3 ms·

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

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).

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).