Dennis, please calm down. I do not appreciate your ad hominem attacks.
In my notes, (1) I did mention that the React filing was a patent application and that, (2) the GraphQL ones were constrained to social networks.
Naturally, I also said I cannot make statements about the applicability of those patents— but as an engineer, I can assert they do pertain to the technical areas under discussion (React and GraphQL).
Since when is it wrong to bring something to people’s attention?
- Whether the patent is granted or not, this shows Facebook’s intentionality: they do attempt to patent their OSS work.
- In fact, as you note with the GraphQL patent, they *did attempt* to obtain a generic one.
- It was the patent examiner who rejected it, until they narrowed the scope. If he hadn’t, we could now be looking at a generic patent for some algorithms in GraphQL.
- As an adopter, you really want to play this game of uncertainty with every piece of software you adopt, and every patent that FB files?
- Additionally, isn’t it possible there are currently unpublished patent applications by Facebook, being processed at the USPTO?
Take into account that once their patents are approved, they do hold a strong leverage against you.
My argument has always been the following: why would you adopt software that creates asymmetry of power and leverage in favour of Facebook, putting you in the weak position?
When you adopt a technology stack, you don’t make a decision for the present only. You make a decision for the future.
Now, can we talk about the elephant in the room? If:
- According to your analysis Facebook cannot enforce the retaliation clause (at least not currently).
- You think there’s no future risk, even if it has been shown to you that there are patent applications in the React Fiber domain (see below) being processed.
- Non-practicing entities (patent trolls) are intruders that have no reason to use React nor the FB stack.
Why is Facebook so adamant about keeping this clause? Sure they find value in it, right? Why?
Why have other lawyers disallowed Facebook products in their companies?
Sorry to say Dennis, there are as many opinions as lawyers, software engineers and entrepreneurs. Probably neither you nor I have the absolute truth, but the discussion is, for sure, helpful.
Filip — pity that Dennis feels it’s OK to outright insult me. Thanks for citing me and as you can see, there are lots of questions to be answered still.
(BTW — a source has indicated the algorithm disclosed in React patent applies to React Fiber, which was not in the public domain before the priority date I believe. So this might turn into a patent grant for an algorithm in React Fiber. More so, this patent would NOT cover Preact. That opens a clear migration path from React to Preact.)
