Re:Messenger.com Now 50% Converted to Reason
by Lazare on Sunday September 10, 2017 @06:13PM
(#15214571)
> That's not my reading.
Literally every lawyer who has looked at that license agrees that your interpretation is wrong.
Also, licenses like this have standard language; if you're even slightly familiar with how such language is interpreted, you'd realise that this represents two independent licenses to two different things, which terminate in different cases.
Also, Facebook has publically explained what the language means to them, and yes, that would be legally binding on them.
Plus:
> IMO that's pretty clearly saying you don't actually have any license to their patents.
Right, a document titled "additional grant of patent rights" that "grants to each recipient of the Software [...] a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, irrevocable (subject to the termination provision below) license under any [claim of a patent owned by Facebook that is
necessarily infringed by the Software standing alone], isn't a grant of patent rights?
I'm sorry, but literally everything you've said is wrong. I highly suggest you read the analysis of an actual lawyer, such as the one I linked in the comment you're replying to, because you appear to have no clue what you're talking about.
Literally every lawyer who has looked at that license agrees that your interpretation is wrong.
Also, licenses like this have standard language; if you're even slightly familiar with how such language is interpreted, you'd realise that this represents two independent licenses to two different things, which terminate in different cases.
Also, Facebook has publically explained what the language means to them, and yes, that would be legally binding on them.
Plus:
> IMO that's pretty clearly saying you don't actually have any license to their patents.
Right, a document titled "additional grant of patent rights" that "grants to each recipient of the Software [...] a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, irrevocable (subject to the termination provision below) license under any [claim of a patent owned by Facebook that is necessarily infringed by the Software standing alone], isn't a grant of patent rights?
I'm sorry, but literally everything you've said is wrong. I highly suggest you read the analysis of an actual lawyer, such as the one I linked in the comment you're replying to, because you appear to have no clue what you're talking about.