Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down ..

[Sermo Malifer]

amicus_curious wrote:

> 
> "Rahul Dhesi" <c.c.eiftj@XReXXTomXT.usenet.us.com> wrote in message
> news:gpmeri$f3k$1@blue.rahul.net...
>> "amicus_curious" <ACDC@sti.net> writes:
>>
>>>What is kind of interesting here is that the GPL purists, notably SJVN, a
>>>Linux blogger of note, is insisting that TomTom be barred from making any
>>>kind of patent deal with Mr. Softee....
>>
>> Welcome to the workings of the adversary system of justice. Maybe this
>> is the first time you are being exposed to it. Here's how it works.
>>
>> The copyright owner, and those cheering for the copyright owner, will
>> ask for the earth and the moon and an injunction prohibiting any further
>> copying. Sometimes the injunction is granted. You might recall the
>> famous mp3.com case, in which the RIAA and its members essentially wiped
>> out a half-billion-dollar company overnight with an injunction.
>>
>> The defendant, on the other hand, and those cheering for it (typically
>> including you and Rjack :-) may make pious claims and act hurt like
>> wounded puppies (we are shocked, shocked!) and may argue that there is
>> no infringement at all.  Or even that there is no valid copyright at
>> all, like what JMRI argued.
>>
>> What will really happen? We don't know yet. The only thing we can be
>> sure about is that there will be a lot of posturing from both sides.
>>
>> Often, there is a settlement which gives something to each side.
>>
>> However, so far as I know, none of the Linux kernel copyright holders
>> has yet sued Tom-Tom, and we don't know that there even will be such a
>> lawsuit. So you can wait for the game to start before you start cheering
>> for your side.
>> --
> You seem to be an answer in search of a question here.  I don't see where
> anything I posted has anything to do with what you replied.  I am not
> cheering for anyone here.  I just think that it is interesting that the
> GPL advocates are calling for the heads of anyone who may have capitulated
> to the patent claims being asserted by Microsoft in regard to the FAT file
> design. 

They're only calling for the terms of the GPL to be enforced, just as you
want to see M$ pantent terms enforced.

> Realistically there does not seem to be any way to use FAT files 
> without using (and infringing upon) the FAT design.

Infringing on the design?   It's infringing on a patent that should have
never been granted in the first place, and which has already been struck
down in Germany.

> On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be anybody with standing
> interested in suing GPL users for licensing the FAT patents as a defense
> against Microsoft suits.  

Perhaps the fact this only recently came to light has something to do with
that?

> Is the Linux code even registered for copyright?  

You've been bashing GPL all this time without knowing that?

> I could not find it.   

That's a big part of being a Wintroll!

> Torvalds has registered the trademark, I know, but what about the code? 

Why don't you exercise that marvelous M$ search engine?

> Who could actually sue on this issue?

So you argue first and collect facts second?