6 ms·

What makes the patent grant unfair? I think saying "you can use our pretty powerful technology until you sue us" is a great way to defang the patent system. [1

by teh 12y ago

What makes the patent grant unfair? I think saying "you can use our pretty powerful technology until you sue us" is a great way to defang the patent system. [1] https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/PATENTS https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/PATENTS

ralmidani 12y ago
It's unfair and one-sided because you cannot sue Facebook for infringing an unrelated patent, but if Facebook sues you for an unrelated patent, you will lose your rights if you try to assert (defensively) that their patent is invalid. In other words, you can never sue or even defend yourself against a Facebook lawsuit. For a more balanced approach to patents, see the GPL, Mozilla Public License, or Apache 2.0 License.
- teh 12y ago
  IANAL so I didn't get that. Thanks for explaining!
- peterhunt 12y ago
  This is a common misinterpretation of this clause. There's been a lot of discussion at length here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8985722 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8985722
  - ralmidani 12y ago
    I read that discussion. The patent grant is very asymmetrical. Why should an entity using React be vulnerable to being sued by Facebook for unrelated patents and be unable to challenge those patents?
    - peterhunt 12y ago
      IANAL and I have nothing else to add to the discussion here other than adding the context that Facebook hates patent trolls and doesn't really compete on technology, so even if your interpretation is correct (which I don't believe it is) it'd be purely defensive anyway.
  - throwaway41597 12y ago
    A discussion started by an actual lawyer about the same license used for an other project is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8901357 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8901357 He doesn't agree with your interpretation. The license is very clear in that everything a company would typically do to /defend/ against a patent suit brought by Facebook will terminate its patent rights on React. Let me quote the second paragraph (added line formating for readability), the (b) part is the broadest I think: The license granted hereunder will terminate, automatically and without notice, for anyone that makes any claim (including by filing any lawsuit, assertion or other action) alleging (a) direct, indirect, or contributory infringement or inducement to infringe any patent: (i) by Facebook or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates, whether or not such claim is related to the Software, (ii) by any party if such claim arises in whole or in part from any software, product or service of Facebook or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates, whether or not such claim is related to the Software, or (iii) by any party relating to the Software; or (b) that any right in any patent claim of Facebook is invalid or unenforceable. So why word it like users cannot defend against Facebook while Facebook doesn't intend to be a claimant?
unknownian 12y ago
That's not just what it says. If it just said that, that would be fine. It says making "any claim" against a Facebook patent will terminate your right to use the software. Facebook gets to protect its own software patents: "that any right in any patent claim of Facebook is invalid or unenforceable." The other lines are okay, it seems. I am not an IP law expert or lawyer though, but the writing seems pretty simple.
- EdwardMSmith 12y ago
  I'm not a lawyer either, but isn't the word "claim" a term of art in law. Doesn't it have a specific meaning distinct from the common usage?
  - teraflop 12y ago
    "Claim" has a specific meaning in the sense of the invention "claimed" by a patent. But Facebook's patent grant is clearly not using it in that context: "any claim (including by filing any lawsuit, assertion or other action)".
    - ralmidani 12y ago
      And a good reason for someone to claim a patent is invalid is being sued for violating that patent.

by teh 12y ago

ralmidani 12y ago

It's unfair and one-sided because you cannot sue Facebook for infringing an unrelated patent, but if Facebook sues you for an unrelated patent, you will lose your rights if you try to assert (defensively) that their patent is invalid. In other words, you can never sue or even defend yourself against a Facebook lawsuit. For a more balanced approach to patents, see the GPL, Mozilla Public License, or Apache 2.0 License.

teh 12y ago
IANAL so I didn't get that. Thanks for explaining!
peterhunt 12y ago
This is a common misinterpretation of this clause. There's been a lot of discussion at length here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8985722 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8985722
- ralmidani 12y ago
  I read that discussion. The patent grant is very asymmetrical. Why should an entity using React be vulnerable to being sued by Facebook for unrelated patents and be unable to challenge those patents?
  - peterhunt 12y ago
    IANAL and I have nothing else to add to the discussion here other than adding the context that Facebook hates patent trolls and doesn't really compete on technology, so even if your interpretation is correct (which I don't believe it is) it'd be purely defensive anyway.
- throwaway41597 12y ago
  A discussion started by an actual lawyer about the same license used for an other project is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8901357 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8901357 He doesn't agree with your interpretation. The license is very clear in that everything a company would typically do to /defend/ against a patent suit brought by Facebook will terminate its patent rights on React. Let me quote the second paragraph (added line formating for readability), the (b) part is the broadest I think: The license granted hereunder will terminate, automatically and without notice, for anyone that makes any claim (including by filing any lawsuit, assertion or other action) alleging (a) direct, indirect, or contributory infringement or inducement to infringe any patent: (i) by Facebook or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates, whether or not such claim is related to the Software, (ii) by any party if such claim arises in whole or in part from any software, product or service of Facebook or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates, whether or not such claim is related to the Software, or (iii) by any party relating to the Software; or (b) that any right in any patent claim of Facebook is invalid or unenforceable. So why word it like users cannot defend against Facebook while Facebook doesn't intend to be a claimant?

unknownian 12y ago

That's not just what it says. If it just said that, that would be fine. It says making "any claim" against a Facebook patent will terminate your right to use the software. Facebook gets to protect its own software patents: "that any right in any patent claim of Facebook is invalid or unenforceable." The other lines are okay, it seems. I am not an IP law expert or lawyer though, but the writing seems pretty simple.

EdwardMSmith 12y ago
I'm not a lawyer either, but isn't the word "claim" a term of art in law. Doesn't it have a specific meaning distinct from the common usage?
- teraflop 12y ago
  "Claim" has a specific meaning in the sense of the invention "claimed" by a patent. But Facebook's patent grant is clearly not using it in that context: "any claim (including by filing any lawsuit, assertion or other action)".
  - ralmidani 12y ago
    And a good reason for someone to claim a patent is invalid is being sued for violating that patent.