3 ms·
> 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.
by 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 agoNot 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 agoThanks for the info.
- andreyf 10y agoCareful. 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