"A. The Additional Grant of Patent Rights in Unnecessary." This is legally incorrect. ". But I’ve never heard any lawyer postulate that that document does not

"A. The Additional Grant of Patent Rights in Unnecessary." This is legally incorrect. ". But I’ve never heard any lawyer postulate that that document does not grant a license to fully exploit the licensed software under all of the licensor’s intellectual property. Anyone who pushes that view is thinking too hard." Nobody has pushed this view. However, the author seems to miss that such rights are likely not sublicensable, because they are implied, and implied rights are pretty much never sublicensable. That is, i may have gotten the rights. That does not mean i can give someone else the same rights. Now, there are other possible principles, such as exhaustion, that may take care of this (it's a grey area) But it's definitely not the case that implied patent rights are somehow going to be better than an explicit grant. They are for people using software. They are not for people distributing software.