7 ms·

I hate to bring this up whenever I see a Facebook project, but it still warrants saying: the patents clause in this project, like in others including React, is

by yladiz 10y ago

I hate to bring this up whenever I see a Facebook project, but it still warrants saying: the patents clause in this project, like in others including React, is too broad. I really wish they made a "version 3" that limited the scope of the revocation to patents pertaining to the software in question, e.g. Prepack, React, rather than a blanket statement that covers any patent assertion against Facebook. While I suppose the likelihood of this occurring is small, I can imagine a company holding some valid patents, such as something related to VR, that aren't related to Prepack that Facebook infringes upon, as well as using a software that Facebook produces like Prepack, sue Facebook for infringement, and then losing the right to use Prepack as a result. From my understanding these kinds of clauses are beneficial overall, but the specific one that Facebook uses is too broad. Tangentially related: what would happen if you did sue Facebook for patent infringement, and continued to use this software?

andreyf 10y ago
IANAL, but most likely: nothing. Less likely: Facebook counter-sues you for patent infringement and (maybe?) has a slightly better case as long as you keep using it. Your lawyers tell your engineers to rewrite everything without Facebook technologies and it's all a big pain in the ass and you regret ever suing Facebook for patent infringement.
- K2L8M11N2 9y ago
  Would the same still apply to the output of the programs, e.g. could you keep the optimized code generated by Prepack?
  - andreyf 9y ago
    That's for the court to decide, assuming Facebook has patents on Webpack. To minimize liability, probably best not to.
abritinthebay 10y ago
This gets brought up every time, even after many times it's been clarified (even by lawyers) that it gives you more rights overall (as the downsides to it are true either way). Remember - without that patent grant you have no rights to any of Facebook's patents anyhow. With it, you do. So the worst case is that you'd be in the same situation if you didn't have the grant.
- yladiz 10y ago
  Yes, I know; I mentioned that my understanding is that they're more beneficial. The beneficial aspects of the clause don't forgive the broadness of it, however.
  - abritinthebay 10y ago
    It's broad necessarily otherwise it wouldn't cover/protect authors broadly.
- andreyf 10y ago
  False: an implicit patent grant means that by open sourcing a piece of software you imply that people can, you know, use it.
  - eridius 10y ago
    AIUI this issue still hasn't been settled to everybody's satisfaction.
  - abritinthebay 10y ago
    And the weakness, legally speaking, of implicit patent grants was one major reason why GPL moved from v2 to v3. Explicit is much much safer for users of software, legally speaking, because implicit grants have to be settled in court. If you really want to go to court over it, and can afford it, then you may be right. Want to test that against Facebook? They reasoned (quite rightly) that it would be silly to suggest that.
    - 10y ago
amygdyl 10y ago
Previously, when absurd patents first (see edit) as far as our sight alerted us, the history is of course very long -- we placed all our public facing work in a arms length company. Down to the company website. I never imagined, then (being late 90s) that a brochureware dot com might require liability boxing legally, but I never imagined whole libraries like React being adopted so wholesale, so seemingly blindly (if not blindly, why has nobody posted the outcome of due diligence? A blog topic I'd like the attention from.) and so trivially as, yes, our brochureware site just could get used against us. Our early clients expressed concern, first: we had to pass their IP hygiene checks. We adopted those, right away. Such stringencies are why many entities I've worked with, have no or empty websites, but old old registration dates on their dot coms... * edit, missing dependant clause I guess was strongly implied, but it's about when we first saw frivolous, vexatious patent suits aiming at the front doors of random web presences condition there might be money and weak legal... I mistakenly imagined that to be spurious, not it would develop into a psedo- legitimate"industry". A moral thought: Maybe if we sold fewer reinvented wheels, there might be less temptation for parasitic behaviour to organize itself, like patent trolling has done? I can certainly plead the fifth to wheel reinvention, most days I write code ... (edit last) my meaning behind this is that I frequently have found highly objectionable behaviour being justified by the calling out of perceived comparable poor behaviour. Now I don't go sp far to condemn e.g. the js library crowd or any of anything for that matter, it's too young to blame yet. But with the first generation who grew up exposed to computing comparable to modernity, now maturing, its natural the industry will mature also. I see the brake on maturation more as lots of great new tools, than moral or human lacking. But self appointed grown ups trying to bully tax us, might be the natural parasitic compliment to this rich novel ecosystem. We don't need no random adults to appoint to combat this, we just need to question and talk about what is sane to accept. There's too much over reaching paternalism propping up big business assumptions, right now.
Lazare 10y ago
> sue Facebook for infringement, and then losing the right to use Prepack as a result. You do not lose the right to use Prepack. You lose the right to use whatever patents Facebook may or may not have on the technologies underpinning Prepack, if any. If you believe Facebook has a lot of strong patents relating to Prepack, the value of the patent grant is high, and the cost of losing it is high. If you do not believe Prepack is encumbered by Facebook patents, then the value of the grant is nil, and the cost of losing it is nil. > Tangentially related: what would happen if you did sue Facebook for patent infringement, and continued to use this software? In my view, almost certainly nothing, because I don't think they have any patents on the underlying tech. But if they did, then they'd be added into the ongoing patent fight, and would give Facebook marginally more leverage when negotiating the final settlement. I rather suspect that the patents Facebook has on other non-Prepack things would be much more decisive.
yladiz 10y ago
I can't edit my post since it's been too long, but I do want to clarify that when I say valid patent, I mean a patent that has been granted by the patent office and isn't held by a non practicing entity. I could easily see a company 1) using something Facebook has created, like React, for a VR based UI; 2) patenting something related to their VR technology; 3) Oculus making the same kind of technology and not paying the company royalties/licensing its usage; and, 4) suing Oculus for patent infringement. Of course it is within Facebook's right to make the patent clause as broad as it is, but I don't feel like it is fair that the company above would not be able to use React because Facebook infringed on a patent unrelated to React. It would be a lot nicer if Facebook either used an already existing license like Apache 2, or updated the patent clause to be more specific.
- Lazare 10y ago
  > I don't feel like it is fair that the company above would not be able to use React because Facebook infringed on a patent unrelated to React. Again, keep in mind that in your example, the company still has a license to use React. What you're losing is your explicit grant of a license to the patents Facebook MAY have on the technology. But nobody has ever identified such a patent, and one of the core React devs is on record as saying he isn't aware of any either.
- jaredklewis 10y ago
  Let me get this straight. - Facebook says, "hey you can use this software, no copyright strings attached." - Facebook says, "also, any patents we have to that software, here's a license. One stipulation, if you sue us for patent infringement, we revoke that license." - Your hypothetical company, let's call it Acme, seeing the value of getting to use great software, for free, with no copyright or patent royalties, takes Facebook up on their charitable offer. - Acme then, sues Facebook for patent infringement. - As per the license, Facebook revokes their free patent license they gave to Acme. And somehow the victim in this story is Acme? That's pretty rich. Here's an idea: if part of your strategy as a company is using your patents to sue people, maybe don't expect those other companies to give you their patents for free?
  - 10y ago

by yladiz 10y ago

andreyf 10y ago

IANAL, but most likely: nothing. Less likely: Facebook counter-sues you for patent infringement and (maybe?) has a slightly better case as long as you keep using it. Your lawyers tell your engineers to rewrite everything without Facebook technologies and it's all a big pain in the ass and you regret ever suing Facebook for patent infringement.

K2L8M11N2 9y ago
Would the same still apply to the output of the programs, e.g. could you keep the optimized code generated by Prepack?
- andreyf 9y ago
  That's for the court to decide, assuming Facebook has patents on Webpack. To minimize liability, probably best not to.

abritinthebay 10y ago

This gets brought up every time, even after many times it's been clarified (even by lawyers) that it gives you more rights overall (as the downsides to it are true either way). Remember - without that patent grant you have no rights to any of Facebook's patents anyhow. With it, you do. So the worst case is that you'd be in the same situation if you didn't have the grant.

yladiz 10y ago
Yes, I know; I mentioned that my understanding is that they're more beneficial. The beneficial aspects of the clause don't forgive the broadness of it, however.
- abritinthebay 10y ago
  It's broad necessarily otherwise it wouldn't cover/protect authors broadly.
andreyf 10y ago
False: an implicit patent grant means that by open sourcing a piece of software you imply that people can, you know, use it.
- eridius 10y ago
  AIUI this issue still hasn't been settled to everybody's satisfaction.
- abritinthebay 10y ago
  And the weakness, legally speaking, of implicit patent grants was one major reason why GPL moved from v2 to v3. Explicit is much much safer for users of software, legally speaking, because implicit grants have to be settled in court. If you really want to go to court over it, and can afford it, then you may be right. Want to test that against Facebook? They reasoned (quite rightly) that it would be silly to suggest that.
  - 10y ago

amygdyl 10y ago

Previously, when absurd patents first (see edit) as far as our sight alerted us, the history is of course very long -- we placed all our public facing work in a arms length company. Down to the company website. I never imagined, then (being late 90s) that a brochureware dot com might require liability boxing legally, but I never imagined whole libraries like React being adopted so wholesale, so seemingly blindly (if not blindly, why has nobody posted the outcome of due diligence? A blog topic I'd like the attention from.) and so trivially as, yes, our brochureware site just could get used against us. Our early clients expressed concern, first: we had to pass their IP hygiene checks. We adopted those, right away. Such stringencies are why many entities I've worked with, have no or empty websites, but old old registration dates on their dot coms... * edit, missing dependant clause I guess was strongly implied, but it's about when we first saw frivolous, vexatious patent suits aiming at the front doors of random web presences condition there might be money and weak legal... I mistakenly imagined that to be spurious, not it would develop into a psedo- legitimate"industry". A moral thought: Maybe if we sold fewer reinvented wheels, there might be less temptation for parasitic behaviour to organize itself, like patent trolling has done? I can certainly plead the fifth to wheel reinvention, most days I write code ... (edit last) my meaning behind this is that I frequently have found highly objectionable behaviour being justified by the calling out of perceived comparable poor behaviour. Now I don't go sp far to condemn e.g. the js library crowd or any of anything for that matter, it's too young to blame yet. But with the first generation who grew up exposed to computing comparable to modernity, now maturing, its natural the industry will mature also. I see the brake on maturation more as lots of great new tools, than moral or human lacking. But self appointed grown ups trying to bully tax us, might be the natural parasitic compliment to this rich novel ecosystem. We don't need no random adults to appoint to combat this, we just need to question and talk about what is sane to accept. There's too much over reaching paternalism propping up big business assumptions, right now.

Lazare 10y ago

> sue Facebook for infringement, and then losing the right to use Prepack as a result. You do not lose the right to use Prepack. You lose the right to use whatever patents Facebook may or may not have on the technologies underpinning Prepack, if any. If you believe Facebook has a lot of strong patents relating to Prepack, the value of the patent grant is high, and the cost of losing it is high. If you do not believe Prepack is encumbered by Facebook patents, then the value of the grant is nil, and the cost of losing it is nil. > Tangentially related: what would happen if you did sue Facebook for patent infringement, and continued to use this software? In my view, almost certainly nothing, because I don't think they have any patents on the underlying tech. But if they did, then they'd be added into the ongoing patent fight, and would give Facebook marginally more leverage when negotiating the final settlement. I rather suspect that the patents Facebook has on other non-Prepack things would be much more decisive.

yladiz 10y ago

I can't edit my post since it's been too long, but I do want to clarify that when I say valid patent, I mean a patent that has been granted by the patent office and isn't held by a non practicing entity. I could easily see a company 1) using something Facebook has created, like React, for a VR based UI; 2) patenting something related to their VR technology; 3) Oculus making the same kind of technology and not paying the company royalties/licensing its usage; and, 4) suing Oculus for patent infringement. Of course it is within Facebook's right to make the patent clause as broad as it is, but I don't feel like it is fair that the company above would not be able to use React because Facebook infringed on a patent unrelated to React. It would be a lot nicer if Facebook either used an already existing license like Apache 2, or updated the patent clause to be more specific.

Lazare 10y ago
> I don't feel like it is fair that the company above would not be able to use React because Facebook infringed on a patent unrelated to React. Again, keep in mind that in your example, the company still has a license to use React. What you're losing is your explicit grant of a license to the patents Facebook MAY have on the technology. But nobody has ever identified such a patent, and one of the core React devs is on record as saying he isn't aware of any either.
jaredklewis 10y ago
Let me get this straight. - Facebook says, "hey you can use this software, no copyright strings attached." - Facebook says, "also, any patents we have to that software, here's a license. One stipulation, if you sue us for patent infringement, we revoke that license." - Your hypothetical company, let's call it Acme, seeing the value of getting to use great software, for free, with no copyright or patent royalties, takes Facebook up on their charitable offer. - Acme then, sues Facebook for patent infringement. - As per the license, Facebook revokes their free patent license they gave to Acme. And somehow the victim in this story is Acme? That's pretty rich. Here's an idea: if part of your strategy as a company is using your patents to sue people, maybe don't expect those other companies to give you their patents for free?
- 10y ago