3 ms·

So I checked StackExchange's law site and found this question - thus far unanswered, but those would be my questions exactly: http://law.stackexchange.com/ques

So I checked StackExchange's law site and found this question - thus far unanswered, but those would be my questions exactly: http://law.stackexchange.com/questions/14337/q-about-consequences-of-a-software-license-amendment-regarding-patents-facebook http://law.stackexchange.com/questions/14337/q-about-consequ... It comes down to two questions (quoted from the linked question) - note that those are questions, not assertions: 1) > ... if we use any of Facebook's open source projects Facebook can violate *our patents* (of any > kind) pretty much with impunity: If we try to sue them we lose the right to patents covering their > open source projects(?) 2) > I have read opinions that other open source projects that don't have such a clause, for example > those from Microsoft or Google, nevertheless have the exact same problem, only that it isn't > explicitly stated. Is that true? Is my situation not any better when I only use open source > projects without such a clause? I think that is a good point. The many opinions I see are almost all from people who don't have their own patents to think about, but what happens if you are a company and you do? Would you basically allow Facebook to use any of your patents, because for all practical purposes you can't defend them if you rely on their open source projects?

gcp 10y ago
1) Yes, and that's exactly the problem raised here. 2) The patent grants from Microsoft and Google grant a license on software (or a standard), and only give them a (reciprocal) license on the software or standard that is under consideration. If Microsoft had published React, you could still sue them for violating patents that are unrelated to React without losing your license to use it. The Facebook grant doesn't have this, so if you rely on React you can't sue Facebook at all. But they can still sue you.
- madeofpalk 10y ago
  2) If Microsoft published React without a patent rider, and Microsoft had patents on the tech in React, then you would be in violation in the first place, right? Microsoft can still you sue for violating their React patents, especially if you sue them first.
  - gcp 10y ago
    1) The article points out there are implicit patent grants if they're not expressly spelled out. 2) Microsoft has provided patent grants that are less severe than Facebook.
thecatspaw 10y ago
> 12.1 Termination. This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate: >… >(c) automatically without notice from Apple if You, at any time during the term of this License, commence an action for patent infringement against Apple; _provided that Apple did not first commence an action for patent infringement against You in that instance._ am I misunderstanding the last part?
- dsp1234 10y ago
  In the above scenario, Apple is infringing the rights of another company, who uses Apple's open source code. That company is then in a hard place. They have to allow the infringement by Apple, or stop using the open source software. Since Apple is the infringer in this scenario, they would not be inclined to 'first commence and action for patent infringement against You'

gcp 10y ago

1) Yes, and that's exactly the problem raised here. 2) The patent grants from Microsoft and Google grant a license on software (or a standard), and only give them a (reciprocal) license on the software or standard that is under consideration. If Microsoft had published React, you could still sue them for violating patents that are unrelated to React without losing your license to use it. The Facebook grant doesn't have this, so if you rely on React you can't sue Facebook at all. But they can still sue you.

madeofpalk 10y ago
2) If Microsoft published React without a patent rider, and Microsoft had patents on the tech in React, then you would be in violation in the first place, right? Microsoft can still you sue for violating their React patents, especially if you sue them first.
- gcp 10y ago
  1) The article points out there are implicit patent grants if they're not expressly spelled out. 2) Microsoft has provided patent grants that are less severe than Facebook.

thecatspaw 10y ago

> 12.1 Termination. This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate: >… >(c) automatically without notice from Apple if You, at any time during the term of this License, commence an action for patent infringement against Apple; _provided that Apple did not first commence an action for patent infringement against You in that instance._ am I misunderstanding the last part?

dsp1234 10y ago
In the above scenario, Apple is infringing the rights of another company, who uses Apple's open source code. That company is then in a hard place. They have to allow the infringement by Apple, or stop using the open source software. Since Apple is the infringer in this scenario, they would not be inclined to 'first commence and action for patent infringement against You'