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

81–90 of 131 posts

Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues

#81

Post by bcarroll22 »

watty wrote: post #63
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…

It's a real threat, just blown way out of proportion. The second Facebook leverages this patent clause on ANY company, React is dead and everyone will migrate to Preact / VueJS, etc. This means that the React patent card is a one-time play with HUGE repercussions. Facebook isn't going to target your little company or startup and worrying about it IMO is foolish.

I think this is exactly what I am saying. There are companies using React that are much larger than anyone who is worried about this, and they don’t seem phased by it. That has to mean something.

Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues

#83

Post by kavok »

ykler wrote: post #77
peteretep wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, that's not a completely unreasonable interpretation. You are then unable to sue FB over patents, so FB could indeed just use any of your IP.

First of all, the whole thing is limited to patents, which are a small part of the IP of most IT companies. If Microsoft uses GraphQL, Facebook can't freely pirate Windows. Second of all, you can still sue FB over patents, you just have to stop using things they are providing free of charge first. Also, there is an exception if FB sues you first. It seems fairly clear that the intent is to avoid litigation over paten…

Wouldn't Apache 2.0 provide the same protection for Facebook?

Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues

#84

Post by bhldr »

sheetjs wrote: post #25
DannyBee wrote: post #23

Specs are a bit weird to try to come up with the right licensing (It was a bit of a pain in the butt to try to get this right for webm, for example). You want to encourage compliance with the spec, and protect people who implement the spec. That is a different type of language that say, apache 2. To be concrete: If you license the reference code as apache2, that would grant patent rights to people if they used refere…

Microsoft tries to do that with the Open Specifications Promise, a covenant not to sue: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecifications/dn646765

Pretty sure that that's non-binding, which means it can change as soon as leadership changes.

Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues

#85

Post by kavok »

bcarroll22 wrote: post #81
watty wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a real threat, just blown way out of proportion. The second Facebook leverages this patent clause on ANY company, React is dead and everyone will migrate to Preact / VueJS, etc. This means that the React patent card is a one-time play with HUGE repercussions. Facebook isn't going to target your little company or startup and worrying about it IMO is foolish.

I think this is exactly what I am saying. There are companies using React that are much larger than anyone who is worried about this, and they don’t seem phased by it. That has to mean something.

These large companies could afford to move off of React if they had to. Smaller companies could be severely impacted by having to move a core product off of React quickly. I don't know why people are using Google as an example of it being safe to use for a 10 person company.

Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues

#86

Post by bcarroll22 »

snarfy wrote: post #52
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.

I don’t know if this really answers my question. You have to assume Airbnb, for example, has a legal presence that is very involved in tech decisions and how they might hurt the business. What I imagine was a very thorough scrutinization process came back with a green light to use it. Most of the startups worried about this don’t have the luxury of anything near that level of legal scrutiny, but can’t a startup that can’t afford it extract some value from a company like Airbnb using it without worries?

Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues

#87

Post by peteretep »

ykler wrote: post #77
peteretep wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, that's not a completely unreasonable interpretation. You are then unable to sue FB over patents, so FB could indeed just use any of your IP.

First of all, the whole thing is limited to patents, which are a small part of the IP of most IT companies. If Microsoft uses GraphQL, Facebook can't freely pirate Windows. Second of all, you can still sue FB over patents, you just have to stop using things they are providing free of charge first. Also, there is an exception if FB sues you first. It seems fairly clear that the intent is to avoid litigation over paten…

That's a great response, and it annoys me you're being downvoted

Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues

#89

Post by [deleted] »

bhldr wrote: post #84
sheetjs wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft tries to do that with the Open Specifications Promise, a covenant not to sue: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecifications/dn646765

Pretty sure that that's non-binding, which means it can change as soon as leadership changes.

[deleted]

Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues

#90

Post by JoshMnem »

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:/…

I am not a lawyer, but MIT and BSD are thought to have implicit patent grants.[1] It would be completely absurd for a company to argue that they give the public the right to use their software, but "just kidding -- we were secretly withholding the rights to the patents all along so that we could sue you for using our software!" An apparent problem with Facebook's PATENTS file is that it explicitly withdraw the patent license if Facebook decides to infringe on your patents and you speak up about it.

I'm not sure if the author of that article is partially trolling in the attempt to get Facebook's patents terms applied to the entire spec.

The best solution would be to abolish software patents completely.

I think this entire PATENTS situation with Facebook is a good reason why people should prefer Free software that is created and managed by individual developers and independent foundations over "open source" software produced by large companies with legal teams and dubious agendas.

[1] http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_clauses_in_software_licences...

Post reply on HN