3 ms·

Objecting to the concept of software patents doesn't make it illegal for you to use the software.

kuschku 11y ago
Except for the "if the user questions the validity of any Facebook Inc. patents, this license becomes null and void" part...
- raverbashing 11y ago
  It probably means "in court" not just saying "I think software patents should not exist"
  - kuschku 11y ago
    Which makes no difference to me. If I can’t say in court "I believe the patent is invalid", then I can’t use the software. It’s not "free" if they require you to believe their political ideas to use it.
    - rayiner 11y ago
      "Validity" is a legal term of art in patents. Agreeing not to challenge the validity of the patent means, e.g., that you won't file an IPR seeking invalidation on anticipation grounds. It doesn't require you to subscribe to any set of political beliefs.
      - kuschku 11y ago
        It requires that I don’t file a case questioning their validity. And I don’t want to give up that freedom. As I am sure that I will do so.
        rayiner 11y ago
        That's totally fair. I'm just pointing out that when it says "validity" it's not encompassing the abstract question of "is the patent system valid?"
        kuschku 11y ago
        Well, if I decide to question in court the validity of software patents in general, Facebook etc have still the right to get back at me. So, no, webm, VP8, VP9, Google’s new stuff, etc is not "free of patents", it just happens to have patents which most users don’t notice. It’s Google’s business model in general, make it just good enough that most never notice the drawbacks.
        magicalist 11y ago
        > So, no, webm, VP8, VP9, Google’s new stuff, etc is not "free of patents", it just happens to have patents which most users don’t notice. As I pointed out above, that isn't true except in the narrow sense of if you try to sue for the invalidity of the webm patents specifically, and then you'd lose your license to the webm patents and only the webm patents (never mind that if you tried to argue that a software patent was invalid because all software patents should be invalid the court would throw it out so fast that likely no one would notice what you did). You can object to that narrow clause, but no one ever claimed the project was "free of patents", just that it was royalty-free and that it includes a patent license grant for any patents covering the code and format. Moreover, as (again) I noted above, every Apache 2.0 licensed project has the same clause, so you have a lot more windmills you should be tilting at right now.
        kuschku 11y ago
        I’m more annoyed about Facebook (if you fight any patent in court that’s even related to any of theirs, you lose ALL licenses to anything they might own), but still.

Except for the "if the user questions the validity of any Facebook Inc. patents, this license becomes null and void" part...

raverbashing 11y ago
It probably means "in court" not just saying "I think software patents should not exist"
- kuschku 11y ago
  Which makes no difference to me. If I can’t say in court "I believe the patent is invalid", then I can’t use the software. It’s not "free" if they require you to believe their political ideas to use it.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    "Validity" is a legal term of art in patents. Agreeing not to challenge the validity of the patent means, e.g., that you won't file an IPR seeking invalidation on anticipation grounds. It doesn't require you to subscribe to any set of political beliefs.
    - kuschku 11y ago
      It requires that I don’t file a case questioning their validity. And I don’t want to give up that freedom. As I am sure that I will do so.
      - rayiner 11y ago
        That's totally fair. I'm just pointing out that when it says "validity" it's not encompassing the abstract question of "is the patent system valid?"
        kuschku 11y ago
        Well, if I decide to question in court the validity of software patents in general, Facebook etc have still the right to get back at me. So, no, webm, VP8, VP9, Google’s new stuff, etc is not "free of patents", it just happens to have patents which most users don’t notice. It’s Google’s business model in general, make it just good enough that most never notice the drawbacks.
        magicalist 11y ago
        > So, no, webm, VP8, VP9, Google’s new stuff, etc is not "free of patents", it just happens to have patents which most users don’t notice. As I pointed out above, that isn't true except in the narrow sense of if you try to sue for the invalidity of the webm patents specifically, and then you'd lose your license to the webm patents and only the webm patents (never mind that if you tried to argue that a software patent was invalid because all software patents should be invalid the court would throw it out so fast that likely no one would notice what you did). You can object to that narrow clause, but no one ever claimed the project was "free of patents", just that it was royalty-free and that it includes a patent license grant for any patents covering the code and format. Moreover, as (again) I noted above, every Apache 2.0 licensed project has the same clause, so you have a lot more windmills you should be tilting at right now.
        kuschku 11y ago
        I’m more annoyed about Facebook (if you fight any patent in court that’s even related to any of theirs, you lose ALL licenses to anything they might own), but still.