Why does Facebook not use something like an MIT license? I am honestly curious.
GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues
11–20 of 131 posts
Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
Software patents can only be used defensively when you are claiming your source code implements a patient. In that light, the owner (or even expiration) does not matter. You can claim to implement an expired patent as a defense of a patent lawsuit. You can claim to implement/steal somebody else's patent (but that is unwise at times). This principle is how RISC-V and J-Core have survived. They pointed to expired paten…
Offense is defense. If your competitor has enough patents that they'll find something they can reasonably argue that you infringe on, it's useful to present the same threat to them. Companies that are serious about only using patents for this purpose can contribute them to open licensing schemes. (And in the case of specifications that want to be standards, full patent grants should absolutely be included. You want p…
>Offense is defense
An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth leaves us all blind and toothless.
Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues
#13Why does Facebook not use something like an MIT license? I am honestly curious.
The MIT license doesn't change anything in this case, because the MIT license doesn't have a patent grant.
This GraphQL situation is different and, arguably, somewhat worse than the ReactJS BSD+Patent license issue.
The problem here is the GraphQL specification doesn't have a patent grant (unlike ReactJS, which does, but people don't like the terms of the grant). And Facebook have filed a patent for GraphQL (https://www.google.com/patents/US9646028) that has some quite broad language.
Due to the patent, and the lack of a patent grant, most GraphQL users likely infringe on Facebook's patents.
Please read: https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/using-graphql-why-facebook-n...
Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues
#14Why does Facebook not use something like an MIT license? I am honestly curious.
https://medium.com/@ji/the-react-license-for-founders-and-ct...
TL;DR - In 2012, Yahoo sued Facebook over 10 patents, "general sentiment in the industry was that the lawsuit against Facebook was without merit; some said Yahoo was a patent troll." Facebook spent a lot of money acquiring a patent warchest to be used defensively against patent suits in the future. Yahoo then drops the patent infringement case.
"The key thing to understand is that Facebook used and invested in patents as an important way to defend itself."
Facebook asserts that anyone can use these open source libraries with a patent use grant. However, if that company then sues Facebook over patent infringement, Facebook reserves the right to revoke all patent grants so they can use their own patents in a countersuit.
I can see how it makes sense for Facebook, but still a toxic effect on the actual "open source" status of React et al.
Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues
#15Serious question. React has been around for a while. Companies like Airbnb and Wix, for example, have been using React for a while. If Facebook were going to leverage this the way people are scared of, wouldn’t there be some example of them using it the way people are scared of? You know, on a company doing something it’s proven that they could make major money on? It’s not like this is a new provision, it’s been around for a while, and they’ve not used it to backhand a single company that I’ve come across (please, correct me if I’m wrong on this). So can’t this be boiled down to a conspiracy theory? There are massively successful, profitable companies who they haven’t tried to leverage these provisions on, so I’m honestly trying to figure out, what’s the basis for this fear?
Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues
#16Serious question. React has been around for a while. Companies like Airbnb and Wix, for example, have been using React for a while. If Facebook were going to leverage this the way people are scared of, wouldn’t there be some example of them using it the way people are scared of? You know, on a company doing something it’s proven that they could make major money on? It’s not like this is a new provision, it’s been aro…
So React is damned for including a PATENTS license and GraphQL is damned for not including a PATENTS license? Facebook can't win for losing. Geez, wish they would just re-license under Apache 2.0.
Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues
#17Serious question. React has been around for a while. Companies like Airbnb and Wix, for example, have been using React for a while. If Facebook were going to leverage this the way people are scared of, wouldn’t there be some example of them using it the way people are scared of? You know, on a company doing something it’s proven that they could make major money on? It’s not like this is a new provision, it’s been aro…
So React is damned for including a PATENTS license and GraphQL is damned for not including a PATENTS license? Facebook can't win for losing. Geez, wish they would just re-license under Apache 2.0.
> So React is damned for including a PATENTS license
A patent grant is a good thing, you want a patent grant as a user of OSS.
The problem people have with React's patent grant is the one sided terms of the patent grant (and the fear that Facebook could hold you hostage with those terms).
> Geez, wish they would just re-license under Apache 2.0.
This would be my preference.
IMO, for the React issue, even if the issue is a paper tiger (https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/react-facebook-and-the-revok...), this puts a massive hit on Facebook's OSS credibility. Even if the fear was irrational, many people are never going to understand that now and many people won't touch any Facebook OSS because of that fear.
Facebook would probably solve a lot of that credibility loss by just re-licensing under Apache 2.0.
Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, they have to do it as a defensive measure. It sucks, but companies like RedHat do it all the time.
We really should work on making defensive publication easier and more recognized.
Isn't it enough to publish the patent text such that it can be used as prior art to prevent other companies from patenting the same thing, but in that form can't be used to actively go after other companies from using the same technology?
Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
We really should work on making defensive publication easier and more recognized.
Isn't it enough to publish the patent text such that it can be used as prior art to prevent other companies from patenting the same thing, but in that form can't be used to actively go after other companies from using the same technology?
Not really. If you publish X I can still patent X + Y and probably catch a lot of people doing a derivative of X. If you patent X then my X + Y patent is much less useful and if I become obnoxious about it you can always threaten to destroy my customer base by enforcing X.
Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't it enough to publish the patent text such that it can be used as prior art to prevent other companies from patenting the same thing, but in that form can't be used to actively go after other companies from using the same technology?
Not really. If you publish X I can still patent X + Y and probably catch a lot of people doing a derivative of X. If you patent X then my X + Y patent is much less useful and if I become obnoxious about it you can always threaten to destroy my customer base by enforcing X.
It also doesn't help if you are the First Inventor To File.