewed not as bad in their own right, but bad when in the hands of people. This is because people are not deemed capable of properly and safely owning them. Likewise, I do not thinks that software patents are bad, but that people, especially lawyers, judges, and politicians, cannot be trusted with handling them properly and safely.

"We tell the startups we fund not to worry about infringing patents, because startups rarely get sued for patent infringement. There are only two reasons someone might sue you: for money, or to prevent you from competing with them. Startups are too poor to be worth suing for money. And in practice they don't seem to get sued much by competitors, either. They don't get sued by other startups because (a) patent suits are an expensive distraction, and (b) since the other startups are as young as they are, their patents probably haven't issued yet. [3] Nor do startups, at least in the software business, seem to get sued much by established competitors. Despite all the patents Microsoft holds, I don't know of an instance where they sued a startup for patent infringement. Companies like Microsoft and Oracle don't win by winning lawsuits. That's too uncertain. They win by locking competitors out of their sales channels. If you do manage to threaten them, they're more likely to buy you than sue you."

"When you read of big companies filing patent suits against smaller ones, it's usually a big company on the way down, grasping at straws. For example, Unisys's attempts to enforce their patent on LZW compression. When you see a big company threatening patent suits, sell. When a company starts fighting over IP, it's a sign they've lost the real battle, for users."

"A company that sues competitors for patent infringement is like a defender who has been beaten so thoroughly that he turns to plead with the referee. You don't do that if you can still reach the ball, even if you genuinely believe you've been fouled. So a company threatening patent suits is a company in trouble."

"guaranteed to bring every open-source zealot and die-hard Microsoft-hater out of the woodwork to spew venom at Microsoft."

The venom they could live with. It's the Groklaw effect they need to worry about - where hundreds of interested people, worrying at every little detail of the case, and providing plenty of material for IBM's and Novell's lawyers to slice SCO into sushi with.

Groklaw went into maintenance mode in January, but Microsoft keep pulling the sort of rubbish that will bring it back out again.

Taken from Joe Wilcox's post:
"Linux, to its adherents, isn't so much an open-source project as something akin to a religious movement. While there's bound to be snark in any high-profile Microsoft case—we already see plenty in the budding EU antitrust investigation—taking on Linux in court is guaranteed to bring every open-source zealot and die-hard Microsoft-hater out of the woodwork to spew venom at Microsoft."
----------------------------------------------------
Now Joe, the way this was written, its most likely a quote from Silicon Alley Insider's Eric Krangel and therefore not you. Still, by quoting him, your true mis-guided feelings come out, Joe. Unless you care to explain further, that is.

To label Linux users as "open-source zealots" is not entirely fair. To paint us all as Microsoft Haters is even just wrong. Many Linux users are also Windows and Mac users as well. Have you not read the comments here, you would have learned that, Joe. As far as Microsoft Haters, I think you would truthfully find more of those who are only Windows users than in the Linux or Mac camps.

Joe, not to criticize you, but respectfully,your lack of knowledge of open source and Linux, leads me to believe, that you lack the incite to see what drives us. Let me explain where many of us are coming from, its not that much different than where you are at with your Mac, if you think about it.

Joe, you use Vista, and now Seven, to review the MS OS and for your ariticles here.
You also write the Apple Watch posts as well, in fact, your are a Mac OS X user, which is just fine. There is no problem with that, in fact, it gives your posts an added dimension of thoughtfulness. Is Mac OS X so different from Linux, Joe? Mac is based on BSD (very close to Linux) and the Darwin kernels. Mac and Linux are relatively or virtually malware free when compared to Windo$e systems. Is this not the main reason you keep running back to Mac Joe? Like when you admitted that your Vi$ta computer was infected with a virus, and it delayed your installation of Seven beta.

Think of it this way Joe, the reason you run back to running your Mac OS X is the same reason that we zealots run Linux, to escape the malware and stability problems of Windo$e, just for starters. There are of course other reasons as well, did I mention the freedom of GNU/Linux, which Mac does not have. Did I mention that software is basically free in Linux as another reason. My point is this is not about religion, its about making a choice to run as your primary OS a system that is just better, and we Linux users provide those reasons often. So Joe, would it also be fair to call you a Machead or Mac religious zealot, since by linking you imply Linux users are? I think not, Joe, only because as Linux users we understand why you prefer Mac OS X. There are more similarities, between Mac and Linux, then you will understand. But Linux is mostly free, and it runs on PC Hardware without being a pirate.

This link is for you Joe Wilcox:

Who Are the ‘Zealots’ Anyway?

http://boycottnovell.com/2009/03/05/foss-advocates-attacked/

"HOW EASY it is to stick labels and stereotypes continually assigning them to people whose ideas of Freedom do not intersect with the ideas of those who abuse and exploit for profit. To stigmatise is sometimes to daemonise."

Joe, are you paying attention to the excellent and well-reasoned post that Chips B Malroy just wrote? His one in a very long series of well-reasoned posts?

A desire for freedom is not zealotry, Joe, unless one is a murderous, blood-thirsty, all-powerful dictator or concentration camp commandant. A desire for freedom is a most natural instinct of most animals, including humans, but even more powerful in cats. As Mark Twain said, "Of all God's creatures there is only one that cannot be made the slave of the lash. That one is the cat". Would you describe the cat's ultimate live free or die attitude as zealotry or religious? If not, then why ascribe those terms to humans whose only desire is to be free to chose, use, and be passionate about something that did not happen to come out of Microsoft.

Think hard on Chips B Malroy's statement "Think of it this way Joe, the reason you run back to running your Mac OS X is the same reason that we zealots run Linux, to escape the malware and stability problems of Windo$e, just for starters." That is not religion, Joe, that is a desire for freedom of choice.

And I follow his statement with a alternate perspective from a very old fart such as myself. I don't view Linux as freedom from Windows nearly as much as I view it as freedom from the high price and glacially slow release cycles of commercial Unix. And Linux doesn't get its code base from Unix (though greedy has-beens would like you to think otherwise), but it does get its design philosophy and simple elegance from Unix. As a wise man once told me, "Those who don't understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it poorly." I prize and am passionate about software that is useful, rock-solid, and elegant in its design and operation. The first operating systems I saw were mine (in 1979), Xenix, and then Unix. Not in DOS, or Windows 3.x or Windows 95 or Windows 98 or Windows ME... how much patience is required while the kiddies from Redmond learn to write a real operating system?

Using a commercial Unix as my desktop (during the 1990s, first with AIX PS/2 and then AIX) gave me the same "elegance and reliability at my fingertips" that Bill Gates' promise of "information at your fingertips" depends on. I kept a Windows 95 machine, and later Windows 2000, around for full application support and to keep my cross-platform development skills sharper.

And I lamented that Unix and Linux were so far behind the curve when it came to supporting popular desktop application functions and watched with sadness at the apparently slow progress of Linux desktop evolution.

But I hadn't been paying close attention, for my introduction into Linux as Fedora Core 3 really opened my eyes to the stunning progress that had been made. I could almost replace Windows entirely. Not completely, but almost.

And now that I'm running Ubuntu on my desktop, I am completely free of Windows. Even my work-supplied laptop runs Ubuntu. That freedom from Windows was an unexpected benefit. But the freedom from high-price and draconian license terms of commercial Unix was, and still is, the most compelling benefit.

@Paul,

"So this isn't a vendetta, it's just business."

You really don't know very much at all, do you? *Nothing* that Microsoft has ever done has been "about business". It has been about establishing and perpetuating a monopoly by whatever means were required, including the questionable, the immoral, and the downright illegal (with the later having been proved in the courts).

I am surprised by your level of ignorance, because your posts are not those of the typical Microsoft astroturfer or shill (whose grasp of the English language is tenuous to the extent that they have great difficulty in stringing together a single sentence). I would commend to you the Internet, where you can perform some research and get your facts straightened out - after all, if God gave you a decent mind, you really have a duty to use it.

"Until then, what I said is accurate."

Just because you hold an opinion, it does not mean that opinion is accurate. You are not a reference point, and the universe does not revolve around you. I suspect that - whatever else your motivations may be, and whatever agenda you may have - pride has clouded your judgement. So along with seeking out the facts regarding the true nature of Microsoft, you need to exercise some humility. You may well be intelligent, but it is clear that you lack the more important attributes of discernment and wisdom.

"You may well be intelligent, but it is clear that you lack the more important attributes of discernment and wisdom"

Simply put, invent it or pay for it!