Normally, we think of the US as the champion of patenting "anything under the sun that is made by man," while the UK is generally more reticent. So it's rather surprising to find the roles reversed in the following story about a new standard for the GPS navigation system:

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is weeks away from approving a controversial British patent that could force American consumers to pay more for GPS navigation devices and even affect the operations of the American military.

The patent is one of dozens filed around the world by the British defense establishment asserting ownership of technology developed jointly by the United States and the European Union (EU). The patents lay claim to a signal structure crafted by American and European experts to make Europe’s still-emerging Galileo satellite navigation system interoperable with GPS and improve service for users of both systems.

This is no ordinary patent spat -- it could have global consequences: according to the article quoted above, US officials are so incensed about this unsporting move that they might drop the interoperability plans altogether. What's ironic here is that the US was assuming that the new standard's technology formed a kind of commons -- available to all, but owned by no one -- and it was the UK that decided to enclose part of that commons using patents, a move which now risks destroying it for everyone.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

A few friends have passed along Bill Gurley's excellent (as usual) analysis of how Google is disrupting the navigation market by ditching the two big players in the space (Tele Atlas and Navteq), going it alone and also (the big news) offering its navigation info for free. Gurley points out that the truly disruptive part is that Google is actually offering mobile operators a deal that is better than free, in that they get to share in some of the ad revenue associated with anyone using the services. The point is pretty clear: those who are relying on the old business model of getting paid for navigation info are likely in serious trouble.

Of course, there are some perception issues. Plenty of companies who have tried a "we'll pay you" approach to marketing often find that it actually breeds some level of mistrust, as partners/users start wondering why, and if there's some sort of nasty catch. Google, of course, has a pretty good reputation, and ought to be able to overcome that issue. However, it does make me wonder if this will set off the Justice Department (and Google's enemies) on some silly witchhunt, claiming that this is somehow "predatory pricing." That, of course, is ridiculous if you actually think it through. The only real problem with predatory pricing is if it's used purposely to drive others out of business to then jack up prices. But Google's idea is to just give it more opportunity to make ad revenue. It's not predatory, it's just smart from a business sense. However, with so much scrutiny on Google these days, you could certainly see this backfiring.

Brendan was the first of a few to submit the story that New Zealand is telling people that they can't use their mobile phones for navigation purposes, even if that phone is mounted on the dashboard like a regular GPS navigation device. Regular GPS devices are fine... but a mobile phone acting just like one of those devices? That's illegal. Why? No one seems to be saying, but you can bet the standalone GPS makers are happy about this... Update: Well, that was fast. Given public backlash, the gov't has already decided to back down and rewrite the laws to allow mobile phone navigation systems.

For years, Microsoft has waved around the FUD stick concerning the 200+ patents it claimed to hold that Linux implementations supposedly infringed upon. However, when confronted, the company never seemed willing to name a single such patent. However, it looks like the company is starting to swing that stick with a bit more force. Horacio Gutierrez, Microsoft's "patent guy," fresh off a promotion, is suing navigation device maker TomTom over a variety of patents, including a few that relate to TomTom's implementation of Linux. Gutierrez has a somewhat troubling view on patents, where he believes that all tech companies should effectively be paying pretty much everyone else patent licensing fees before they can build any products. Rather than seeing that as a problem -- he thinks it represents a good thing. It's difficult to see what the benefit is in all that wasted money changing hands... other than it's probably what pays his salary. Not surprisingly, Microsoft is using the infamous ITC loophole to get two shots at forcing TomTom to pay up -- meaning that it's both sued the company in court, and gone to the ITC to have it try to block the import of TomTom products.

As for the patents themselves, looking them over, it's almost scary how broad they are. Some of them apply to basic in-car navigation features, while others focus on the file system TomTom is using (which is an implementation of Linux). If you'd like to look them over, here they are:

• Vehicle computer system with open platform architecture
• Method and system for generating driving directions (check out the claims on this one...)
• Methods and Arrangements for Interacting with Controllable Objects within a Graphical User Interface Environment Using Various Input Mechanisms
• Portable computing device-integrated appliance
• Vehicle computer system with wireless internet connectivity (would be great if some IP lawyers could explain how this one passes the KSR test for combining existing products)
• Common name space for long and short filenames (ditto concerning whether or not this passes the Bilski test concerning pure "software" patents)
• Common name space for long and short filenames (same name, slightly different patent -- same questions raised, however)
• Method and System for File System Management Using a Flash-Erasable, Programmable, Read-only Memory

It's those last three that apply to TomTom's implementation of Linux. While Gutierrez insists this is not Microsoft beginning its patent assault on Linux, anyone wondering about those mythical 200+ patents might want to start checking on those three patents first. Unfortunately, chances are that TomTom will just settle. No matter how strong a case it might have, it's going to be cheaper to settle, and that's exactly what Microsoft is counting on.

In the past, we've seen stories of GPS navigation devices not knowing enough about local roads that the directions were often inappropriate for the type of vehicle -- especially trucks. It had resulted in signs being placed on roads, begging drivers to ignore their own navigation devices. Engadget now points us to a report from the UK suggesting that bad directions from navigation devices was responsible for damage to about 2,000 bridges. That seems like quite a lot. The claim is that the devices direct trucks who are much too heavy to go over bridges not designed for that kind of load. Work is now being done to get the navigation companies to at least understand the types of roads and bridges, and how that corresponds to different types of vehicles.

Sometimes you just need to stand back and applaud a strategy that works so well. Many people thought that navigation device provider Garmin would be in trouble earlier this year after its main rival TomTom agreed to buy mapping service Tele Atlas and Nokia agreed to buy TeleAtlas' only real rival Navteq. Potentially, that could have left Garmin without a mapping partner, though it seem difficult to believe that Nokia would cut off Garmin. However, Garmin tried to outbid TomTom for Tele Atlas while also buying up 5% of Tele Atlas' shares on the open market, leading TomTom to significantly increase its own bid, from the original $2.5 billion offer all the way up to $4.2 billion. People were waiting to see if Garmin would go even higher, but instead, it pulled a nice switcheroo. First, it worked out a settlement with TomTom on various patent lawsuits the two were fighting, and then went in for the kill. Garmin signed a long term deal with Navteq, guaranteeing access to its maps for the next 10 years (6 years, with a 4 year option afterwards) and then dropping its bid for Tele Atlas. In other words, Garmin doesn't have to worry about being shut out from mapping services for 10 years (at which point other options may be available), it doesn't have to pay $3.3 billion to buy Tele Atlas, it forced its main competitor TomTom to spend $1.7 billion more than it wanted to. And, oh yeah, it'll make back a bunch of money when TomTom takes over Tele Atlas, because that 5% stake that Garmin had acquired will get sold at a nice premium in the acquisition. Well played, Garmin. Well played, indeed.

TomTom and Garmin have been involved in a really nasty intellectual property battle over the past few years, involving multiple lawsuits over multiple issues in multiple locations. It really was a case of patent nuclear war, where both sides were throwing whatever they could think of at each other. However, now that the two sides have something more concrete to fight over than market share, it seems they've decided to settle all of their intellectual property battles and simply focus on fighting over who gets to own Tele Atlas. Of course, as some people are beginning to notice, this may be a pointless battle, as both companies are going to face increasing competition from the mobile device arena -- especially from the likes of Nokia who forced Garmin to bid for Tele Atlas after announcing the acquisition of Tele Atlas competitor Navteq. So it really might not matter who wins the battle for Tele Atlas, as the market for standalone navigation devices may start to disappear.

Nokia made a bit of a splash this morning by announcing plans to buy digital mapping/navigation firm Navteq for $8.1 billion. Navteq is definitely the leading player in the space, followed by TeleAtlas -- and the two companies basically dominate the market. Earlier this year, you may recall, navigation device maker TomTom announced plans to buy TeleAtlas, though that deal is not yet completed.

Many people are speculating on what this could mean for Garmin, TomTom's main rival in the navigation device space. Garmin uses Navteq for its maps, but it seems hard to believe that Nokia would simply cut off Garmin. That would take a huge chunk of revenue out of the deal, making it a lot less worthwhile. What's much more interesting is how this shows the strength of Nokia's commitment to really leveraging mobile devices for location-based services and navigation information. People have talked about such things for years, and Nokia's purchase certainly suggests that they're about to make a big push into moving navigation info and location-based services out of a separate device and into mobile phones.

The GPS navigation unit market is one that's largely commoditized, with little apparent differentiation to many consumers among products. It's also a highly competitive market, particularly for makers of standalone systems, who must compete against car manufacturers' built-in offerings, and now also against mobile-phone based systems. But TomTom, the world's biggest vendor of standalone GPS units, is hoping to set itself apart from its rivals by harnessing the power of its community of users. It's made a bid for Tele Atlas, a digital mapmaker, and once it owns the company and its maps, it will be able to incorporate all sorts of user-generated information into its maps and navigation units. Users will be able to notify the company of changes to roads and conditions, or to update information on points of interest, such as restaurants that have opened or closed. This sort of "crowdsourcing" has gotten a lot attention over the past few years, though many implementations of it leave a lot to be desired. But TomTom's idea could be a pretty good one. Not only does it help the company improve its products and differentiate from its rivals at a relatively low cost, users also derive a tangible benefit from participation in the way of updated and more accurate maps and info, so they have some incentive to participate.