I would be more charitable if it were clearer the author even read the patent grant to begin with, or understood the basic principles of what software patents e

I would be more charitable if it were clearer the author even read the patent grant to begin with, or understood the basic principles of what software patents even are. The reason I'm saying "nerd" is that it's clear he has some expert knowledge about some things but apparently no grasp of the fact that this does not mean he has expert knowledge about all things. Actual lawyers have come out on the patent grant and how it's basically harmless and pointless. It doesn't even require an actual lawyer to understand this. It just requires not being ignorant about intellectual property law. The only valid argument against React is open source purism, which is why the Apache Software Foundation has banned it. They're not concerned about people suing people, they're concerned that it doesn't mix well with projects released under a pure Apache license. That argument is valid. Every other argument boils down to "I don't understand the difference between patents and copyright". Even when the author shows a glimpse of self-awareness by saying "maybe Preact isn't safe either" he goes on to recommend other libraries as if they were 100% certified patent free. Saying "I don't understand this, please explain" is okay. Saying "this is my expert opinion on something I don't understand and you should take this as advice" only spreads FUD. Want to know whether you are at risk of being sued over software patents? Here's a simple checklist: 1) Are you using or writing source code? If you answered "yes", congratulations, you're at risk of being sued over software patents.