Ariel Reinitz
Aug 25, 2017 · 2 min read

I’m a lawyer so I’ll try (but this isn’t legal advice, of course 😊):

  1. Raul is correct that the React patent clause doesn’t stop ‘patent trolls’ (since they don’t use React or do anything other than file lawsuits). But FB’s explanation of the React Patent license doesn’t actually mention ‘trolls.’ Discouraging “meritless patent litigation” is the reason they reserve the right to ‘revoke’ the license to their React patents (if you sue them for infringing your patent first).
  2. Obviously, whether a lawsuit is “meritless” is subjective: if you’re suing, you think your case has ‘merit.’ If you’re being sued (as FB usually is), you probably see the lawsuit as ‘meritless.’
  3. Ultimately, no one wants to be sued so companies (here, FB) do whatever they can to avoid or discourage it. One way is holding patents for ‘defensive’ purposes (big + small co.s do this). They aren’t interested in starting lawsuits with them. But if someone else starts a patent lawsuit, the company can use their patent(s) to ‘defend’ (i.e., countersue). The threat of such a defensive countersuit discourages others from starting lawsuits to begin with.
  4. Re: React, FB is essentially saying if you sue us first, we reserve the right to use our React patents defensively. You’d almost certainly get the same result if you didn’t use React at all: if you sue FB first, you need to be prepared for them to use their patents to ‘defend.’

I’ve outlined some additional points to consider here:

)

Ariel Reinitz

Written by

Former software developer; current patent/IP attorney

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade