Re: Microsoft and TomTom settle

[Rjack]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Rjack wrote:
> > 7 wrote:
> > > Rjack the stupid 1 wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Microsoft and TomTom have settled their controversial 
> > > > patent dispute, which included allegations that the Linux 
> > > > kernel infringes on Microsoft's filesystem patents. TomTom 
> > > > has licensed the patents from Microsoft, but intends to 
> > > > remove from its Linux kernel the code that is covered by 
> > > > the patents."
> > > >
> > > > http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/03
> > > microsoft-and-tomtom-settle-patent-dispute.ars
> > >
> > >
> > > That is one of the fastest settlements I have seen for a big 
> > > corp. Usually propellor heads will rachet up the ante all day
> > >  and all night for years before making a move.
> > >
> > > I wonder what forced micoshaft to change their mind?
> > Even a turd head like you is capable reading the rest of 
> > referenced article:
> >
> > "TomTom has paid to license Microsoft's patents, including 
> > those covering FAT."
> >
> > http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/03/microsoft-and-tomtom-settle-patent-dispute.ars
> SFLC's spin-doctoring:
>
> http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/mar/30/settled-not-over-yet/
> ------ March 30, 2009
>
> Settled, But Not Over Yet
>
> Today's settlement between Microsoft and TomTom ends one phase of
>  the community's response to Microsoft patent aggression,

Is "patent aggression" (being a patent plaintiff) anything like
"copyright aggression?" (being a copyright plaintiff)?

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and
then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy
brother's eye ...

> and begins another. On the basis of the information we have, we 
> have no reason to believe that TomTom's settlement agreement with
>  Microsoft violates the license on the kernel, Linux, or any
> other free software used in its products. The settlement neither 
> implies that Microsoft patents are valid nor that TomTom's 
> products were or are infringing.
>
> The FAT filesystem patents on which Microsoft sued are now and 
> have always been invalid patents in our professional opinion.

"In our 'Professional' opinion"? This from "Professionals" who filed
five consecutive copyright infringement cases for clients who had no
registered copyrights. ROFL

> SFLC remains committed to protecting the interests of our clients
>  and the community. We will act forcefully to protect all users 
> and developers of free software against further intimidation or 
> interference from these patents.
>
> SFLC, working with the Open Invention Network and the Linux 
> Foundation, is pleased to participate in a coordinated, carefully
>  graduated response on behalf of all the community's members to 
> ongoing anti-competitive Microsoft conduct. We believe in 
> strength through unity, and we think our community's unity in the
>  face of these threats has helped to bring about Microsoft's
> quick settlement on all issues with TomTom. ------
>
> <chuckles>
>
> Red Hat's "Legal Team":
>
> ------ Comment on TomTom-Microsoft Settlement
>
> by Legal Team
>
> Red Hat was not a party to this case. Even so, without a judicial
>  decision, the settlement does not demonstrate that the claims of
>  Microsoft were valid. Patent litigation is a difficult process, 
> and there are many reasons besides the merits of the case that a 
> defendant such as TomTom might have chosen to settle in the 
> present economic environment. As the terms of the settlement 
> license have not, to our knowledge, been made public, it is not 
> possible to comment on their compliance with open source 
> requirements and principles.
>
> This entry was posted by Legal Team on Monday, March 30th, 2009 
> at 2:58 pm and is filed under IP. You can follow any responses to
>  this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are
>  currently closed.
>
> Comments are closed. ------
>
> regards, alexander.
>
> -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive 
> derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as 
> GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU 
> cannot.)