Comment by DannyBee | Hacker News Reader

Comment by DannyBee | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

"As a general proposition, I'm hesitant to support that."

I'm even fine with this (I hate software patents).

But it seems very wrong to essentially be able to take what you want from small companies because they are afraid to take you on.

Regardless of what mechanism you use to achieve it.

"and they are likely saving Facebook a whole host of headaches."

I am empathetic, but i also disbelieve this. I'm aware of every headache Google has ever had in these situations, and i can't imagine Facebook's are particularly different.

I can state affirmatively that this license would not have prevented even one of those headaches. Thus it would have been infinitely more helpful if they had cited any examples.

As for your viewpoint on the scenario. FWIW: yes, i am certainly biased by what i've done. But I actually have dealt with a tremendous number of startups, from both sides of the fence (I also do due diligence on this side, and have helped plenty on the other side). The number who would have no effective recourse under this license, who would have had effective recourse before, is quite high.

Would that recourse only come into play when they are essentially fcked anyway? Yeah, maybe. But it's worth something*.

Hi Danny, thanks for your insight about this topic. As someone who works with licensing at Google can I get an idea of what would happen in this scenario.

Let's say Facebook has a Patent on something like `Components`, `Unidirectional data flow`, and `virtual DOM` which were core to React (of course, we don't know for sure). Now let's say a framework built at Google using the same ideas as `Components` and `Unidirectional data flow` under MIT. From what I can find about patents is that if you have a Patent on the eraser then that prevents anyone from building the pencil or at least the eraser can sue for patent infringement. Does this mean the framework that was built at Google under MIT can still be affected by Facebook? If that were the case can we assume Facebook wouldn't sue Google for the same reason as start-up wouldn't want to sue Facebook for patent infringement? What if a startup were sued Facebook for patent infringement and Facebook counter-sues for patent infringement because of use of `Components` and `Unidirectional data flow` in the MIT Google framework do you think Google would step in to help since the startup wouldn't have enough money to take on the counter-sue?

The idea here is that no one knows for sure what Facebook has for Patents on React yet the core concepts that were introduced to the community is wide spread.

Disclaimer: Of course, this is just hypothetical and you're not my lawyer and this is not an official legal opinion nor the opinion of Google.

Thanks for the great response.

> The number who would have no effective recourse under this license, who would have had effective recourse before, is quite high.

I think that's the rub. If that is the case, then this is certainly very problematic.

In any event, this is certainly a class of licenses that needs to be watched carefully on an ongoing basis and added to the (already substantial) checklist of licenses that need to be carefully considered before being added to any project.

I appreciate your comments and candor on all of this, btw. Thanks again.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com