Daniel Walsh

I'd recommend reading this article about the licensing language that's being disputed now: https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/react-facebook-and-the-revokable-paten… The author is the same person that has an article on the front page currently arguing that the license for Graph QL DOES have issues (and is following through with Facebook through Github Issues to resolve them), so I think this position is really worth considering.

It's too bad that this particular point has become an issue with so many good open source projects. I still think that the risk, even for startups considering acquisition exits, is low (see this great post from a patent/IP attorney [1]), but the fact that it's enough to cause players like the ASF and WordPress to move away from it just means fewer players and less innovation in the ecosystem. IANAL, but I wish the lawyers at Facebook would take one for the team and relax a bit on this (hey, more work for them, a plus!). If you're going to sue Facebook over patent infringement, you're probably going to spend a lot more on the suit itself than the eng costs rewriting a view layer. [1] https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/react-facebook-and-the-revokable-paten…

> Are there any people out there who don't work for Facebook or use React code who are willing to defend the patent license? Yes: Ariel ReinitzFollow (Former software developer; current patent/IP attorney) https://blog.cloudboost.io/3-points-to-consider-before-migrating-away-… Dennis WalshFollow (Former Patent / IP Attorney; current Software Developer) https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/react-facebook-and-the-revokable-paten…

Great explanation of implications of React patent clause: https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/react-facebook-and-the-revokable-paten…

For previous context and discussion that led to this decision, this is the GraphQL issue to look at: https://github.com/facebook/graphql/issues/351 The original Medium post from an IP attorney is linked in the original issue comment, but I will link it here too as it was a catalyst: https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/using-graphql-why-facebook-now-owns-yo…

Aslo called a "weak patent retaliation clause" vs React's (current) strong patent retaliation clause. I found the explanations in [1] to be very helpful to understand patent clauses. [1]: https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/react-facebook-and-the-revokable-paten…

Links 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-now-owns-yo…

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://www.google.com/patents/US9646028) that has some quite broad language. Due to the patent, and the lack of a patent grant, most GraphQL users likely infringe on Facebook's patents. Please read: https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/using-graphql-why-facebook-now-owns-yo…

>Please read: https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/using-graphql-why-facebook-n... That post has text of the patents in question. Please warn if you're linking to text of patents so people don't expose themselves to triple damages.

IANAL. I think that is a common misunderstanding of the clause. If you sue them for react patents you can still use HHVM, or vice versa. https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/react-facebook-and-the-revokable-paten…

Do you think the Facebook "social networking" GraphQL patent applies to Talk? https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/using-graphql-why-facebook-now-owns-yo…

By "use patents as a weapon" you mean "ever plan to enforce patents against Facebook"? That's quite a stretch. Still, folks more knowledgeable than me on this topic say it's not a big deal: https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/react-facebook-and-the-revokable-paten…

> What I said was, if you sue Facebook for infringing on your patents then, by my reading, you lose the React software license. Your reading is wrong: https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/react-facebook-and-the-revokable-paten…

They are working to resolve https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/hi-ezequiel-6855beab08cb Understand the pause, and if we were a social networking company I'd be more concerned - but already our decision to use GraphQL/React is paying off, as it differentiates for customers looking to integrate our product into their product due to the richness of the API that we are inherently providing.

I hope one of them is "I like the legal risk that comes with exposing myself to patent trolling": https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/using-graphql-why-facebook-now-owns-yo…

how does oData hold against https://www.google.com/patents/US9646028 ? specifically the 'social networking' part? (related: https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/using-graphql-why-facebook-now-owns-yo…

An IP lawyer has: https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/react-facebook-and-the-revokable-paten…

The lawyer who wrote this piece [1], AND automattic's general counsel agree on this. > Automaticc’s general counsel also agrees with my analysis of contractual and copyright liability in that the patent clause does not revoke the underlying license. [1] https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/react-facebook-and-the-revokable-paten…

Check this out https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/react-facebook-and-the-revokable-paten… might not be as bad as you think

They're referring to the 'patent retaliation clause', see: https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/react-facebook-and-the-revokable-paten…

That seems like a fine thing to do as a "send a message" type thing, but doesn't seem to help patent wise? Am I misunderstanding the flow? 1) Facebook has patents on some stuff React does. 2) (Assumption) Anything similar enough to be near-source-compatible probably runs a big risk of exposure to those same patents. 3) React is licensed in a way that you can use it without opening yourself up to patent litigation (it grants license to them). 4) Facebook infringes on some more-critical-to-your-business thing. 5) You sue. 6) Facebook sues you for using React (or Preact, from (2)?). If you never use React you never get that patent license anyway, right? So be careful how distinct your replacement is. You'd need to analyze the claims of the patents you're worried about to see if they could still apply. This guy seems to think the same ( https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/react-facebook-and-the-revokable-paten… ) but also doesn't feel like Facebook would ever use it, though that's not really relevant to the arguments made around the principal here.

As far as I know, there are not "React" patents. Facebook has many patents, but I haven't seen anyone point to any patent which specifically involves React. The author of https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/react-facebook-and-the-revokable-paten… did a cursory search and concluded: "To determine patent liability asserted by Facebook, we need to assess Facebook’s various patents and their claims. Or more specifically, which Facebook patents claim any underlying React technology? As the above illustrates, this is not a trivial question. But in my cursory search, that answer is zero. (Again, if you have examples, send them over.) Moreover, it would suprise me given the USPTO and courts general disfavor of software patents if Facebook had anything patentable in React, much less actually patented. The prior art of componetization, diffing, and virtual doms circa 2013 is very well known, and I don’t see any applicable continuation patent applications."