Derrick
ლ(ಠ_ಠ )ლ
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2010
- Messages
- 5,085
- Reaction score
- 5
Microsoft recently filed a suit against TomTom alleging that the in-car navigation company’s devices violate eight of its patents.
Five of the patents in dispute relate to in-car navigation, including three that relate to TomTom’s implementation of the Linux kernel and file-management.
Basically Microsoft is claiming that the Linux kernel VFAT implementation that TomTom uses violates one of its patents. Microsoft claim that this lawsuit has no relation whatsoever to Linux, and they’re only targeting TomTom’s specific implementation of Linux.
Harald Welte who has reviewed the TomTom kernel sources a number of times during the last couple of years as part of his GPL-compliance reviews had this to say about Microsoft’s claim: “I can tell you, there is nothing ‘TomTom specific’ in their FAT FS code. It is the plain fat/msdos/vfat file system like in every kernel.org kernel.”
According to Welte, “the VFAT patent in question has been invalidated in some jurisdictions, since it has clear prior art: the ISO9660 Rock Ridge Extensions in 1994″.
There have been interesting patent rejections coming from the USPTO’s Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) since the Bilski ruling was handed down by an en banc hearing of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC).
Due to the Bilski ruling, new software patent evaluation rules have come into existence and just recently IBM lost claim to one of its database query patents. It was rejected because the innovation isn’t “tied to a particular machine”.
The BPAI goes on to justify the rejection by pointing out that the “system” on which the innovation operates is “not recited in terms of hardware or tangible structural elements”, which is to say that the patent is rejected because the elements of the claim are “implemented solely in software or algorithms”.
The FAT patent about converting long filenames to short filenames looks like it will not pass these tests.
What does Microsoft have to say about all of this? “Microsoft respects and appreciates the important role that open source software plays in our industry and we respect and appreciate the passion and the great contribution that open source developers make in our industry,” Microsoft’s Horacio Gutierrez said.
He said that respect and appreciation is “not inconsistent with our respect for intellectual-property rights.”
Does that mean that Microsoft accepts open source; until it starts replacing its products and profits?
Five of the patents in dispute relate to in-car navigation, including three that relate to TomTom’s implementation of the Linux kernel and file-management.
Basically Microsoft is claiming that the Linux kernel VFAT implementation that TomTom uses violates one of its patents. Microsoft claim that this lawsuit has no relation whatsoever to Linux, and they’re only targeting TomTom’s specific implementation of Linux.
Harald Welte who has reviewed the TomTom kernel sources a number of times during the last couple of years as part of his GPL-compliance reviews had this to say about Microsoft’s claim: “I can tell you, there is nothing ‘TomTom specific’ in their FAT FS code. It is the plain fat/msdos/vfat file system like in every kernel.org kernel.”
According to Welte, “the VFAT patent in question has been invalidated in some jurisdictions, since it has clear prior art: the ISO9660 Rock Ridge Extensions in 1994″.
There have been interesting patent rejections coming from the USPTO’s Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) since the Bilski ruling was handed down by an en banc hearing of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC).
Due to the Bilski ruling, new software patent evaluation rules have come into existence and just recently IBM lost claim to one of its database query patents. It was rejected because the innovation isn’t “tied to a particular machine”.
The BPAI goes on to justify the rejection by pointing out that the “system” on which the innovation operates is “not recited in terms of hardware or tangible structural elements”, which is to say that the patent is rejected because the elements of the claim are “implemented solely in software or algorithms”.
The FAT patent about converting long filenames to short filenames looks like it will not pass these tests.
What does Microsoft have to say about all of this? “Microsoft respects and appreciates the important role that open source software plays in our industry and we respect and appreciate the passion and the great contribution that open source developers make in our industry,” Microsoft’s Horacio Gutierrez said.
He said that respect and appreciation is “not inconsistent with our respect for intellectual-property rights.”
Does that mean that Microsoft accepts open source; until it starts replacing its products and profits?