4 ms·

> >If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorpo

by vageli 8y ago

> >If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed. > Am I misreading this to mean that if Apple sues someone for infringement over the patents they have been granted, they immediately lose those patents? You in this case is likely a defined term with a narrow meaning and likely does not refer to Apple (which is probably referred to as We, Us, "the company", etc) in the document.

geofft 8y ago
Right, also it's for "any patent licenses granted to You under this License" - if Apple owns the patent, they have no need for Swift's license to grant them a patent license. They own it. (They are not being licensed the patents by the government, and they're certainly not being licensed them under the terms of Swift's license.)
oflannabhra 8y ago
OK, so it sounds like for Apache 2.0 to have any teeth, there have to be actual patents in play. Since Apple has received the patents, not through the Apache 2.0 license, but from the USPTO, they would not lose access to those patents should they sue for infringement over them. IAMAL, but it seems like there still might be a case to be made for Apple's use of Swift to be covered through the Apache 2.0 license. It seems like the most logical explanation of this whole thing is that Apple wants to ensure that all users of Swift are free from litigation. To do so, they used the Apache 2.0 license to cover the code. However, the license requires there to be patents that exist, so that enforcement clauses prevent trolls from being granted a patent and then going after users of Swift. So, Apple filed for some patents that cover aspects of Swift.

by vageli 8y ago

geofft 8y ago

Right, also it's for "any patent licenses granted to You under this License" - if Apple owns the patent, they have no need for Swift's license to grant them a patent license. They own it. (They are not being licensed the patents by the government, and they're certainly not being licensed them under the terms of Swift's license.)

oflannabhra 8y ago

OK, so it sounds like for Apache 2.0 to have any teeth, there have to be actual patents in play. Since Apple has received the patents, not through the Apache 2.0 license, but from the USPTO, they would not lose access to those patents should they sue for infringement over them. IAMAL, but it seems like there still might be a case to be made for Apple's use of Swift to be covered through the Apache 2.0 license. It seems like the most logical explanation of this whole thing is that Apple wants to ensure that all users of Swift are free from litigation. To do so, they used the Apache 2.0 license to cover the code. However, the license requires there to be patents that exist, so that enforcement clauses prevent trolls from being granted a patent and then going after users of Swift. So, Apple filed for some patents that cover aspects of Swift.