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

101–110 of 131 posts

Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues

#101

Post by chrisco255 »

gcp wrote: post #46
koko775 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately that logic seems to lead to a strategy of FUD in the direction of a different patent license, which if that approach is validated then leads to being less open doesn't it?

I don't get what you are saying entirely, but companies like Microsoft and Broadcom, of all places, have given patent licenses with their open source work that were not as one-sided as Facebook's was. If Microsoft and Broadcom are better OSS+patents citizens then you are, you have a serious problem.

Unlike Microsoft, Facebook hasn't gone around demanding royalties: https://www.infoworld.com/article/3042699/open-source-tools/...

Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues

#102

Post by carussell »

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…

A couple clarifications:

- She is talking there about the PATENTS grant in React and most other Facebook software, not about GraphQL.

- This is immediately preceded by a mention of the Apache Foundation. When she says it could conflict with Apache, it either means Apache Foundation projects (since they wouldn't be able accept contributions without reversing their stance), or she's suggesting that Apache Foundation might issue future revision of the license that specifically breaks compatibility. Because as of right now, there is no conflict with Apache-the-License, only Apache-the-Foundation, and it doesn't really matter how Apache Foundation feels about Facebook's PATENTS grant wrt license compatibility. The conflict is a policy one, not a legal one.

Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues

#103

Post by mbrock »

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…

You could create just as much fear, uncertainty and doubt by pointing to the lack of clarity around the notion of an implicit patent grant.

Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues

#104

Post by carussell »

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…

> 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

This has been the gist of the complaint against software patents for the last decade+. It's why all the latest revisions of Apache, GPL, and MPL include explicit patent grants and termination criteria in their texts. It's why Microsoft included a separate patent promise when they placed .NET Core under MIT. And it's why Facebook themselves has released most of their projects with the now-infamous PATENTS additional grant.

> As I understand it, this is bad because

Not really. This is bad because GraphQL is a spec. If Facebook released some GraphQL-related software under any modern FOSS license, you'd be able to use it, regardless of any patents covering it. (See above.) The problem with GraphQL being a spec is that if you use some GraphQL-related software that doesn't originate from Facebook, then the licenses on any Facebook software (and thus the patent grants in that license) are irrelevant and you have no patent protection. And now you might begin to see why everyone in OSS who's acting in good faith would be better off with their own Facebook-style PATENTS grant.

Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues

#105

Post by dmalik »

yasserkaddour wrote: post #71
dmalik wrote: post #68

Are there any technologies that are an alternative to GraphQL like Vue is to React?

If you are a node developer there is Falcor by Netflix https://netflix.github.io/falcor/

Yes, now that you mention it, I do remember hearing about Falcor. For anyone that's interested I found this comparison:

https://dev-blog.apollodata.com/graphql-vs-falcor-4f1e9cbf75...

Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues

#106

Post by carussell »

kavok wrote: post #83
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…

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

No. Apache 2.0 indemnifies you only in relation to the patents held by contributors to that project.

In more concrete terms, if you see some project is licensed under Apache 2.0, then you can still be sued for using it, because while you may have a guarantee that its contributors won't sue you, it doesn't make anybody else's patents go away.

In slightly more concrete terms than that, if Project X causes Facebook to be sued by Corp Y because Facebook is using that project, then Facebook has no protection if it is not a Corp Y project nor have they ever contributed to it.

In real life, Corp Y is Yahoo, who sued Facebook several years ago on a bunch of patent-related matters. Facebook then went on a tear building up a war chest and crafting the PATENTS text so that it could never happen again.

Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues

#107

Post by mcbits »

bcarroll22 wrote: post #86
snarfy wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's possible that Airbnb has their own, separate license with Facebook. It's also possible that they decided they could absorb the cost of a countersuit if they ever sue Facebook over a patent. I don't think speculating about Airbnb's situation gives any assurances to an entirely unrelated company.

Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues

#108

Post by TeMPOraL »

brlewis wrote: post #60
sanxiyn wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Or at least making their duration commensurate to the invention itself, and the speed of evolution of the field. 3 years would be more than enough time for the "inventors" to make money off their software patent.

Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues

#109

Post by TeMPOraL »

valarauca1 wrote: post #12
detaro wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It does, but unfortunately, that's how humans work. We use threats to make cooperation the best choice for all parties, because we can't trust that none of those parties is an asshole.

Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues

#110

Post by bcarroll22 »

mcbits wrote: post #107
bcarroll22 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's possible that Airbnb has their own, separate license with Facebook. It's also possible that they decided they could absorb the cost of a countersuit if they ever sue Facebook over a patent. I don't think speculating about Airbnb's situation gives any assurances to an entirely unrelated company.

I’d agree if Airbnb were the only large company using React, but they’re not. They were just the company I chose to mention. There’s also Twitter who just went all in building Twitter lite, Wix who is huge in the native navigation world, and plenty more. So would you guess that Facebook is negotiating a separate license with all of them? And besides, wouldn’t that nullify concerns even more because that means they’re willing to negotiate a more lenient license with any company that makes enough money to make them worth knocking off?

I’m not trying to be sarcastic, I just really don’t understand how these fears are justified. Besides, if Facebook decides they want to crush you and use React as a shield, you’ll probably have bigger problems in that moment than your choice of front end libraries. A bigger problem, I would think, is that you have something worth Facebook thinks is worth stealing. Facebook doesn’t need a React patent clause to smother a company.

Post reply on HN