5 ms·

Wait, they're getting rid of the patents grant?

dikaiosune 9y ago
Some are of the opinion that MIT includes an implicit patent grant/license. Googling around I don't see many references to support this, but there are a few: * http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Implicit_patent_licence * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License#Relation_to_Patents Regardless of armchair and/or professional legal opinions, I don't believe this has been tested in court in the US at least.
- DannyBee 9y ago
  1. Actually, pretty much any serious patent licensing lawyer believes there is a grant (either explicit or implicit), because there is tons and tons and tons of caselaw on implicit patent grants (and the related principles of exhaustion), and while they don't include the word "software", the circumstances are otherwise identical. The others are mostly unable to admit it due to their client lists. The number of lawyers i know who actually disagree in practice, and seriously believe it, is zero. A significant number even believe there is an explicit grant. That's because MIT explicitly does not mention copyright, so it may not even need an implied license. it just says "to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so"" IE it says "whatever rights you need to use, copy, modify, blah blah blah, you get those". Other licenses explicitly identify copyright rights, etc. You'd be super hard-pressed to argue this is trying to talk about only copyright (meaning it's not even an implicit grant, but an explicit one). 2. As mentioned, it has been well tested in pretty much every other respect, just not for free software. IE people giving stuff away, even under licensing agreements, even for free other things, other things under free for use license grants, etc Like you can't actually find a case that doesn't find an implied license in the standard MIT license kind of circumstances. That said, implied licenses do suck, and are limited in various ways.
  - Eridrus 9y ago
    Thank you for bringing actual legal knowledge to this forum rather than the usual armchair lawyering we get.
  - dikaiosune 9y ago
    Since it wasnt clear from my post above, I buy all of this. But since IANAL, and I couldn't easily find a credible patent lawyer who has written publicly about this, I think it's reasonable to be measured in the claims I made. That said, you're obviously personally more familiar with the situation and having seen you around here before I'd give some weight to what you're saying. It's still a shame that it's difficult to find any public references. I also think it's a shame that there hasn't been a direct legal test/precedent for applying MIT style implicit grants to software. It might be a no brainer extension of existing precedent but to a lay person like me that doesn't quite sound like a sure bet. Granted, the whole patent thing seemed a bit overblown to me. For the vast majority of companies, it's always seemed like you would probably have much bigger things to worry about if you thought protection from Facebook legal over UI patents was your main concern.
    - bsimpson 9y ago
      You're replying to a lawyer in the Open Source Program Office at Google: https://www.pli.edu/Content/Faculty/Daniel_Berlin/_/N-4oZ1z12omg https://www.pli.edu/Content/Faculty/Daniel_Berlin/_/N-4oZ1z1... If there's anyone I'd expect to have a handle on open source law, it's him.
      - Sacho 9y ago
        While I love reading DannyBee's opinions and am inclined to believe what he says, it's unfair to shoot down parent with an argument from authority; DannyBee did not actually cite any cases to highlight the precedent on implicit patent grants, which is exactly parent's point - it is very difficult to find publicly available information on this, aside from informal commentary.
        9y ago
mygo 9y ago
They’re not getting rid of a patent grant. They’re getting rid of the PATENTS file. Semantics here actually matter.
- ballenf 9y ago
  Yep. Would be quite an interesting argument to make that removing a file serves as an effective means of unilaterally rescinding a perpetual patent license.
  - mygo 9y ago
    This is actually a concern of mine as well.... that for the user, facebook’s act of removing the patents file could be worse than if the patents file was never even there to begin with. That removing the file doesn’t revert it to potentially implicit, but instead is seen as explicitly revoking. But I don’t think that’s how it should go, especially since they also switched over to MIT license in the process. But I’m also not a lawyer and probably have zero credibility writing about any of this.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

Some are of the opinion that MIT includes an implicit patent grant/license. Googling around I don't see many references to support this, but there are a few: * http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Implicit_patent_licence * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License#Relation_to_Patents Regardless of armchair and/or professional legal opinions, I don't believe this has been tested in court in the US at least.

DannyBee 9y ago
1. Actually, pretty much any serious patent licensing lawyer believes there is a grant (either explicit or implicit), because there is tons and tons and tons of caselaw on implicit patent grants (and the related principles of exhaustion), and while they don't include the word "software", the circumstances are otherwise identical. The others are mostly unable to admit it due to their client lists. The number of lawyers i know who actually disagree in practice, and seriously believe it, is zero. A significant number even believe there is an explicit grant. That's because MIT explicitly does not mention copyright, so it may not even need an implied license. it just says "to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so"" IE it says "whatever rights you need to use, copy, modify, blah blah blah, you get those". Other licenses explicitly identify copyright rights, etc. You'd be super hard-pressed to argue this is trying to talk about only copyright (meaning it's not even an implicit grant, but an explicit one). 2. As mentioned, it has been well tested in pretty much every other respect, just not for free software. IE people giving stuff away, even under licensing agreements, even for free other things, other things under free for use license grants, etc Like you can't actually find a case that doesn't find an implied license in the standard MIT license kind of circumstances. That said, implied licenses do suck, and are limited in various ways.
- Eridrus 9y ago
  Thank you for bringing actual legal knowledge to this forum rather than the usual armchair lawyering we get.
- dikaiosune 9y ago
  Since it wasnt clear from my post above, I buy all of this. But since IANAL, and I couldn't easily find a credible patent lawyer who has written publicly about this, I think it's reasonable to be measured in the claims I made. That said, you're obviously personally more familiar with the situation and having seen you around here before I'd give some weight to what you're saying. It's still a shame that it's difficult to find any public references. I also think it's a shame that there hasn't been a direct legal test/precedent for applying MIT style implicit grants to software. It might be a no brainer extension of existing precedent but to a lay person like me that doesn't quite sound like a sure bet. Granted, the whole patent thing seemed a bit overblown to me. For the vast majority of companies, it's always seemed like you would probably have much bigger things to worry about if you thought protection from Facebook legal over UI patents was your main concern.
  - bsimpson 9y ago
    You're replying to a lawyer in the Open Source Program Office at Google: https://www.pli.edu/Content/Faculty/Daniel_Berlin/_/N-4oZ1z12omg https://www.pli.edu/Content/Faculty/Daniel_Berlin/_/N-4oZ1z1... If there's anyone I'd expect to have a handle on open source law, it's him.
    - Sacho 9y ago
      While I love reading DannyBee's opinions and am inclined to believe what he says, it's unfair to shoot down parent with an argument from authority; DannyBee did not actually cite any cases to highlight the precedent on implicit patent grants, which is exactly parent's point - it is very difficult to find publicly available information on this, aside from informal commentary.
      - 9y ago

mygo 9y ago

They’re not getting rid of a patent grant. They’re getting rid of the PATENTS file. Semantics here actually matter.

ballenf 9y ago
Yep. Would be quite an interesting argument to make that removing a file serves as an effective means of unilaterally rescinding a perpetual patent license.
- mygo 9y ago
  This is actually a concern of mine as well.... that for the user, facebook’s act of removing the patents file could be worse than if the patents file was never even there to begin with. That removing the file doesn’t revert it to potentially implicit, but instead is seen as explicitly revoking. But I don’t think that’s how it should go, especially since they also switched over to MIT license in the process. But I’m also not a lawyer and probably have zero credibility writing about any of this.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]