Beware the IP non-assert clause in AWS cloud service agreement
1–10 of 60 posts
Re: Beware the IP non-assert clause in AWS cloud service agreement
#2While the warning appears to be well intentioned and the paranoia understandable to me, I didn't quite understand this bit:
> Lastly, it’s well known that AWS utilises and hosts a wide range of open
> source code which could include viral OSS licences that might further
> extend the reach of the IP non-assert in unforeseen and unpredictable ways.
Re: Beware the IP non-assert clause in AWS cloud service agreement
#3While the warning appears to be well intentioned and the paranoia understandable to me, I didn't quite understand this bit: > Lastly, it’s well known that AWS utilises and hosts a wide range of open > source code which could include viral OSS licences that might further > extend the reach of the IP non-assert in unforeseen and unpredictable ways. Could someone who understood explain this ? Is that last bit just FUD ?…
The license includes a provision that restricts users from asserting their patent rights against AWS licensors. When AWS uses an open source project, the project becomes an AWS licensor. The author's concern may be that the provision could extend to the contirbutors... or employers of the contributors... and so on.
This is not just FUD:
> Amazon is using the provision to defend itself in a patent infringement case brought by Appistry Inc in US district court in Seattle.
Re: Beware the IP non-assert clause in AWS cloud service agreement
#4Seems the court decided Appistry Inc's patent was invalid. So we'll have to wait for another test case to see how enforceable this is.
https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/washin...
Re: Beware the IP non-assert clause in AWS cloud service agreement
#5"you will not assert...against us or any of our...customers"
Is that Amazon customers or just AWS customers? Either way, that's a lot of people.
Re: Beware the IP non-assert clause in AWS cloud service agreement
#6I don't know about the US, but in Europe it's quite possible that these clauses would be ruled invalid.
Re: Beware the IP non-assert clause in AWS cloud service agreement
#7What on earth does it even mean?
Re: Beware the IP non-assert clause in AWS cloud service agreement
#8So, a bit more information here: http://www.geekwire.com/2015/amazon-fights-patent-suit-using...
An interesting point is that Appistry continued to use AWS services after learning about the clause. This led the Missouri judge to allow transfer of the case to Seattle (AWS hometown), basically doing a "you can't have your cake and eat it, too".
Re: Beware the IP non-assert clause in AWS cloud service agreement
#9 > It’s likely that thousands of Amazon customers don’t
> realise they are giving away their valuable intellectual
> property rights just for the privilege of using AWS; but
> realise they should.
I've built an application on AWS but would not have if this meant handing over all my IP to Amazon.
I must be misunderstanding the issue as I doubt any company or person would use AWS if it meant giving up their entire IP.
Can someone please explain what I am missing here?
Re: Beware the IP non-assert clause in AWS cloud service agreement
#10> It’s likely that thousands of Amazon customers don’t > realise they are giving away their valuable intellectual > property rights just for the privilege of using AWS; but > realise they should. Does this mean that AWS is allowed to use the IP of any customer hosting their system on AWS? I've built an application on AWS but would not have if this meant handing over all my IP to Amazon. I must be misunderstanding the…
What you're missing is that this is a FUD article.
AWS' terms basically come down to "if you use AWS, you lose the right to patent-troll AWS". The article is trying to spin it as "OH NOES NOW YOU GET TEH VIRAL FROM THE EEEEEEEEEEVIL GPL", though I have no idea on what theory they would base a claim that agreeing not to assert against Amazon and its contractors/vendors would somehow constitute GPL'ing your own code.