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

121–130 of 131 posts

Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues

#121

Post by skrebbel »

brodock wrote: post #98
sheetjs wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Woa, so they could just found Microsoft Patent Trolling Inc. transfer the patents over and the "problem is solved"?

Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues

#122

Post by skrebbel »

idbehold wrote: post #80
dmalik wrote: post #68

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

OData

OData is particularly interesting because its design has clear overlap with GraphQL, and it's a lot older. This means it could even be brought up as prior art in some patent cases, maybe.

There's significant differences, but it means that if someone designs an "OData without the suck" then there's a fair chance Facebook doesn't have much to go on.

That said they can still play patent troll of course - patents hardly ever get evaluated on their merits in court AFAIK.

Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues

#123

Post by jononor »

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.

Sure you can apply. And you might very well get it too. They don't have time to check much at the patent office, mostly standarized IP databases (probably not including your code). And if you get it, it becomes the burden of the others to prove the patent invalid. Bad patents are common, and litigation so expensive that they are a real problem to whoever is affected by them.

Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues

#124

Post by jononor »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #108
brlewis wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Any or all of these 3 things would help!

Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues

#125

Post by btown »

carussell wrote: post #102
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 mi…

In the source she is referring to the likely possibility that GraphQL ends up being licensed under the React PATENTS grant.

Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues

#126

Post by [deleted] »

btown wrote: post #125
carussell wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mi…

In the source she is referring to the likely possibility that GraphQL ends up being licensed under the React PATENTS grant.

[deleted]

Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues

#127

Post by carussell »

btown wrote: post #125
carussell wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mi…

In the source she is referring to the likely possibility that GraphQL ends up being licensed under the React PATENTS grant.

I don't understand the point of your comment.

The comment I responded to framed the situation as if GitLab took a look at the terms of the GraphQL spec, realized that it wasn't good for them, and made the above comments to explain why. The reality is, GitLab realized the current lack of FRAND-RF terms for GraphQL wasn't good for them, and they made the above comments only in response to somebody else's proposed solution to the current situation. That is, the comment doesn't explain why GitLab isn't using GraphQL right now, it explains why GitLab wouldn't use GraphQL if Facebook included the PATENTS grant. Which means that if someone is trying to understand the current situation or why GitLab originally halted GraphQL development, the comment I responded to isn't going to help anyone, because GraphQL is not and never has been subject to the terms of that grant.

If you're still not able to make sense of this, look no further than the first person account from the author of the Medium article referenced (who happens to be the same person who opened the issue):

> I've been a Facebook licensing defender for other OSS like React, but I think this is a completely different issue

Emphasis added by me.

Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues

#128

Post by CuriousCosmic »

yasserkaddour wrote: post #67
CuriousCosmic wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reading it on desktop wasn't great either

Sorry, with Hacker News Enhancement Suite[1] it looked great. [1] https://github.com/etcet/HNES

looks useful but it breaks my stylish dark theme so im going to have to pass on this extension

Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues

#130

Post by chrisco255 »

gcp wrote: post #111
chrisco255 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Microsoft hasn't demanded royalties for things covered under their patent license (duh). That article is just another reminder why one cannot afford to give Facebook a pass on this.

Facebook owns thousands of patents and thus far, has not been aggressive with them. They have only been used defensively.
Post reply on HN