Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 131 posts

Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues

#51

Post by yasserkaddour »

Gitlab put on hold their GraphQL implementation due to the patent. Gitlab Senior Director of Legal Affairs said:

"If we were to allow this license, it could lead to potential future conflicts with software licensed under Apache. Also, we could be impairing the future rights of our customers. Essentially, this is not really an open source product based on the implications of the license. While there is no payment of cash, payment is in the form of giving up future rights." [1]

[1] https://github.com/facebook/graphql/issues/351#issuecomment-...

Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues

#52

Post by snarfy »

bcarroll22 wrote: post #15

Serious 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…

Companies change. People change. You don't want it written into the license like that and depend on good will. If good will were enough we wouldn't have laws or government.

Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues

#53

Post by ricardobeat »

tcheard wrote: post #13
wyattk wrote: post #11

Why 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:/…

If you publish something under a MIT license very early, can you still apply for a patent after its practically public domain? I'd say no, but IANAL.

Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues

#54

Post by kowdermeister »

a13n wrote: post #44
kowdermeister wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a ticking bomb. You don't control what Facebook do or won't do and it's enough for lawyers to freak out. You can't know what would happen if Zuckerberg is replaced (accidents happen) and corporate water-heads take over Facebook.

So that's a no then?

Point me to a thing in the past that guarantees that North Korea won't use its nuclear weapons in the future.

Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues

#55

Post by fnord123 »

tcheard wrote: post #13
wyattk wrote: post #11

Why 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:/…

>Please read: https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/using-graphql-why-facebook-n....

That post has text of the patents in question. Please warn if you're linking to text of patents so people don't expose themselves to triple damages.

Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues

#56

Post by [deleted] »

oliwarner wrote: post #50

As I understand it, this is bad because you could use their code within the copyright license but then be sued for using it without the applicable patent license... Making it open source but far from free. Just out of curiosity though, has this sort of backdoor patent infringement actually been tested in court? IANAL, let alone a bitter twisted IP lawyer, but it seems perfectly reasonable to infer relevant patent lic…

[deleted]

Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues

#57

Post by qaq »

bcarroll22 wrote: post #15

Serious 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…

Let's imagine that due to a chain of events Oracle acquires controlling interest in FB :)

Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues

#58

Post by j_s »

robocat wrote: post #9

Links to: “TL;DR Facebook’s GraphQL spec doesn’t grant a patent license. Therefore, for reasons as set forth below, most GraphQL users infringe Facebook’s patents.“ https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/using-graphql-why-facebook-n...

As posted elsewhere in this discussion, a request for professional courtesy similar to the more common "NSFW" tag. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15292325)

> fnord123: That post has text of the patents in question. Please warn if you're linking to text of patents so people don't expose themselves to triple damages

Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues

#59

Post by yomly »

yasserkaddour wrote: post #51

Gitlab put on hold their GraphQL implementation due to the patent. Gitlab Senior Director of Legal Affairs said: "If we were to allow this license, it could lead to potential future conflicts with software licensed under Apache. Also, we could be impairing the future rights of our customers. Essentially, this is not really an open source product based on the implications of the license. While there is no payment of c…

Any chance you can unsnippet that quote?

In the longterm can the HN team to look at how snippets work on mobile.

Reading that on my phone was horrendous...

Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues

#60

Post by brlewis »

sanxiyn wrote: post #6
chris_wot wrote: post #4

Earlier 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.

How about we work on not allowing patents in fields where it's unreasonable to expect the patent office to assess novelty and non-obviousness? Like software?
Post reply on HN