Jones and Updegrove on Microsoft vs. TomTom
Feb 26, 2009, 18:26 (16 Talkback[s])
(Other stories by Pamela Jones, Andrew Updegrove)
"Are Microsoft's FAT patents *hardware* patents? No?
Then what makes you assume they are valid in the post-Bilski world?
Don't even get me started on obviousness. Let alone who really
"invented" that stuff. This may turn out to be an opportunity,
frankly. If you read the ITC complaint, on page 23, by the way,
you'll find that Microsoft is currently dealing with a nullity
action in Germany regarding a foreign counterpart to the US FAT
patents. It's also dealing with a Canadian challenge.
"If you are new and wonder what Bilski means, here you go.
"And to all those who insist that Microsoft has improved, and
they should be treated just like anybody else, and included in
Linux conferences and all that blah blah blah, would you please
take a long walk on a beach or under a starry sky or something and
after a little soul-searching, ask yourself: Have I lost my
Quick Words About Microsoft v. TomTom: Think Bilski
"So with all of that as prelude, what do I think? The answer is
this: No sea change. at most, a minor course correction,
"1. A new guy at the wheel, letting the marketplace know that
they better not take him for granted.
"2. The ongoing internal divisions within Microsoft between the
proprietary old guard and the more enlightened new guys (including
Ozzie) that either "get" open source software, or at least
understand that Microsoft's customers do. With layoffs and a bad
quarter, perhaps the it was politically expedient to throw the old
guard a bone.
"3. A desire to beef up the credibility of the licensing folks
that will be knocking on the doors of the smaller mobile device and
netbook vendors in the months ahead.
"What I don't see, really, is any likelihood that a major shift
has occurred, and that this is the beginning of the long-feared
Microsoft vs. Linux Armageddon. Simply put, it just doesn't make
Beating the TomTom: Drums of War? (Not)