3 ms·

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... "

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.
  - kbutler 10y ago
    It seems very unlikely to find a way to use these products in an unintended way that would violate some tangentially related patent, but a) it's all hypothetical and b) one should never underestimate the ability and willingness of IP lawyers to allege an infringement. "You have stored the software on electronic media and used that media as a doorstop, violating our access control patents by keeping the door open." Hmm. Has that been filed yet?

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.
- kbutler 10y ago
  It seems very unlikely to find a way to use these products in an unintended way that would violate some tangentially related patent, but a) it's all hypothetical and b) one should never underestimate the ability and willingness of IP lawyers to allege an infringement. "You have stored the software on electronic media and used that media as a doorstop, violating our access control patents by keeping the door open." Hmm. Has that been filed yet?