4 ms·

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.yc

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?

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?