GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues
github.com
GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues
1–10 of 131 posts
Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues
#2Even the companies who file the patents don't want the patents. It's getting kind of ridiculous now.
Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues
#3Even the companies who file the patents don't want the patents. It's getting kind of ridiculous now.
Even the companies who file the patents claim they don't want the patents.
Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues
#4Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues
#5Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even the companies who file the patents claim they don't want the patents.
No, they have to do it as a defensive measure. It sucks, but companies like RedHat do it all the time.
They don't have to do any such thing. All they have to do is disclose the invention publicly, and no one else can take it from them.
Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even the companies who file the patents claim they don't want the patents.
No, they have to do it as a defensive measure. It sucks, but companies like RedHat do it all the time.
We really should work on making defensive publication easier and more recognized.
Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, they have to do it as a defensive measure. It sucks, but companies like RedHat do it all the time.
They don't have to do any such thing. All they have to do is disclose the invention publicly, and no one else can take it from them.
I think it's more meant as a mutually assured destruction strategy.
Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even the companies who file the patents claim they don't want the patents.
No, they have to do it as a defensive measure. It sucks, but companies like RedHat do it all the time.
Software patents can only be used defensively when you are claiming your source code implements a patient.
In that light, the owner (or even expiration) does not matter. You can claim to implement an expired patent as a defense of a patent lawsuit. You can claim to implement/steal somebody else's patent (but that is unwise at times). This principle is how RISC-V and J-Core have survived. They pointed to expired patents and saying, "we do that, not your thing." (They really did too)
Privately owned patent rights, without rights granted to other entities can only be used offensively. Anyone saying otherwise is wittingly or unwitting supporting the patent system and arguing company line.
Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues
#9Links to:
“TL;DR Facebook’s GraphQL spec doesn’t grant a patent license. Therefore, for reasons as set forth below, most GraphQL users infringe Facebook’s patents.“
https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/using-graphql-why-facebook-n...
Re: GraphQL Patent Infringement Issues
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, they have to do it as a defensive measure. It sucks, but companies like RedHat do it all the time.
Software patents can only be used defensively when you are claiming your source code implements a patient. In that light, the owner (or even expiration) does not matter. You can claim to implement an expired patent as a defense of a patent lawsuit. You can claim to implement/steal somebody else's patent (but that is unwise at times). This principle is how RISC-V and J-Core have survived. They pointed to expired paten…
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 people to use their stuff, make it safe for them to do so)