Linux didn't lose
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| KernelShepard Apr 08, 2009 9:12 AM EDT |
I don't see why people see this as a loss for Linux. The FAT patents were only a microscopic portion of the suit Microsoft had against TomTom. TomTom did not settle simply because of the FAT patent, they settled over the other patents - FAT was only settled as a joint with the rest. Besides, it's only FAT. I mean, good grief, it's not like it's a core part of Linux - so how exactly has Linux "lost" anything? Linux has only "lost" in the minds of stupid people who weigh their life as the inverse of Microsoft's success. |
| dinotrac Apr 08, 2009 9:46 AM EDT |
More to the point - A settlement has no legal effect except that it makes the case go away. TomTom was a user of Linux software. Their settlement does not go to the liability of Linux users at large, or to Linux developers. It goes to the business decision that TomTom made. |
| Sander_Marechal Apr 08, 2009 9:57 AM EDT |
All factually true, but you *know* that MS is going to use this to bully a whole lot of other companies in signing a deal over FAT patents. *That's* the real damage here. |
| gus3 Apr 08, 2009 10:33 AM EDT |
Quoting:A settlement has no legal effect except that it makes the case go away.But it has the psychological effect of building a validating consensus. Once that consensus reaches critical mass, it will exert pressure on the legal system to take the validity from de facto to de jure, from popular pressure to having the force of law. |
| ColonelPanik Apr 08, 2009 11:06 AM EDT |
Lose the FAT. Haven't there been recent articles here about FAT being unnecessary? |
| bigg Apr 08, 2009 11:20 AM EDT |
If the major users of FAT would decide on something else, that would be the end of the payments to Microsoft. Nobody is putting a gun to their head and telling them they have to use it. If they did agree on an alternative, you can be sure that alternative would be available on every Windows machine sold. I wonder how much these companies fork over to Microsoft each year. |
| dinotrac Apr 08, 2009 11:41 AM EDT |
> it will exert pressure on the legal system Excuse me? How, exactly, do you think that will happen? Patent law is a federal matter, which means federal courts and judges with lifetime appointments. If there is fire to go with the smoke, then yes. Otherwise? You can never be 100% sure, but no. |
| gus3 Apr 08, 2009 12:33 PM EDT |
Quoting:Excuse me? How, exactly, do you think that will happen?The same way software patents became legally recognized in the first place, however tenuously. The same way copyright transformed into an ostensible business model for the MafiAA. Quoting:Patent law is a federal matter, which means federal courts and judges with lifetime appointments.Not just the judicial, but the legislature and executive as well. |
| ColonelPanik Apr 08, 2009 2:32 PM EDT |
dino.... The USPATNOFF is being changed as we type!
Enough? No.
Quickly? No.
Is it getting better? A little? So, just hold your breath and someday, well, who knows? |
| tuxchick Apr 08, 2009 3:08 PM EDT |
Linux lost because Microsoft is still getting away with collecting a tax on Linux users. |
| dinotrac Apr 08, 2009 3:27 PM EDT |
CP - The PTO has no choice but to clean up its act some. The Supreme Court said that it was using the wrong standard to grant software patents, opening the door for a ton of patent challenges. |
| hkwint Apr 08, 2009 6:24 PM EDT |
Linux was never the point in the first place when it came to the FAT-patent, but that's my opinion. The fact that other patents were used to sue TomTom as well make this more complicated. Count this: 1 billion mobile phones sold in 2008; of which 100 million smartphones, a lot of them capable of writing to Flash memory cards (all of them FAT) 100 million digital camera devices sold in 2008, 30 million navigation systems sold in 2007, lots of cardreaders for PC's sold; for all those devices (not all phones) Flash memory cards - with FAT - are sold. All those companies, wether it would be Mio, Nokia, SonyEricsson, Kodak, Sony, SanDisk or NEC - pay their 'FAT-fines'. Let's say they sell 200M units with FAT-technology a year and for each unit $0,10 goes to Microsoft; that's 20M for old technology which doesn't need any maintenance at all; and most important: For a patent which is never proven to be valid or enforceable at all! Can you imagine earning 20M by selling something you may as well not even poses? Of course you would be afraid if one tiny kid came to you and wanted to look inside your closed fist. However, all 'adult' companies pay. Then, one company doesn't want to pay. Whether or not it uses Linux is not of much interest I'd say, fact is if Mio, Nokia, Sony e.a. find out one company doesn't have to pay, neither will they. But than, why would they pay for OOXML/SMB patents e.d. (some of them probably do) if Microsoft is not going to stop companies from not paying? My conclusion, and I realize I'm almost alone in this, is there was more at stake for Microsoft than for TomTom (a lot of the 'experts' will tell you TomTom was not in a good financial position, without telling that was only because of a depreciation of TeleAtlas; without that they made a profit of €70M). If there was much at stake for TomTom they would never have risked a lawsuit in first place I'd assume, and would immediately have paid Microsoft when asked to do so. But again, just my €0,05 (€0,02 almost abolished here). ED: How 'bout this: Quoting:SJVN: Microsoft has been willing to license FAT to European vendors for prices ranging from US $0.25 per unit to a one-time payment in full of US $250,000 per company. Quoting:Federal Patent Court declares FAT patent of Microsoft null and voidhttp://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/86141 Remember, while the latter is in Germany, it is the only time (at least AFAIK) a court said anything about the FAT-patent. Sure they're scared. |
| KernelShepard Apr 09, 2009 9:29 AM EDT |
hkwint: There's a max any company has to pay to license FAT, and I believe that is $250,000 - that means, given your example of 7 companies, Microsoft get a max of $1.75 million. That's not as significant as you thought, is it? ;-) |
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!