|
|
|
|
|
|
by dynamic
4092 days ago
|
|
|
I'm a developer as well. And I am politically opposed to software patents and would prefer that software not be patentable. But I'm confused by your statement that you want the license not to mention patents because you want to leave patent issues to the lawyers. The license isn't software code, it's legal code--it's what the lawyers are arguing about! If the license doesn't mention patents (and doesn't imply a particular grant of patent rights, which like I said is an open issue), then you haven't chosen "nothing." You've chosen the default: the patent holder retains all rights. |
|
|
It seems that any variation either hurts my defense or comes off as aggressive (which is what happened to facebook).
In a hypothetical situation where the patent language matters, it's total war. Multiple concurrent lawsuits in opposite directions, ITC injunction requests, etc. Maximum pain to make the opponent capitulate. None of these patents are really valid anyway, it's either math or implementation detail. There's no reason or logic here.
Better to make no statement, leave the default unsaid, and stick your head in the sand, it may keep you under the radar of involvement.