4 ms·

So, wait, let me get this straight: React has a revokable patent grant, people freak out about it, FB removes the patent grant, everyone rejoices. GraphQL doe

So, wait, let me get this straight: React has a revokable patent grant, people freak out about it, FB removes the patent grant, everyone rejoices. GraphQL doesn't have a patent grant, people freak out about it, FB adds a revokable patent grant, everyone rejoices. What am I missing?

slaymaker1907 9y ago
This patent grant seems at first glance to be much less aggressive than BSD+patents. It seems to only work if the patent claim being filed is related to GraphQL.
randallsquared 9y ago
> What am I missing? That there is a patent actually associated with GraphQL, I believe.
- abiox 9y ago
  the funny thing is, this means that the patent grant previously shipped with react had basically zero relevance to using react (even after a patent dispute).
  - seangrogg 9y ago
    Yes, as was pointed out by the many that continued to use React.
- raulk 9y ago
  Graph query logic (US 9646028 B2) https://www.google.com/patents/US9646028 https://www.google.com/patents/US9646028
  - hetspookjee 9y ago
    I don't understand how this can be a patent. I seem to be infringing on the patent every day whenever I try to navigate through xmls and json files with a friendly API. Can anyone shed some light on how this patent is innovative?
    - abiox 9y ago
      it's a commonly held view that software patents are almost entirely garbage.
      - graphememes 9y ago
        you can remove the almost from that sentence.
- tzs 9y ago
  There is a patent application associated with React. https://www.google.com/patents/US20170221242 https://www.google.com/patents/US20170221242
paxy 9y ago
The core problem is ambiguity, and so any step towards reducing it is good.
abiox 9y ago
some people were pushing the unfounded idea that one's usage of react would somehow be impacted by the patent grant. but as you perhaps allude to... people's use of graphql will be impacted by the patent grant. so back to square one?
- kbenson 9y ago
  > some people were pushing the unfounded idea that one's usage of react would somehow be impacted by the patent grant. The idea wasn't unfounded, it was untested. People had worries because of how it looked like it could be used, and people with legal experience that weighed in seemed to have differing opinions on the possible impact. That was a foundation for concern.
  - abiox 9y ago
    react isn't covered by fb patent. therefore the patent grant could not impact it, by definition (fb even said this, multiple times). if fb wanted to stop react use, they would simply revoke the copyright grant. in the end, all that was accomplished is that react users became less safe, not more.
    - slavik81 9y ago
      When and where did Facebook say that React did not implement anything covered under any Facebook patents?
      - abiox 9y ago
        what matters are whether patents are registered (public data), not what fb claims. removing the patent grant only means you are less safe in terms of patents (fb can initiate a suit without penalty), and no more safe in terms of react usage (fb can still revoke your copyright grant at their discretion).
slavik81 9y ago
For one, the problem with React was with the specific limitations and conditions of Facebook's patent grant. These are completely different terms, so I don't see why you'd expect the same response. Additionally, React is software while GraphQL is a specification. Different types of works require different types of licenses. The BSD license says I can use the thing being licensed. With a library like React, it's pretty clear what 'use' means. By 'use', they mean they want to allow me to build software with it, so they're granting me all rights necessary to do that. With a specification, though? What does it mean that it grants me the right to use it? There's lots of things you might do with a specification. Did they intend to allow me to implement my own version? If they didn't, I might not have all the rights I need to do so. DannyBee, an actual lawyer, talked briefly about the importance that this is a specification when this topic first came up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15291330 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15291330
zokier 9y ago
This comment sums the situation up pretty nicely: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15318227 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15318227
beefsack 9y ago
One is an implementation, the other is a standard which others can implement. Each is licensed differently.

slaymaker1907 9y ago

This patent grant seems at first glance to be much less aggressive than BSD+patents. It seems to only work if the patent claim being filed is related to GraphQL.

randallsquared 9y ago

> What am I missing? That there is a patent actually associated with GraphQL, I believe.

abiox 9y ago
the funny thing is, this means that the patent grant previously shipped with react had basically zero relevance to using react (even after a patent dispute).
- seangrogg 9y ago
  Yes, as was pointed out by the many that continued to use React.
raulk 9y ago
Graph query logic (US 9646028 B2) https://www.google.com/patents/US9646028 https://www.google.com/patents/US9646028
- hetspookjee 9y ago
  I don't understand how this can be a patent. I seem to be infringing on the patent every day whenever I try to navigate through xmls and json files with a friendly API. Can anyone shed some light on how this patent is innovative?
  - abiox 9y ago
    it's a commonly held view that software patents are almost entirely garbage.
    - graphememes 9y ago
      you can remove the almost from that sentence.
tzs 9y ago
There is a patent application associated with React. https://www.google.com/patents/US20170221242 https://www.google.com/patents/US20170221242

paxy 9y ago

The core problem is ambiguity, and so any step towards reducing it is good.

abiox 9y ago

some people were pushing the unfounded idea that one's usage of react would somehow be impacted by the patent grant. but as you perhaps allude to... people's use of graphql will be impacted by the patent grant. so back to square one?

kbenson 9y ago
> some people were pushing the unfounded idea that one's usage of react would somehow be impacted by the patent grant. The idea wasn't unfounded, it was untested. People had worries because of how it looked like it could be used, and people with legal experience that weighed in seemed to have differing opinions on the possible impact. That was a foundation for concern.
- abiox 9y ago
  react isn't covered by fb patent. therefore the patent grant could not impact it, by definition (fb even said this, multiple times). if fb wanted to stop react use, they would simply revoke the copyright grant. in the end, all that was accomplished is that react users became less safe, not more.
  - slavik81 9y ago
    When and where did Facebook say that React did not implement anything covered under any Facebook patents?
    - abiox 9y ago
      what matters are whether patents are registered (public data), not what fb claims. removing the patent grant only means you are less safe in terms of patents (fb can initiate a suit without penalty), and no more safe in terms of react usage (fb can still revoke your copyright grant at their discretion).

slavik81 9y ago

For one, the problem with React was with the specific limitations and conditions of Facebook's patent grant. These are completely different terms, so I don't see why you'd expect the same response. Additionally, React is software while GraphQL is a specification. Different types of works require different types of licenses. The BSD license says I can use the thing being licensed. With a library like React, it's pretty clear what 'use' means. By 'use', they mean they want to allow me to build software with it, so they're granting me all rights necessary to do that. With a specification, though? What does it mean that it grants me the right to use it? There's lots of things you might do with a specification. Did they intend to allow me to implement my own version? If they didn't, I might not have all the rights I need to do so. DannyBee, an actual lawyer, talked briefly about the importance that this is a specification when this topic first came up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15291330 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15291330

zokier 9y ago

This comment sums the situation up pretty nicely: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15318227 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15318227

beefsack 9y ago

One is an implementation, the other is a standard which others can implement. Each is licensed differently.