5 ms·

What makes the PATENTS file legally binding? If I install React via NPM/Yarn, or even as a dependency of another project, I will not see this file. LICENSE is

What makes the PATENTS file legally binding? If I install React via NPM/Yarn, or even as a dependency of another project, I will not see this file. LICENSE is a pretty common convention and you could argue I should seek out this file in every one of my dependencies' dependencies - but how would I know to look for PATENTS? Are all statements in the code base legally binding? Could they be hidden in a source file somewhere?

Vinnl 9y ago
Not a lawyer, but I can imagine it can be expected that you do some due diligence before installing it through npm - like checking the website whether their license allows you to use it, and on what terms.
- donkeyd 9y ago
  Exactly. The "they didn't force me to comply" defence hardly ever holds. In the Netherlands, somebody was recently fined for using an image she got from a "free photo's" website. It was a picture that was illegally published on that website, and the judge said she should've checked whether it was actually royalty free. The fine was even higher than expected because she also cropped the picture, which was another breach of copyright, apparently.
  - Confiks 9y ago
    If you refer to the case in De rijdende rechter ("The traveling judge"): she didn't have to pay a fine, but pay damages to the opposing party (which applies to civil rather than criminal law). In addition to that, both parties have agreed to submit to a binding arbitration decision, with the 'judge' actually being the arbitrator, despite what the program's name would suggest. That means that the decision doesn't actually have to follow the law. I personally find it unhelpful that the program never clarifies that it is a display of binding arbitration instead of a decision by a judge. I've seen the layman confuse the two quite a few times.
    - donkeyd 9y ago
      You are correct, damages, not a fine, I used the wrong word. Also, while I agree that they don't have to follow the law, they usually do. In the end, the 'judgement' is still based on the law and legal precedent, like in an actual court case.
- CityWanderer 9y ago
  If what you say is true then I think our tool chains are failing us. My React project has 1,015 dependencies (directories in node_modules). If I didn't have locked versions then every minor automatic update could bring in more dependencies without me knowing. Can anyone honestly say they've done such due diligence?
  - Silhouette 9y ago
    Can anyone honestly say they've done such due diligence? That seems doubtful. And that's a real and potentially serious problem, because IP laws typically don't contain any exemptions for code you're using that infringes someone's IP rights just because it was contributed by a third party.
  - Vinnl 9y ago
    I agree that that would probably fall into the same category as saying that you've read the terms and conditions. That said, the amount of dependencies you have locally installed is likely to be a multitude of the number you'd get if you'd exclude devDependencies, which I'm guessing don't count.
pluma 9y ago
Let's phrase it this way: what do you gain from pretending the PATENTS file isn't legally binding? The BSD license contains no patent grant. You'd be on very thin ice expecting a court to rule that the BSD copyright license also implies a patent grant. And in this specific case that defense would likely never hold because the PATENTS file even if it weren't binding would signal the intent.
Silhouette 9y ago
If you didn't have the patent grant, then the default position would be that Facebook could take legal action against you if your use of React infringed any relevant patent they hold, whether you had sued them first or not. Ignoring (wilfully or otherwise) the PATENTS file doesn't make you any better off.
- CityWanderer 9y ago
  And it's existence doesn't make me any worse off? It only grants patents that I wouldn't by default have?
  - Silhouette 9y ago
    IANAL, but yes, that is my understanding.

Vinnl 9y ago

Not a lawyer, but I can imagine it can be expected that you do some due diligence before installing it through npm - like checking the website whether their license allows you to use it, and on what terms.

donkeyd 9y ago
Exactly. The "they didn't force me to comply" defence hardly ever holds. In the Netherlands, somebody was recently fined for using an image she got from a "free photo's" website. It was a picture that was illegally published on that website, and the judge said she should've checked whether it was actually royalty free. The fine was even higher than expected because she also cropped the picture, which was another breach of copyright, apparently.
- Confiks 9y ago
  If you refer to the case in De rijdende rechter ("The traveling judge"): she didn't have to pay a fine, but pay damages to the opposing party (which applies to civil rather than criminal law). In addition to that, both parties have agreed to submit to a binding arbitration decision, with the 'judge' actually being the arbitrator, despite what the program's name would suggest. That means that the decision doesn't actually have to follow the law. I personally find it unhelpful that the program never clarifies that it is a display of binding arbitration instead of a decision by a judge. I've seen the layman confuse the two quite a few times.
  - donkeyd 9y ago
    You are correct, damages, not a fine, I used the wrong word. Also, while I agree that they don't have to follow the law, they usually do. In the end, the 'judgement' is still based on the law and legal precedent, like in an actual court case.
CityWanderer 9y ago
If what you say is true then I think our tool chains are failing us. My React project has 1,015 dependencies (directories in node_modules). If I didn't have locked versions then every minor automatic update could bring in more dependencies without me knowing. Can anyone honestly say they've done such due diligence?
- Silhouette 9y ago
  Can anyone honestly say they've done such due diligence? That seems doubtful. And that's a real and potentially serious problem, because IP laws typically don't contain any exemptions for code you're using that infringes someone's IP rights just because it was contributed by a third party.
- Vinnl 9y ago
  I agree that that would probably fall into the same category as saying that you've read the terms and conditions. That said, the amount of dependencies you have locally installed is likely to be a multitude of the number you'd get if you'd exclude devDependencies, which I'm guessing don't count.

pluma 9y ago

Let's phrase it this way: what do you gain from pretending the PATENTS file isn't legally binding? The BSD license contains no patent grant. You'd be on very thin ice expecting a court to rule that the BSD copyright license also implies a patent grant. And in this specific case that defense would likely never hold because the PATENTS file even if it weren't binding would signal the intent.

Silhouette 9y ago

If you didn't have the patent grant, then the default position would be that Facebook could take legal action against you if your use of React infringed any relevant patent they hold, whether you had sued them first or not. Ignoring (wilfully or otherwise) the PATENTS file doesn't make you any better off.

CityWanderer 9y ago
And it's existence doesn't make me any worse off? It only grants patents that I wouldn't by default have?
- Silhouette 9y ago
  IANAL, but yes, that is my understanding.