4 ms·

This seems - and I'm not a lawyer and could be totally misreading it - to be a really raw deal, in the sense that in exchange for using the software you're agre

by objclxt 12y ago

This seems - and I'm not a lawyer and could be totally misreading it - to be a really raw deal, in the sense that in exchange for using the software you're agreeing to not just sue, but even assert in any way that Facebook infringes upon any patent of yours (or anyone else's, for that matter). Does "any patent" include design patents? Because that seems like a really terrible thing to agree to. Say I'm a company looking to use this library: do I really want to be bound by a license which will be revoked if I ever sue, or even claim publicly that any division of Facebook - because that's what I take "affiliate" to mean - has infringed upon any patent, be it hardware, software, design... Or am I just misreading this?

readerrrr 12y ago
The second part is just gibberish to me. Someone please translate.
- revscat 12y ago
  "If you write software using this API that infringes patents, we ain't liable for that crap. It's all you, baby. Have fun."
  - noonespecial 12y ago
    "...And if you should ever claim that anything we make infringes on any patent that you might have, you can't use our API anymore, like ever."
    - lotsofmangos 12y ago
      If that is legal, everyone should add it to their licenses immediately.
fossuser 12y ago
I recall the apache license having a similar clause to reduce patent litigation against them as well.
nknighthb 12y ago
You could say it's a raw deal if you think patents should exist. If like me, you don't, then you could say it doesn't go nearly far enough, and should instead terminate all rights to both the patents and the copyrighted work if you attempt to assert any patent against anyone, anywhere.
bdonlan 12y ago
IANAL either, but as I read it, if you sue facebook the patent license just goes away. It's essentially the same at that point as if they hadn't mentioned anything at all. So you're either getting something (a conditional license for the patents) at no direct cost to you, or you're getting nothing and losing nothing - how is that a raw deal? These patent grants are commonly used by companies who gather patent portfolios as a means of patent mutually assured destruction. The goal is to ensure that they will never be sued for patent infringement by making sure they have a broad enough patent portfolio to always be able to countersue. Now, if you want to use this and retain the ability to safely sue facebook, you could always negotiate a separate, irrevocable patent license. This is what you would need to do (that, or ignore any potential patents and hope you're not sued) in the absence of such a grant in the first place.
- themgt 12y ago
  Well according to the language, if you simply wrote a tweet saying that "Facebook patent US7827208, 'generating a feed of stories personalized for members of a social network' is riduculous and overbroad" you could then have your right to develop for Oculus effectively revoked http://www.google.com/patents/US7827208 http://www.google.com/patents/US7827208
  - JackC 12y ago
    I see how you're getting that, but I don't think the license is intended that way or would be enforced that way. When they say "makes a claim," they mean "makes a claim to an entity with the power to grant the claim and invalidate the patent," not "makes a claim on Twitter." As context, patent litigation comes up in one of two ways: either a patent holder alleges that their patent is being violated, or a non-patent-holder alleges that a patent is invalid. The (a) and (b) in this license seem to be meant to cover those two situations.
rotten 12y ago
I wonder if other product and consumer good manufacturers could get away with this too? (Not just software.) "By agreeing to purchase this car at our fabulous discounted price you agree to never sue GM for anything for any other GM owned or licensed technology."

by objclxt 12y ago

readerrrr 12y ago

The second part is just gibberish to me. Someone please translate.

revscat 12y ago
"If you write software using this API that infringes patents, we ain't liable for that crap. It's all you, baby. Have fun."
- noonespecial 12y ago
  "...And if you should ever claim that anything we make infringes on any patent that you might have, you can't use our API anymore, like ever."
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    If that is legal, everyone should add it to their licenses immediately.

fossuser 12y ago

I recall the apache license having a similar clause to reduce patent litigation against them as well.

nknighthb 12y ago

You could say it's a raw deal if you think patents should exist. If like me, you don't, then you could say it doesn't go nearly far enough, and should instead terminate all rights to both the patents and the copyrighted work if you attempt to assert any patent against anyone, anywhere.

bdonlan 12y ago

IANAL either, but as I read it, if you sue facebook the patent license just goes away. It's essentially the same at that point as if they hadn't mentioned anything at all. So you're either getting something (a conditional license for the patents) at no direct cost to you, or you're getting nothing and losing nothing - how is that a raw deal? These patent grants are commonly used by companies who gather patent portfolios as a means of patent mutually assured destruction. The goal is to ensure that they will never be sued for patent infringement by making sure they have a broad enough patent portfolio to always be able to countersue. Now, if you want to use this and retain the ability to safely sue facebook, you could always negotiate a separate, irrevocable patent license. This is what you would need to do (that, or ignore any potential patents and hope you're not sued) in the absence of such a grant in the first place.

themgt 12y ago
Well according to the language, if you simply wrote a tweet saying that "Facebook patent US7827208, 'generating a feed of stories personalized for members of a social network' is riduculous and overbroad" you could then have your right to develop for Oculus effectively revoked http://www.google.com/patents/US7827208 http://www.google.com/patents/US7827208
- JackC 12y ago
  I see how you're getting that, but I don't think the license is intended that way or would be enforced that way. When they say "makes a claim," they mean "makes a claim to an entity with the power to grant the claim and invalidate the patent," not "makes a claim on Twitter." As context, patent litigation comes up in one of two ways: either a patent holder alleges that their patent is being violated, or a non-patent-holder alleges that a patent is invalid. The (a) and (b) in this license seem to be meant to cover those two situations.

rotten 12y ago

I wonder if other product and consumer good manufacturers could get away with this too? (Not just software.) "By agreeing to purchase this car at our fabulous discounted price you agree to never sue GM for anything for any other GM owned or licensed technology."