> since if you're now violating an additional patent by continuing to use React

What patent? Patents are a matter of public record; tell me what patent you think I'd be violating.

Right now, none, but I was talking about the potential of the thing, Facebook might apply for a React-related patent in the future and if you have an entirely React-based project, that say your company depends on, it's going to be a problem.

Yes, but...

1) Anyone could apply for a patent on anything. IBM could apply for a patent on some core tech used in your own 100% home rolled web stack. I mean, I have no reason to think they will, but if we're just pulling stuff out of the air that might happen, that seems just as likely.

2) ...actually, more likely. Because a patent application must be filed within 1 year of public disclosure or its barred, and React has been out for years. So...

> Facebook might apply for a React-related patent in the future

No, that would be illegal.

Valid points, I only disagree with:

> No, that would be illegal.

How come? So there couldn't be a new version of React with some patented technology? See i.e. [1].

1 - https://www.google.com/patents/US20170221242?dq=facebook+use...

You mean the exact same situation as if it didn’t have the grant in the first place?

If it used something like Apache, Facebook couldn't just deny you the right to use React if you sue them.

Facebook can't deny you the right to use React if you sue them.

They can deny you the right to use their patents...if any exist.

That's semantics, because if they deny you the right to use a patent that you need to use React, you effectively cannot use React.

That’s true no matter what.

Without a patent grant you’re in the same situation.

You’d still be covered by the (less powerful) implicit grant in the license anyhow as the license doesn’t get revoked.

You can’t have it both ways: both with and without the grant can’t be bad.

Yeah, I'd prefer Facebook to declare to not participating in the software patent fiasco at all and to lobby for it not being allowed, but at present, my thinking is that it just seems like having the ability to EXPLICITLY revoke you a patent grant is actually worse than having an implicit one, since then it will probably would be harder to argue for Facebook that they have the ability to explicitly revoke something that is part of the license as a whole, but I accept that I might be wrong on this as IANAL.

They always have that power tho - technically an implicit grant in a license is very very weak. It's already had case-law that shows that it only applies in very very specific situations.

An explicit grant gives you much more power generally. Their ability to revoke is limited to specific situations and that's a reasonable tradeoff. It's still more rights than you have without the patent grant.

They can’t do that with their current license either.