React - Facebook patent - a problem?

Planet Earth
55

If this is such a concern, why are REAL companies with REAL patents that hold REAL value using react?

If you are a startup, or dev shop (or anyone, really) this shouldn’t be a concern. Uber, Netflix, and many other companies who are really the only entities that should even consider worrying about this problem, are not worrying about this problem.

React Patent Discussion === Mental Mastur&&%#

The chances are near zero that you have a perfect storm of (a) use react, (b) have software patents that end up being worth something, and © facebook tries to come after you. The chances you (a) use react, (b)have software patents that end up being worth something to facebook, and © facebook tries to come after you-- AND (d) you end up in a situation where you can’t just switch out your view layer are actually zero.

This is such a absurd thing to worry about, it’s beyond a black swan event. Anyone who finds themselves in this (basically, imaginary) situation will also be in a situation to switch out their view layer. Again, we’re so far into hypothetical imaginary la-la land that we’re on par with physics thought experiments.

Sitting in your computer chair today and deciding not to use react on your next project because of this is equivalent to a home builder deciding not to enter the home building business because there might be a hurricane 5 years from now that occurs on the exact day they are putting up a beam of wood with a defect in the exact spot that will get knocked down by the exact blow of the wind… you’re getting way ahead of yourself and wasting valuable brain power that could be used for laying code.

Who Should Worry?

If you’re working on ML/AI/Big Data (actually working on it, not utilizing a Watson API), and that ML/AI/BD work is DIRECTLY COMPETING with Facebook’s CORE STRATEGY AND DIRECTION then you may possibly want to ask this question…so we’re talking maybe 5 people on planet earth (who are located at MIT or Stanford) who should be thinking about thinking about maybe worrying about this… and even then I doubt Facebook will be able to come after your AI/ML patents because you used their view layer. It is just is not going to happen…

**

TLDR:

  • Software patents are essentially useless
  • Software patents are DEFINITELY useless if you don’t have an oracle-size war chest for litigation.
  • Facebook is not going to come after your social network for cats CRUD app.
  • You should probably be laying code right now
2 Likes
56

Are they really, though? Let’s say I launch a SaaS that has something really unique in its design or function, that no one has done before. It would be useless for me to patent that? Why?

57

Because
(1) it is unlikely you will get the patent as it is hard to patent software (what are the chances your “design” or “function” are truly unique enough for a patent?

(2) it will be prohibitively expensive to bring the infringer to court for 99% of startups or small companies

(3) it is near impossible to win the case, and many cases are being lost (and confounding the case law that makes future cases even less hopeful)

(4) if the person infringing on your patent is Facebook and you’re not Google/Apple, you can basically forget ever actually winning that case. You’ll go bankrupt and best-case-scenario they make a netflix movie about you in 50 years that makes you look like a cool tech matyr, but in the mean time you’re wife will leave you, and you’ll die a poor crazy man in a cabin in northern Minnesota.

TLDR:
Software patents are just not as strong as patents that cover physical hardware, etc… maybe it if it software (and hardware) that powers a touch screen hologram. But the chances your SaaS CRUD app is unique enough to be patented are slim… and if you get a patent, the chances you can defend it successfully are near zero.

Most of the big companies with software patents are doing it just because. When you’re apple/oracle/google, then yeah you may as well spend .005% of the budget on patenting some stuff. For the rest of us, we should focus on getting customers for our non-patented SaaS CRUD app or building a team for an acquihire.

Most successful startups don’t get there because they have a software patent… as most are just CRUD apps built on top of open source stuff. It’s probably hard to convince a judge your clever import/export structure built on node is patentable, or that you deserve to sue facebook because they used the same box-shadow on their singup button

1 Like
58

Because they haven’t thought through all of the possibilities.

If you are a startup, or dev shop (or anyone, really) this shouldn’t be a concern.

It isn’t just about you – it’s about the entire Free software ecosystem. If one is building tools for other companies to use, then it’s wise to consider that they may have different needs.

Software patents are essentially useless

Software patents suck and should be abolished, but unfortunately, they exist.

(a) use react, (b) have software patents that end up being worth something, and (c) facebook tries to come after you. The chances you (a) use react, (b)have software patents that end up being worth something to facebook, and (c) facebook tries to come after you-- AND (d) you end up in a situation where you can’t just switch out your view layer are actually zero.

Yes, d) is viable, if you have the resources to do that. Tough luck if your entire stack has FB dependencies though – e.g., Clojurescript, Immutable, Hack, Facebook’s own GraphQL library, nested npm dependencies.

The reason that we have all these amazing development tools today is because the last generations were vigilant.

Facebook is not going to come after your social network for cats CRUD app.

You are only thinking about your own situation and people like yourself. There are other things to consider, like: these things do matter to some companies and projects, possibly hindering adoption of software that contain these PATENTS files. Drupal is the biggest example so far.

Also, it creates an imbalance in the tech industry. Software patents are not just offensive tools, but are often used defensively.

Hypothetical example:

  • Your company starts with no patents.
  • Without warning, it becomes wildly successful, like a Yo or Snapchat.
  • Suddenly you are a big player.
  • You begin acquiring patents for defensive reasons.
  • Facebook decides that your model is pretty good and copies your patented features.
  • Your whole stack is riddled with Facebook’s PATENTS files: dependencies of dependencies of dependencies in NPM, etc. You have a choice to do an entire rewrite, but don’t have the resources, so you wait.
  • You get into a patent war with some other company that is not Facebook.
  • Because you didn’t enforce your patent claim against Facebook, it is invalidated.
  • Facebook never even came after you, but you are now more open to attack by the third company’s lawsuits.

Yes, it’s unlikely, but this is entirely against the principles of Free software, and it isn’t what should be passed down to the next generation of developers.

The main point is that the effect of the PATENTS file is unknown, and that it creates uncertainty about what the licences mean. If the Free software community doesn’t do something about these PATENTS files, it may prompt other companies to see how much further they can push the boundaries. There are some situations where it might be a problem – not necessarily for you and your CRUD app, but for the Free software community in general.

The best solution would be to get Facebook to remove the PATENTS files and then they will be normal BSD software without any unknowns.

1 Like
59

  1. To say Netflix, Uber and others haven’t thought through all the possibilities of using react is absurd. These places house some of the top minds in the world.

  2. This thread is about the risk of using react for individuals/dev shops/startups-- not about the philosophical idea that all software should be 100% free (which is arguably a great thing for software users and companies, and bad for developers if it keeps up at the current pace in the next 10-15 years developers will be feeling the squeeze of free software on their wages and job opportunities… good for society though I suppose).

  3. To go with the snap chat example. They had no patents at all, and facebook did find their model pretty good, and we all know what happened next… and it wasn’t because they held a chat app patent.

  4. The point about having “viable resources” to re-write your app is moot— the chances this ever occurs is non-existent. Zero. Not going to happen other than in thought experiments held here and on reddit.

  5. It is a valid point that if you are developing software on behalf of another entity who has patents, you should consult somebody about it. Otherwise you’re putting your client at risk-- I can see the validity in that argument you’re making.

60

I don’t agree there. I think that this kind of PATENTS file is ambiguous and untested. It adds something to the BSD license, and there is no way to know exactly what it means until it’s tested.

I’d argue that Facebook is a smarter company than most and that it works in very insidious ways.

This thread is about the risk of using react for individuals/dev shops/startups

I think that it’s about React’s PATENTS files. Those of us who build things with Free software are not just observers. Our actions are the system.

To go with the snap chat example.

The specific company doesn’t matter. The point is that a small app might turn into something bigger.

the chances this ever occurs is non-existent. Zero.

It’s really impossible to say what could happen – only that this PATENTS file makes things uncertain.

I also think that there is a very simple solution that would make everyone happy. :slight_smile:

2 Likes
63

Looks like it’s time to resurrect this thread - see this lawyers review of the react license. TL;DR - His take: react is not open source software.

Oh, and of course Hacker News has gone ballistic over this …

64

Note: this is just one person’s review.

3 Likes
65

Definitely - albeit a pretty convincing one. That being said I just noticed about a million comments into the HN thread that FB mentioned they have a new open source license FAQ. I don’t think it directly puts the issue to bed, but at least they’re listening!

66

Been following this pretty closely, and while I think the FAQ provides some answers, it still fails to address the main critique of the situation, which is that Facebook can leverage their patent/license structure to prevent claims against them by users of React.

I think the fact that there has been only one lawyer so far willing to publicly share a critique of this situation indicates that there may be an issue here. 51k stars on github and one lawyer’s response? I find it hard to believe that the ambiguity isn’t intentional and without a forward-thinking reason.

2 Likes
67

I thought this was put to bed, but I guess not so here’s the simple answer:

  1. Facebook does not currently have a patent for react and it is unclear whether react is patentable, I Am Not A Lawyer, but I know that there is not currently a patent.
  2. BSD License does not make any provisions for or against patents, which means that patent law exists outside of the BSD license, and therefore can interfere with the BSD license anyways.
  3. Facebook has provided a legal contract that use of React cannot in and of itself create infringement even if Facebook would have the right to claim infringement because of React.
  4. Facebook reserves the right to remove that protection from any agency (person or corporation) who engages in patent claims against Facebook.

Therefore it 100% doesn’t affect:

  • People who don’t have any of their own patents to claim infringement (and won’t have in any reasonable time frame)
  • People who are not affected by any standing Facebook patents and can’t reasonably find themselves in a situation dealing with Facebook patents in the foreseeable future.
  • People who don’t believe Facebook could get a patent for React (it would be hard).

People need to remember the following really critical points:

  1. The patents file doesn’t reduce the rights provided for in the BSD license. It has the appearance only of reducing those rights.
  2. Angular, Vue, Preact, even Blaze have the similar potential to be patented.
  3. Facebook doesn’t currently hold a patent for React, and it is unclear if they even could.
  4. If Google were to successfully patent Angular, they could go after anyone using Angular as well.

Just to reiterate: The BSD License does not, by default, protect against patents. The Patents file that facebook has is, if anything, more permissible. It is the fact that Facebook felt it necessary to include that file that is scary and has people up in arms.

68

Sadly, I know of at least one 10k+ employee multinational which has banned the use of React and like-licensed software company wide due to the same concerns. Just an anecdotal, if worrying, data point.

69

To put this to bed, here is what lawyers have said in our research:

If you (or you are part of an entity) that decides to sue (or counter-sue, or make patent assertions against) FB you lose the license.

What that means is that by allowing people to use FB libraries, FB is protecting itself against future patent lawsuits when / if FB infringes upon the rights of those using its open-source libraries. In essence disabling your product. This also applies when getting acquired or acquiring a company suing FB! It’s a smart way to reduce its legal liability and dispense with others’ copyright.

In fact, if you read the end of that paragraph, if FB sues you for infringement, and you counter sue, you will still lose the license (unless the patents case is not related to the FB library).

Now if you are building a basic website or a non-innovative product or don’t expect to be in FB’s crosshairs, you are fine. Otherwise, use something else or plan to switch when you grow … which could be very hard once you are sucked into the rest of the framework.

2 Likes
70

@ramez, what you are describing is just one side of it, and even if it’s accurate, it’s not the complete picture

The reality is this is a highly self serving move by Facebook. We as a community should not be defending their position but pushing them to take an open position. After all, the community is of benefit to Facebook as much as their tools are to the community. The relationship needs to be more balanced.

1 Like
71

My goal was to tell people in simple terms what the patent license means to them. We already made up our mind not to use React.

Absolutely! And I would even add, the whole reason to release these source code libs is to further their interest and their interest only. In addition to legal protection against their predatory practices, this includes hiring pre-trained candidates, and making it easier to integrate acquisitions (since they are using their technology already).

My honest opinion, given how FB is behaving, “ain’t gonna happen!” … again, why would they seek a balanced view? Small developers are playing into their hands quite nicely.

72

"The problem with React is its patent rider. React.js comes with a BSD license, but has a patent rider that gives you a license to React’s patents. This sounds like a good thing, right?

But this rider has a “strong retaliation clause” which says that if you make any sort of patent claim against Facebook this patent license automatically terminates. Which means Facebook can now sue you for patent infringement for using React. You may think this is no worse than not having a patent rider at all. But that’s not the case. If there is no patent rider then there is an implicit grant which cannot be revoked.

If you work for a software company and your company has patents then keep in mind that by using React you are giving Facebook a free license to your entire patent portfolio."

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11270213

Just spent all of this time learning React and converting my application to it.

It’s really a shame Facebook, it’s really a shame.

And unfortunately this will likely be the case for their other libraries and frameworks as well, like GraphQL.

73

Update: I found this conversation on Reddit to be really valuable, hopefully others will as well

1828×770 96.8 KB

74

Even if Facebook’s patent clause is as nefarious as some people make it out to be, is it really going to affect you? If so, what’s the worst case scenario? I like to ask these questions to people who bring this issue up because I think it helps to reign in the shock and terror that people seem to have.

First, does the patent file affect you? Do you actually have a patent? If not, it doesn’t apply to you. If you do have a patent, what are the odds that facebook is actually going to infringe on that patent? If they actually do infringe on your patent (which is probably not likely) and you sue them then the patent file affects you.

Second, what’s the worst case scenario? If you actually have a patent, and facebook actually infringes on it, and you actually sue them for the infringement, you might lose your license to use React. However, there are principles of fairness and equity in the law that would allow you to stop using React in a reasonable amount of time if you were to lose your license. At this point you will need to start rewriting your frontend in another framework. So, the worst case scenario is that you will have to rewrite your frontend at some future date. If your app is any good then you are going to rewrite it in the future anyways so this isn’t exactly a big deal. Also, keep in mind that lawsuits take YEARS before anything is resolved. The lifespan of a lawsuit is significantly longer than the lifespan of a javascript project. By the time you had a legal spat with facebook over a patent the js community will have already moved on to the next hotness.

Hopefully after this explanation anyone reading this can see that worrying about the patent file is just plain silly.

75

We’re worried about Facebook’s motivations, not necessarily litigation.

From a business perspective: There are some larger companies that do use some of Facebook’s tools and libraries (Github, Airbnb, Uber, to name a few) and who might be pretty worried about these changes. Smaller companies who have ambitions to grow larger will also have these worries.

From an open source developer’s perspective: You’re right, we’re not large corporations or companies. We likely, as individuals, won’t get into litigation, and there probably won’t be any problems. However, we’re developers in an open source community. And it makes sense for us to at least try to uphold the values that open source was built on.

Again, this is open source, not a game of “gotcha!” or “let’s see who can out legal the other”.

That’s why there’s an uproar. We’re developers trying to uphold the values that open source was built on.

1 Like
76

There’s a lot possibility. You should analyze case by case. Different companies, different industries, different individuals have different possibilities.

When in doubt, Don’t

  • Benjamin Franklin

React is just one of many view engine. Here’s React alternative from @trusktr. Interesting he didn’t include blaze