[diskussion] Microsoft sues TomTom over FAT patents

[Jeremiah Foster]

On Mar 16, 2009, at 1:14 PM, Jonas Islander wrote:

> 2009/3/15 Jeremiah Foster <jeremiah at jeremiahfoster.com>:
>
>> Definitely. This case is specifically about the GPL, for example here
>> is a quote by Jeremy Allison of Samba;
>>
>> "[,,,] Make no mistake, this is intended to force Tom Tom to  
>> violate the GPL,
>> or change to Microsoft embedded software."
>
> That's interesting. Could you elaborate? How would Tom Tom be forced
> to violate the GPL?

If you sign patent protection, you cannot distribute that patent  
protected code, if it is under the GPL. Tom Tom uses the linux kernel  
to access FAT partitions so if they signed patent protection with  
Microsoft, they cannot distribute the linux kernel without violating  
the GPL. This means they cannot distribute their software at all.

The claim is that Microsoft has been doing this type of deal in secret  
with lots of companies, forcing them to sign NDA's, therefor there are  
lots of companies violating the GPL. The goal is to make embedded  
linux, or linux at all, as expensive as Microsoft's product so that  
they can argue there is no cost savings with linux.

Tom Tom stood up to Microsoft's blackmail, and it might have been a  
smart move. There is support, both commercial and legal, for linux  
these days and there appears to be enough prior art to invalidate  
Microsoft's patent claims on FAT. But it is important to never use  
filesystems, tools, cloud computing, software, etc. that is not GPL -  
you give away your freedom if you do.

This whole issue can be easily solved by forcing flash disk  
manufacturers to use another file system other than FAT.

Finally, as Jeremy Allison says, make no mistake. This is a direct  
attack on linux, Microsoft is a monopoly that uses ruthless business  
practices to survive, it is directly threatened by linux.

Jeremiah