4 ms·

The patent clause isn't designed to give Facebook leverage. It's designed to grant patents unless you sue them. Even though patent trolls don't use React, Faceb

The patent clause isn't designed to give Facebook leverage. It's designed to grant patents unless you sue them. Even though patent trolls don't use React, Facebook wants to ensure that they don't grant patent licenses to patent trolls. > There have been reports of companies having to pay in some roundabout unspecified way royalties to FB for React as part of a large patent licensing deal. If you can provide any direct evidence of that, I'd be fascinated. I highly suspect it's FUD.

Yizahi 9y ago
But Facebook can infringe on your patents if they know you have a heavy dependency on React. They won't sue, just infringe. And you won't be able to sue them with zero losses, you will lose at minimum React.
- Sacho 9y ago
  That sounds like a positive, if the end goal is the elimination the abomination of software patents.
  - joesb 9y ago
    But I only want to eliminate patents that I don't own....
- notacoward 9y ago
  No, you'll only lose the patent license for React, leaving you with exactly the same copyright license you would have had with plain BSD. There is no scenario in which the PATENTS file (not clause) enables Facebook to infringe on others' patents any more than they would have been able to do with plain BSD. If you think this makes using React risky, then you'd also have to believe that using thousands of other BSD-licensed projects has been risky for years. That is, if you want to be logically or legally consistent. This "adds risk" argument is very familiar from other FUD campaigns (e.g. Microsoft's) against open source in general. It's pretty weird to see people who claim to believe in open source pushing arguments that work against most open source.
  - pc2g4d 9y ago
    Seems that the real issue is that Facebook asserts/implies they have patents relevant to React, and that they are willing to enforce them in court under certain conditions. This creates an uncertain situation. The patent grant helps somewhat, but limits your freedom of action should Facebook e.g. steal your technology. Look at the four possible scenarios: Facebook | Your Company | Outcome Grants patents conditionally | Does not sue Facebook | Things hum along nicely Grants patents conditionally | Sues Facebook | You're liable for patent infringement Doesn't grant patents | Does not sue Facebook | You're liable for patent infringement Doesn't grant patents | Sues Facebook | You're liable for patent infringement The patent grant is fine if you think you'll never, ever want to sue Facebook. But should a dispute arise, you'll quickly find the technological rug pulled out from under you. You've now built your entire business on Facebook's asserted IP and have no recourse but to license it or try (futilely) to defend your infringement in court.

Yizahi 9y ago

But Facebook can infringe on your patents if they know you have a heavy dependency on React. They won't sue, just infringe. And you won't be able to sue them with zero losses, you will lose at minimum React.

Sacho 9y ago
That sounds like a positive, if the end goal is the elimination the abomination of software patents.
- joesb 9y ago
  But I only want to eliminate patents that I don't own....
notacoward 9y ago
No, you'll only lose the patent license for React, leaving you with exactly the same copyright license you would have had with plain BSD. There is no scenario in which the PATENTS file (not clause) enables Facebook to infringe on others' patents any more than they would have been able to do with plain BSD. If you think this makes using React risky, then you'd also have to believe that using thousands of other BSD-licensed projects has been risky for years. That is, if you want to be logically or legally consistent. This "adds risk" argument is very familiar from other FUD campaigns (e.g. Microsoft's) against open source in general. It's pretty weird to see people who claim to believe in open source pushing arguments that work against most open source.
- pc2g4d 9y ago
  Seems that the real issue is that Facebook asserts/implies they have patents relevant to React, and that they are willing to enforce them in court under certain conditions. This creates an uncertain situation. The patent grant helps somewhat, but limits your freedom of action should Facebook e.g. steal your technology. Look at the four possible scenarios: Facebook | Your Company | Outcome Grants patents conditionally | Does not sue Facebook | Things hum along nicely Grants patents conditionally | Sues Facebook | You're liable for patent infringement Doesn't grant patents | Does not sue Facebook | You're liable for patent infringement Doesn't grant patents | Sues Facebook | You're liable for patent infringement The patent grant is fine if you think you'll never, ever want to sue Facebook. But should a dispute arise, you'll quickly find the technological rug pulled out from under you. You've now built your entire business on Facebook's asserted IP and have no recourse but to license it or try (futilely) to defend your infringement in court.