3 ms·
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 anyth
by 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 agoWell 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 agoI 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.