Re: TomTom to contest Microsoft patent lawsuit ..

[Doug Mentohl]

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 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.

> Tom-Tom would have to show that they were made non-infringing.

No, MS has to prove the Tom-Tom are infringing. Come on fuddie, you are 
out best lawyer her on COLA.

> > .. software that infringe the Microsoft PAtents are manufactured for TomTom 
> > N.V. by third parties located in Asia ..

> That is the software created by Tom-Tom, I would think.

The words expressed are 'third parties' or does it display different on 
your monitor. What are the names of these 'third parties'. Will they be 
contesting the case. Why won't MS name them.

> here is no "third party" as such ..

Do you suffer from a particular form of word blindness where you don't 
actually see what you don't want to see. The words "third party" appear 
in the complaint. Wishing very hard for them to go away - won't work.

> why bother with the overseas parent? ..

Cause they might lose ..

> > > > What effect on MSs entire patent portfolio would it be if MS lost this case?

> > > It could encourage other companies to dispute patents held by Microsoft, but 
> > > that is always the case.

> > But what effect would it have on the monetary value of the MS patent portfolio.

> I am sure it would be less than it might be now,

What and why would it be less. Would it increase or decrease its value? 
Why would an event in the future influence an event in the past.

> What it might be worth otherwise is moot.

You mean that losing the case would increase its value. otherwise may be 
moot but then since the value of the IP portfolio can only be judged of 
value in court, it is certainly not moot.