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

91–100 of 131 posts

Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues

#91

Post by kitd »

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.

It means their lawyers and FB lawyers have come to a backroom agreement.

Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues

#92

Post by JoshMnem »

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.

It isn't just React. The PATENTS file is in most of Facebook's repos and it's becoming part of dependencies of dependencies. In the future it could be difficult to remove that software from your stack. (Immutable, Jest, Flow, Hack, etc.)

Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues

#93

Post by ccleary00 »

JoshMnem wrote: post #90
tcheard wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Good point. Wonder how much more frequently we're going to start seeing issues like this.

Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues

#94

Post by sheetjs »

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.

Allegedly it is legally binding! Scroll down to the bottom of the page, expand "OSP General" and you'll see a question "Is this OSP legally binding on Microsoft and will it be available in the future to me and to others?". The response is:

> Yes, the OSP is legally binding upon Microsoft. The OSP is a unilateral promise from Microsoft and unilateral promises may be enforced against the party making such a promise. Because the OSP states that the promise is irrevocable, it may not be withdrawn by Microsoft. The OSP is, and will be, available to everyone now and in the future for the specifications to which it applies. As stated in the OSP, the only time Microsoft can withdraw its promise against a specific person or company for a specific Covered Specification is if that person or company brings (or voluntarily participates in) a patent infringement lawsuit against Microsoft regarding a Microsoft implementation of the same Covered Specification. This type of "suspension" clause is common industry practice.

Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues

#95

Post by deckar01 »

> Generic computers performing generic computer functions, without an inventive concept, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.

> Examiner suggested . . . to advance the prosecution of this application: 1) Add the following limitations in claim 1: ‘a) graphs associated with a social-networking system’ . . . .

It sounds to me like the examiner is contradicting their self. They initially state that the type of information being manipulated does not render the idea less abstract, then go on to suggest limiting the information to social networking graphs.

Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues

#96

Post by kazagistar »

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…

Does "stop using patent infringing software" really protect you from damages? Isn't the fact that you infringed at some point enough?

Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues

#97

Post by alfonsodev »

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…

> "While there is no payment of cash, payment is in the form of giving up future rights."

This is a very nice way to put it, I guess it also applies to the React license issue.

Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues

#98

Post by brodock »

sheetjs wrote: post #94
bhldr wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Allegedly it is legally binding! Scroll down to the bottom of the page, expand "OSP General" and you'll see a question "Is this OSP legally binding on Microsoft and will it be available in the future to me and to others?". The response is: > Yes, the OSP is legally binding upon Microsoft. The OSP is a unilateral promise from Microsoft and unilateral promises may be enforced against the party making such a promise. Be…

there is a catch, if Microsoft ever sell any of the patents to a third party, this is not binding to them.

Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues

#99

Post by ensignavenger »

ricardobeat wrote: post #53
tcheard wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Some lawyers argue that if you publish software under an open source license without an explicit patent grant, that their is an implicit grant with it. As far as I know, this has not been tested in court, but it seems reasonable to me, (not as lawyer).

Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues

#100

Post by ensignavenger »

kazagistar wrote: post #96
ykler wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Does "stop using patent infringing software" really protect you from damages? Isn't the fact that you infringed at some point enough?

No, because your patent grant doesn't terminate until you file suit, so if you stop using the patents before you sue, you aren't infringing.
Post reply on HN