4 ms·

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

by 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?
- yladiz 10y ago
  Are you arguing that if you have a patent you shouldn't be able to get royalties on it, or arguing that patents aren't even necessary? I don't understand your argument. Facebook can do whatever they want with their patents, including license any patents related to the specific software, just like they could sue other companies for patent infringement. You assume that I am making Acme out to be a victim, which isn't true. I'm arguing that Facebook should give a patent license that's more specific to the software they are licensing, e.g. React, Prepack, rather than a blanket license for any patents they ever get. For example, read the Apache 2 license, which is my preference for licenses that need a patent grant, as it's much more specific. You also assume that the strategy of getting patents is to use them to sue, which isn't true. You can get patents without suing, and the likely only reason you'd sue is if a company is willfully infringing upon a patent (e.g. won't license the patent).

by yladiz 10y ago

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?

yladiz 10y ago
Are you arguing that if you have a patent you shouldn't be able to get royalties on it, or arguing that patents aren't even necessary? I don't understand your argument. Facebook can do whatever they want with their patents, including license any patents related to the specific software, just like they could sue other companies for patent infringement. You assume that I am making Acme out to be a victim, which isn't true. I'm arguing that Facebook should give a patent license that's more specific to the software they are licensing, e.g. React, Prepack, rather than a blanket license for any patents they ever get. For example, read the Apache 2 license, which is my preference for licenses that need a patent grant, as it's much more specific. You also assume that the strategy of getting patents is to use them to sue, which isn't true. You can get patents without suing, and the likely only reason you'd sue is if a company is willfully infringing upon a patent (e.g. won't license the patent).