7 ms·

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 t

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.
  - andreyf 10y ago
    What would their case be? "Yes, we gave away the software and documented it and paid designers to design it all pretty and spent marketing effort promoting it but nobody is allowed to use it because it's patented technology"? Has any court ever ruled that a permissive license like BSD does not include a patent grant when it says "use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted"? Because that seems flat-out silly.
    - abritinthebay 10y ago
      You're asking the wrong question. There is almost no case law that supports implicit patent grants and what little there is requires the patents be ones... "that dominate the product or any uses of the product to which the parties might reasonably contemplate the product will be put" -- HP vs O-Type Stencil (1997) So, again, very limited. Very dangerous. Very very open to being sued and crushed economically. This is exactly why FB's patent grant provides you more rights that you get without it. There is no ambiguity, no fussing over what patents may or may not apply and be covered by the case law. It's explicit and better for you. Long story short: in many ways it's less safe to rely on implicit grants.
      - kbutler 10y ago
        But isn't it the case that any patents that would affect the use of react/prepack would "dominate the product or any uses of the product..."? Yes, the grant is better than nothing, but also, the risk if the grant is removed seems minimal.
        abritinthebay 10y ago
        Any patents? Not at all. It's of course possible that they have (or will have) some that would be covered by an implicit grant - though you'd need to go to court to confirm that. But it's quite possible that they could have many patents that cover non-substancial parts. Guess what? You're now in violation of those if you haven't already licensed them. So, again, even in the best case the implicit grant still requires you to go to court to maybe get clear of some liability. Explicit ones have you covered from the start. More rights for you, broader coverage for you.
- Lazare 10y ago
  Some people think so. Others aren't so sure. US courts have not yet ruled on it. However, even the people who DO think an implicit grant exists would mostly agree that the implicit grant is not sublicensable, which makes it a horrible mess and probably unusable. An explicit grant is strongly preferable, IF people can agree on the terms. Facebook's terms are on the harsh side, but there's clear advantages to it existing.
  - andreyf 10y ago
    If you license something under BSD and continue to license under the BSD, the question of sub-licensing seems moot.
  - abritinthebay 10y ago
    > US courts have not yet ruled on it. They sort of have. A patent has to be a major and "dominant" part of the implicitly licensed tech for it to be granted. Basically - all existing case law says that you get some rights from implicit grants but it's also far less than explicit ones like FB's
    - andreyf 10y ago
      Not only does not all of the case law say this, that's not even what that case was about nor what that language said: http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Implicit_patent_licence#USA http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Implicit_patent_licence#USA
    - Lazare 10y ago
      Thanks for the info.
      - andreyf 10y ago
        Careful. I don't know what his motivations are, but the info is misrepresenting both the context and the meaning of the language he references: http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Implicit_patent_licence#USA http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Implicit_patent_licence#USA
maaaats 10y ago
They could use some proper, standard license, though. Then people wouldn't complain. Like Apache license.
- devrandomguy 10y ago
  The licenses that you are thinking of, are all related to copyright, not patents. Patents are a completely different beast. I personally think that patents have no place in contemporary society, but that's just, like, my opinion, man.
  - RangerScience 10y ago
    I know of at least two things that I think are pretty reasonable and (probably) patentable: Apollo Diamond's vapor deposition process, and those north/south printable magnets. That said, I think I broadly agree with you about software patents; one reason why is that they're the glitter of intellectual property. If you buy an Apollo diamond or one of those magnets, the use, possession, modification, etc of those items are not covered by the patents on the diamond (AFAIK, IANAL). With software patents, it seems to be the case that the "final product" IS covered by the patents. This seems like it makes the presence of two separate categories pretty damn clear.
  - jeremyjh 10y ago
    The Apache license has had patent clauses for more than a decade. http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_clauses_in_software_licences#Apache_License_2.0 http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_clauses_in_software_licences...
  - abritinthebay 10y ago
    > I personally think that patents have no place in contemporary society Amend that to Software Patents and... I'm basically with you. Generally I think they are useful as a concept but I think they've become a bloated mess.
  - maaaats 10y ago
    No, I explicitly mentioned Apache because it has patent clauses.
Noseshine 10y ago
No, that question is unsettled. If you know better, you might want to give an answer here: https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/14337/q-about-consequences-of-a-software-license-amendment-regarding-patents-facebook https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/14337/q-about-conseq...

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.
- andreyf 10y ago
  What would their case be? "Yes, we gave away the software and documented it and paid designers to design it all pretty and spent marketing effort promoting it but nobody is allowed to use it because it's patented technology"? Has any court ever ruled that a permissive license like BSD does not include a patent grant when it says "use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted"? Because that seems flat-out silly.
  - abritinthebay 10y ago
    You're asking the wrong question. There is almost no case law that supports implicit patent grants and what little there is requires the patents be ones... "that dominate the product or any uses of the product to which the parties might reasonably contemplate the product will be put" -- HP vs O-Type Stencil (1997) So, again, very limited. Very dangerous. Very very open to being sued and crushed economically. This is exactly why FB's patent grant provides you more rights that you get without it. There is no ambiguity, no fussing over what patents may or may not apply and be covered by the case law. It's explicit and better for you. Long story short: in many ways it's less safe to rely on implicit grants.
    - kbutler 10y ago
      But isn't it the case that any patents that would affect the use of react/prepack would "dominate the product or any uses of the product..."? Yes, the grant is better than nothing, but also, the risk if the grant is removed seems minimal.
      - abritinthebay 10y ago
        Any patents? Not at all. It's of course possible that they have (or will have) some that would be covered by an implicit grant - though you'd need to go to court to confirm that. But it's quite possible that they could have many patents that cover non-substancial parts. Guess what? You're now in violation of those if you haven't already licensed them. So, again, even in the best case the implicit grant still requires you to go to court to maybe get clear of some liability. Explicit ones have you covered from the start. More rights for you, broader coverage for you.
Lazare 10y ago
Some people think so. Others aren't so sure. US courts have not yet ruled on it. However, even the people who DO think an implicit grant exists would mostly agree that the implicit grant is not sublicensable, which makes it a horrible mess and probably unusable. An explicit grant is strongly preferable, IF people can agree on the terms. Facebook's terms are on the harsh side, but there's clear advantages to it existing.
- andreyf 10y ago
  If you license something under BSD and continue to license under the BSD, the question of sub-licensing seems moot.
- abritinthebay 10y ago
  > US courts have not yet ruled on it. They sort of have. A patent has to be a major and "dominant" part of the implicitly licensed tech for it to be granted. Basically - all existing case law says that you get some rights from implicit grants but it's also far less than explicit ones like FB's
  - andreyf 10y ago
    Not only does not all of the case law say this, that's not even what that case was about nor what that language said: http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Implicit_patent_licence#USA http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Implicit_patent_licence#USA
  - Lazare 10y ago
    Thanks for the info.
    - andreyf 10y ago
      Careful. I don't know what his motivations are, but the info is misrepresenting both the context and the meaning of the language he references: http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Implicit_patent_licence#USA http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Implicit_patent_licence#USA

maaaats 10y ago

They could use some proper, standard license, though. Then people wouldn't complain. Like Apache license.

devrandomguy 10y ago
The licenses that you are thinking of, are all related to copyright, not patents. Patents are a completely different beast. I personally think that patents have no place in contemporary society, but that's just, like, my opinion, man.
- RangerScience 10y ago
  I know of at least two things that I think are pretty reasonable and (probably) patentable: Apollo Diamond's vapor deposition process, and those north/south printable magnets. That said, I think I broadly agree with you about software patents; one reason why is that they're the glitter of intellectual property. If you buy an Apollo diamond or one of those magnets, the use, possession, modification, etc of those items are not covered by the patents on the diamond (AFAIK, IANAL). With software patents, it seems to be the case that the "final product" IS covered by the patents. This seems like it makes the presence of two separate categories pretty damn clear.
- jeremyjh 10y ago
  The Apache license has had patent clauses for more than a decade. http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_clauses_in_software_licences#Apache_License_2.0 http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_clauses_in_software_licences...
- abritinthebay 10y ago
  > I personally think that patents have no place in contemporary society Amend that to Software Patents and... I'm basically with you. Generally I think they are useful as a concept but I think they've become a bloated mess.
- maaaats 10y ago
  No, I explicitly mentioned Apache because it has patent clauses.

Noseshine 10y ago

No, that question is unsettled. If you know better, you might want to give an answer here: https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/14337/q-about-consequences-of-a-software-license-amendment-regarding-patents-facebook https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/14337/q-about-conseq...