my thoughts on the matter
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| gus3 Mar 30, 2009 1:55 PM EDT |
would certainly involve a TOS violation. |
| herzeleid Mar 30, 2009 2:02 PM EDT |
as would mine... |
| hkwint Mar 30, 2009 2:07 PM EDT |
"Microsoft says"...
TomTom says nothing. Translation: TomTom is offered something in reward for keeping silent, and I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft is lying here. Probably TomTom only had to sign NDA and not pay as long as Microsoft can tell they _do_ pay. That ain't a TOS violation, is it? |
| qcimushroom Mar 30, 2009 2:17 PM EDT |
I am very disappointed ! |
| gus3 Mar 30, 2009 2:25 PM EDT |
I will now recommend to my friends and family that they not buy TomTom. |
| tuxchick Mar 30, 2009 2:28 PM EDT |
Is anyone really surprised? |
| henke54 Mar 30, 2009 2:47 PM EDT |
linux defenders/oin/linux foundation.... my assszzz! clobbered (again)..... :-( |
| azerthoth Mar 30, 2009 2:55 PM EDT |
Too bad no one will enforce sections 4-8 of the GPLv2. Had TomTom stood its ground and fought, they would have had huge support from the community, instead they caved, I say that TomTom should now be barred from using the Linux kernel at all under sections 4-8. |
| gus3 Mar 30, 2009 3:08 PM EDT |
The FSF may yet do that. And TomTom's lawyers are probably already looking it over. |
| azerthoth Mar 30, 2009 3:31 PM EDT |
Herein lies the hazards of IP roulette, it doesnt matter how you play it, if you play it at all you have to be willing to put the gun to your head and pull the trigger. Depending on which GPL would cover this, either TomTom could be barred from use ... or, MS may have inadvertently granted a carte blanch on these patents. Either way though, TomTom has pulled the trigger, it remains to be seen if the chamber was loaded or not. Since it would require a complaint from an interested party, Linus, the maintainer for that section of kernel code, or someone else who has been directly impacted by the action to get a case off the ground. I would say that the odds of anyone doing anything about it are slim ... still, it would be nice. |
| caitlyn Mar 30, 2009 6:23 PM EDT |
I agree with azerthoth. While there may well be GPL violations involved nothing will come of it and nothing good will come of this settlement. Microsoft proves once again that money talks and everything else walks. Nobody in the tech field has more money than Microsoft. |
| azerthoth Mar 30, 2009 6:35 PM EDT |
In reading the groklaw bit on this ... oops went back for a link and there was another one, seems that the SFLC has decided that there is no violation of the GPL because ... they dont consider the patents themselves to be valid to start with. Um, isnt that up to a court to decide. All the other parties are behaving as if the patents are valid. So the SFLC has just called TomTom idiots for paying protection money on something that doesnt exist. This is what the courts are for, MS and now obviously TomTom believe in the validity, the SLFC doesnt. Since the SFLC doesnt that means there isnt any violation. That smells distinctly of cop out to me. The SLFC turned to their accountants and asked "do we have the money to take on MS?" and the accountants haven't stopped laughing since. Yes I know who I just said rolled over on his back and waved his feet in the air, and he should know better. A lawyers opinions are just that until tested in court, and from the sounds of it, they just also said they had a slam dunk case. If that was so, why did TomTom fold and pay when they could have recovered court costs after the fact? As I said before though, I dont see anyone actually acting on this anyway, because no one who can bring a case forward is interested in bringing it forward. |
| azerthoth Mar 30, 2009 6:36 PM EDT |
p.s. the links http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090330181547642 and http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090330130655372 |
| gus3 Mar 30, 2009 11:10 PM EDT |
Quoting:the SFLC has decided that there is no violation of the GPL because ... they dont consider the patents themselves to be valid to start with.I thought they already did, with the Bilski decision. |
| azerthoth Mar 30, 2009 11:17 PM EDT |
until its overturned in A) court or B) patent office its still a valid patent. Bilski and opinions have no automatic magical relevance. Bilski can be used in the argument to overturn it ... but again, it needs to face review in one of those two arenas for it to happen. |
| jdixon Mar 30, 2009 11:18 PM EDT |
> Is anyone really surprised? Not particularly, no. I wasn't really expecting anything different once TomTom launched their countersuit. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!