IAM Magazine, a site by lawyers for lawyers (i.e. patent maximalism), has just published an interesting entry (free subscription to read) whose heading heralds: "Microsoft invites TomTom to reveal settlement terms after OIN chief's claims"
Speaking in a session based on the EPO's Scenarios for the Future project, Bergelt explained that under Dutch law, a company only has to reveal how much it has paid to settle a dispute if the amount exceeds a certain percentage of its market capitalisation. According to Bergelt, in TomTom's case the sum would have had to have been over $500,000. As TomTom has not made any figures public, Bergelt claimed, the settlement amount must have fallen below the threshold.
Microsoft vs. Linux
Microsoft has claimed that Linux violates approximately 235 patents. The company has reportedly “chosen” to not sue, and the rationale for this choice has been the topic of much speculation. Microsoft has not revealed the details of the violations, including the identifying numbers of the violated patents.
Lack of merit in the claim is probably the reason most people believe Microsoft has not filed – in other words, Microsoft is bluffing. Perhaps Microsoft knows that the patents are not enforcible for one reason or another, but it also knows fully that it retains power derived from fear so long as it can make threats that sound credible. If the claim does lack merit, that power would diminish rapidly once a case is brought against the first defendant. Either the patents would be found to be unenforcible (e.g. prior art would be proven), or legal action against one defendant would prompt the Linux community as a whole to adapt quickly. Details of the suit would provide the vital information required to ensure that Linux complies with all patents going forward.
Many Linux supporters and advocates disapproved when Novell and XandrOS succumbed to this fear when they signed their now famous “peace treaties” with Microsoft.
Patent change in Europe is unlikely if business leaders remain silent
[...]
With all that that in mind, Topolanek claimed that he was confident that the Czech Presidency of the EU had enabled progress which could now be built on by the Swedes, who assume the presidency at the end of June. It all sounded very impressive, I have to say - a national leader talking eloquently about the importance of patents to Europe's future. Who'd have thought it? Then he was asked to explain what the Czechs had done in concrete terms to take things forward. He paused for a very brief moment before saying: "I do not know, this is not my area." He then got up and left.
Much of the job of PTO director involves employee relations, and Kappos continues to successfully lead one of the largest private patent departments in the world. His current and former employees are loyal to him as a leader and praise his creativity and genius. The IBM IP office is known for its spirited and open debates on policy and direction. In my view, this corporate management experience and patent prosecution experience are more relevant to running the PTO than - say - running litigation teams at a law firm, managing a congressional committee, or even teaching a group of law students.
End Software Patents today launched en.swpat.org, a wiki to document the case against software patents. Over 100 articles have already been started to give an idea of the scope and structure of the wiki.
"Small enterprises generally adopt a rather negative position towards the current increasing granting of patents for software and algorithms because they fear that these will hamper or eventually even impede their work (more than 85%)." —German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), Study of the Innovation Performance of German Software Companies, 2006, p. 86