7 ms·

So, i feel for them, having watched Google's open source projects be targeted by patent trolls in the past. But i really don't think this is the way forward.

So, i feel for them, having watched Google's open source projects be targeted by patent trolls in the past. But i really don't think this is the way forward. A few things: 1. If you want to suggest you are doing this as part of an attempt to avoid meritless litigation, you really should give concrete examples of that happening. Otherwise, it comes off as a smoke screen. 2. The assertion is that if widely adopted, it would avoid lots of meritless litigation. This is a theoretically possible outcome. Here's another theoretically possible outcome of wide adoption of this kind of very broad termination language: Facebook is able to use other people's technology at will because nobody can afford to not use their stuff, and no startup that they decide to take technology from, and say "no more facebook/react/etc for you" could realistically launch an effective lawsuit before they died. Assume for a second you think Facebook is not likely to do this. If widely adopted, someone will do it. Nobody should have to worry about this possibility when considering whether to adopt particular open source software. (there are other theoretical outcomes, good and bad). It's also worth pointing out: None of this is a new discussion or argument. All of the current revisions of the major licenses (Apache v2, GPLv3) went through arguments about whether to use these kinds of broader termination clauses (though not quite as one sided and company focused), and ultimately decided not to, for (IMHO good) reasons. I'm a bit surprised this isn't mentioned or discussed anywhere. These kinds of clauses are not a uniform net positive, they are fairly bimodal.

fhrow4484 9y ago
That's a good point, especially since the concrete examples won't possibly be about patent trolls. Why would patent trolls (aka Non practicing entities) care about loosing rights "to make, have made, use, sell, offer to sell, import, and otherwise transfer the [React] Software". (as defined in https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/b8ba8c83f318b84e42933f6928f231dc0918f864/PATENTS https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/b8ba8c83f318b84e42933...)?
- chrisco255 9y ago
  Look at Oracle v. Google...that was a mess. Samsung v. Apple...also a mess. Not all patent litigation is from trolls alone.
  - vonmoltke 9y ago
    Oracle v. Google was not patent litigation (unless you are referring to something other than the oft-cited but not applicable to this situation Java API suits).
- TimTheTinker 9y ago
  Excellent point about NPEs (patent trolls). I think this comment gets to the absolute heart of the matter more than any other that I've seen.
carussell 9y ago
> no startup that they decide to take technology from, and say "no more react (or whatever) for you" could realistically launch an effective lawsuit before they died If it's the case that these startups wouldn't have the resources to mount an effective lawsuit, then that's true regardless, no? Whatever the React terms say are moot. (I might be misunderstanding; the sentence is one that's hard to parse.) > All of the current revisions of the major licenses (Apachev2, GPLv3) went through arguments about whether to use these kinds of clauses (though not quite as one sided and company focused), and ultimately decided not to. When MPL2 was being drafted, I pointed out that a strong, React-like approach to patents would be better, because the protection that Apache 2.0 offers against patents is very narrow. My takeaway was that the reason not to do so was because it wouldn't have been politically expedient at the time—it would just result in people rejecting the MPL. If Facebook is now taking that approach, then run with it now; it suggests the idea should be opened back up for reconsideration in future revisions of these licenses because they can capitalize on the momentum.
sverhagen 9y ago
To your second point, wouldn't there be a tremendous amount of startups who aren't interested in being in the patents business, or that would otherwise not own the patents over which to sue Facebook, that would thus not be able to get into this position, or did I just completely misunderstand the issue?
- kavok 9y ago
  Investors seem to be really fond of patentable or protectable technology. Lets say a start up comes up with a really clever and novel way to accurately predict what kind of a cake a person likes best. If they built a platform in React and then Facebook stole the idea - they couldn't sue Facebook (or any Facebook subsidiaries) without immediately revoking the ability to use React. This isn't only covering Facebook - this covers subsidiaries or subsidiaries etc..
  - Lazare 9y ago
    > If they built a platform in React and then Facebook stole the idea - they couldn't sue Facebook (or any Facebook subsidiaries) without immediately revoking the ability to use React. Untrue. They couldn't sue Facebook (or subsidiary) without immediately losing their right to use any patents Facebook may-or-may-not have on React. Their right to use React would be untouched. So, are there any patents? People have looked; so far none have been found. More to the point, what JS lib do you think our hypothetical firm should have used instead? Preact? Vue? Angular? Backbone? Why do you think Facebook doesn't have any patents on those?
    - nojvek 9y ago
      Because patents aren't trade secrets. It's easily verifiable if Facebook does indeed hold those parents. They don't. Facebook has a shit ton of Money. Zuckerberg is the richest guy in California but that doesn't mean React is the defacto technology on vdom. There are better alternatives now both in perf, ease of use and license niceness. Just stop using React. It's akin to injecting yourself with HIV knowingly.
Flenser 9y ago
Here's another theoretically possible outcome of wide adoption of something without any patent licence: Google is able to use other people's technology at will because nobody can afford to not use their stuff, and no startup that they decide to take technology from, and say "no more Google/Angular/Closure Library/etc for you" could realistically launch an effective lawsuit before they died.

fhrow4484 9y ago

That's a good point, especially since the concrete examples won't possibly be about patent trolls. Why would patent trolls (aka Non practicing entities) care about loosing rights "to make, have made, use, sell, offer to sell, import, and otherwise transfer the [React] Software". (as defined in https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/b8ba8c83f318b84e42933f6928f231dc0918f864/PATENTS https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/b8ba8c83f318b84e42933...)?

chrisco255 9y ago
Look at Oracle v. Google...that was a mess. Samsung v. Apple...also a mess. Not all patent litigation is from trolls alone.
- vonmoltke 9y ago
  Oracle v. Google was not patent litigation (unless you are referring to something other than the oft-cited but not applicable to this situation Java API suits).
TimTheTinker 9y ago
Excellent point about NPEs (patent trolls). I think this comment gets to the absolute heart of the matter more than any other that I've seen.

carussell 9y ago

> no startup that they decide to take technology from, and say "no more react (or whatever) for you" could realistically launch an effective lawsuit before they died If it's the case that these startups wouldn't have the resources to mount an effective lawsuit, then that's true regardless, no? Whatever the React terms say are moot. (I might be misunderstanding; the sentence is one that's hard to parse.) > All of the current revisions of the major licenses (Apachev2, GPLv3) went through arguments about whether to use these kinds of clauses (though not quite as one sided and company focused), and ultimately decided not to. When MPL2 was being drafted, I pointed out that a strong, React-like approach to patents would be better, because the protection that Apache 2.0 offers against patents is very narrow. My takeaway was that the reason not to do so was because it wouldn't have been politically expedient at the time—it would just result in people rejecting the MPL. If Facebook is now taking that approach, then run with it now; it suggests the idea should be opened back up for reconsideration in future revisions of these licenses because they can capitalize on the momentum.

sverhagen 9y ago

To your second point, wouldn't there be a tremendous amount of startups who aren't interested in being in the patents business, or that would otherwise not own the patents over which to sue Facebook, that would thus not be able to get into this position, or did I just completely misunderstand the issue?

kavok 9y ago
Investors seem to be really fond of patentable or protectable technology. Lets say a start up comes up with a really clever and novel way to accurately predict what kind of a cake a person likes best. If they built a platform in React and then Facebook stole the idea - they couldn't sue Facebook (or any Facebook subsidiaries) without immediately revoking the ability to use React. This isn't only covering Facebook - this covers subsidiaries or subsidiaries etc..
- Lazare 9y ago
  > If they built a platform in React and then Facebook stole the idea - they couldn't sue Facebook (or any Facebook subsidiaries) without immediately revoking the ability to use React. Untrue. They couldn't sue Facebook (or subsidiary) without immediately losing their right to use any patents Facebook may-or-may-not have on React. Their right to use React would be untouched. So, are there any patents? People have looked; so far none have been found. More to the point, what JS lib do you think our hypothetical firm should have used instead? Preact? Vue? Angular? Backbone? Why do you think Facebook doesn't have any patents on those?
  - nojvek 9y ago
    Because patents aren't trade secrets. It's easily verifiable if Facebook does indeed hold those parents. They don't. Facebook has a shit ton of Money. Zuckerberg is the richest guy in California but that doesn't mean React is the defacto technology on vdom. There are better alternatives now both in perf, ease of use and license niceness. Just stop using React. It's akin to injecting yourself with HIV knowingly.

Flenser 9y ago

Here's another theoretically possible outcome of wide adoption of something without any patent licence: Google is able to use other people's technology at will because nobody can afford to not use their stuff, and no startup that they decide to take technology from, and say "no more Google/Angular/Closure Library/etc for you" could realistically launch an effective lawsuit before they died.