3 ms·

FUD, FUD, FUD. Pure FUD. There are, AFAIK, no known patents on React. This means you can go ahead and sue Facebook for patent violations to your heart's conten

FUD, FUD, FUD. Pure FUD. There are, AFAIK, no known patents on React. This means you can go ahead and sue Facebook for patent violations to your heart's content. The license they granted to you to use any of their patents applied to React (of which there are none) is terminated, and you can merrily continue using React. If this is incorrect, and Facebook actually do hold patents on React, then all of the popular alternatives almost certainly infringe on them as well. So, the worst-case scenario is no different.

raulk 9y ago
> There are, AFAIK, no known patents on React. Really? That's your argument? If there are no public patents today, does it mean there's none in the works? What tells you there won't be a patent tomorrow? Let me ask differently. Assuming you're a software engineer, do you pick your stack based on the status quo? Or do you pick a future-proof stack, based not only in its position today, but its projection tomorrow? What CAN happen today is not as important as what COULD happen tomorrow, based on the legal provisions you're agreeing to by adopting React. > If this is incorrect, and Facebook actually do hold patents on React, then all of the popular alternatives almost certainly infringe on them as well. So, the worst-case scenario is no different. This is absolutely incorrect. It depends on the content of the patent. For example, if FB filed a patent for React Mobile, it would not affect Preact and Inferno, as these frameworks do not deal with mobile rendering.
- matthewmacleod 9y ago
  What tells you there won't be a patent tomorrow? Nothing. But that applies regardless of whether I use React, or I use any other piece of software that Facebook may or may not take a patent out on in the future. Except, in the former case, I at least had a license to begin with. This is absolutely incorrect. It depends on the content of the patent. For example, if FB filed a patent for React Mobile, it would not affect Preact and Inferno, as these frameworks do not deal with mobile rendering. There is a small outside chance that Facebook might patent a particular thing that React does that no other view framework does. It's unlikely to be the case, since most frameworks accomplish the same things in the same way.
buremba 9y ago
Then why do they bother the whole React community? Do people sue Facebook just because they use React and they spent hundreds of their lawyers hours in order to prove that there's no violation?
- matthewmacleod 9y ago
  They don't – they bother a particularly vociferous group of people who continue to shout about a non-issue.
  - buremba 9y ago
    Ah, interesting. It would be nice to check if the people in this post are actually using React and also if the popularity of React is actually affected by these rants. Also, what about the non-React rule of Apache Foundation?
nl 9y ago
I use react, and I'm not planning on stopping. Having said that your argument appears to have missed the point, since this has nothing to do with patents on React itself.
- matthewmacleod 9y ago
  Having said that your argument appears to have missed the point, since this has nothing to do with patents on React itself. Can you explain this? It's precisely about that. The worst thing that happens if you use React and subsequently sue Facebook is that you lose the license to any patents they hold on React. If there aren't any, then you literally lose nothing.
  - nl 9y ago
    No, you are right, sorry. I thought it removed the grant for a broader range of FB patents, but I see now that isn't the case.
tchaffee 9y ago
> AFAIK Should I tell that to my investors? That AFA matthewmacleod on HN knows, we are good? > then all of the popular alternatives almost certainly infringe on them as well. But the lawsuit would be against those alternatives directly and not my company? I'm not sure about this, but I'm not also sure why we should be taking advice about this issue from non-experts.
- leshow 9y ago
  You could easily use this argument against the writer of the original blog post. "Someone wrote a blog post saying React's license is bad"
  - tchaffee 9y ago
    That's a fair point. We really need some patent and license lawyers to weigh in on this and willing to put some skin in the game. I think Facebook should also be willing to change the license to clarify intent so they can't later use the license to do something other than what they claim they want to do: make software patents useless.
    - EdwardMSmith 9y ago
      An IP lawyer has: https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/react-facebook-and-the-revokable-patent-license-why-its-a-paper-25c40c50b562 https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/react-facebook-and-the-revok...
      - tchaffee 9y ago
        Thanks. I'm already aware of that article. What I meant by some skin in the game is the opposite of what the author included at the end of that article: "Disclaimer: As with everything in law, I reserve the right to throw every word out like yesterday’s newspaper if presented with new information or a recent decision by a non-caffeinated judge. Hubris and the law make for bad bedfellows. If you have information or arguments that I didn’t consider, make them below! I will update this blog if any new information changes my opinion."

raulk 9y ago

> There are, AFAIK, no known patents on React. Really? That's your argument? If there are no public patents today, does it mean there's none in the works? What tells you there won't be a patent tomorrow? Let me ask differently. Assuming you're a software engineer, do you pick your stack based on the status quo? Or do you pick a future-proof stack, based not only in its position today, but its projection tomorrow? What CAN happen today is not as important as what COULD happen tomorrow, based on the legal provisions you're agreeing to by adopting React. > If this is incorrect, and Facebook actually do hold patents on React, then all of the popular alternatives almost certainly infringe on them as well. So, the worst-case scenario is no different. This is absolutely incorrect. It depends on the content of the patent. For example, if FB filed a patent for React Mobile, it would not affect Preact and Inferno, as these frameworks do not deal with mobile rendering.

matthewmacleod 9y ago
What tells you there won't be a patent tomorrow? Nothing. But that applies regardless of whether I use React, or I use any other piece of software that Facebook may or may not take a patent out on in the future. Except, in the former case, I at least had a license to begin with. This is absolutely incorrect. It depends on the content of the patent. For example, if FB filed a patent for React Mobile, it would not affect Preact and Inferno, as these frameworks do not deal with mobile rendering. There is a small outside chance that Facebook might patent a particular thing that React does that no other view framework does. It's unlikely to be the case, since most frameworks accomplish the same things in the same way.

buremba 9y ago

Then why do they bother the whole React community? Do people sue Facebook just because they use React and they spent hundreds of their lawyers hours in order to prove that there's no violation?

matthewmacleod 9y ago
They don't – they bother a particularly vociferous group of people who continue to shout about a non-issue.
- buremba 9y ago
  Ah, interesting. It would be nice to check if the people in this post are actually using React and also if the popularity of React is actually affected by these rants. Also, what about the non-React rule of Apache Foundation?

nl 9y ago

I use react, and I'm not planning on stopping. Having said that your argument appears to have missed the point, since this has nothing to do with patents on React itself.

matthewmacleod 9y ago
Having said that your argument appears to have missed the point, since this has nothing to do with patents on React itself. Can you explain this? It's precisely about that. The worst thing that happens if you use React and subsequently sue Facebook is that you lose the license to any patents they hold on React. If there aren't any, then you literally lose nothing.
- nl 9y ago
  No, you are right, sorry. I thought it removed the grant for a broader range of FB patents, but I see now that isn't the case.

tchaffee 9y ago

> AFAIK Should I tell that to my investors? That AFA matthewmacleod on HN knows, we are good? > then all of the popular alternatives almost certainly infringe on them as well. But the lawsuit would be against those alternatives directly and not my company? I'm not sure about this, but I'm not also sure why we should be taking advice about this issue from non-experts.

leshow 9y ago
You could easily use this argument against the writer of the original blog post. "Someone wrote a blog post saying React's license is bad"
- tchaffee 9y ago
  That's a fair point. We really need some patent and license lawyers to weigh in on this and willing to put some skin in the game. I think Facebook should also be willing to change the license to clarify intent so they can't later use the license to do something other than what they claim they want to do: make software patents useless.
  - EdwardMSmith 9y ago
    An IP lawyer has: https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/react-facebook-and-the-revokable-patent-license-why-its-a-paper-25c40c50b562 https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/react-facebook-and-the-revok...
    - tchaffee 9y ago
      Thanks. I'm already aware of that article. What I meant by some skin in the game is the opposite of what the author included at the end of that article: "Disclaimer: As with everything in law, I reserve the right to throw every word out like yesterday’s newspaper if presented with new information or a recent decision by a non-caffeinated judge. Hubris and the law make for bad bedfellows. If you have information or arguments that I didn’t consider, make them below! I will update this blog if any new information changes my opinion."