dynamic

Checking the head of an empty list is a simple example. (Although see https://wiki.haskell.org/Non-empty_list for an approach to avoiding these runtime errors in Haskell).

Here's a more advanced example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14569605.

Last I heard, he had switched from Gmail to Inbox.

Even in this... implausible scenario, the contract would only need to verify the solution to the equation. The party creating the transaction would then be responsible for generating a solution.

It's a term used to refer to applications that run some of the same code client-side and server-side. See: http://isomorphic.net/

Good point and I'll concede that the overReaction had a real positive impact (that wouldn't have been possible if it had only been a few pedantic open source law geeks). It's really cool to see developers taking an interest in these issues, and in a bottom-up approach to reforming the patent system. I just hope people agree that explicit, well-designed defensive patent licenses (like Facebook's new language and the Apache 2.0 license) are a step forward.

> Today it's Facebook PATENTS, tomorrow maybe it's nation-wide automatic license plate tracking.

What happened overnight...

Some people do! Check out the top story on HN right now, which is about EFF invalidating a patent held by a patent troll: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9356767. Nobody was suing EFF (admittedly, that's almost a technicality since the patent holder was suing others, but EFF was trying to advance the public interest).

Also check out Ask Patents, which works on invalidating patent applications: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2013/07/22.html.

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.

Yes! This isn't legal advice, but, speaking loosely, the license gave you an irrevocable patent license to use React (that's the first sentence). That license only terminated when you brought a claim against Facebook (or a related party; check out the old license [1] for the details) for patent infringement or claimed that one of their patents was invalid.

Two important limitations--the original license terminated if you argued that a Facebook patent was invalid or tried to use patents defensively against them (this has been fixed in the new license, as far as I can tell), and Facebook can still sue you for patent infringement for something other than using React.

[1] https://github.com/facebook/react-native/blob/6938f4524676e2...

I agree, and that's what I was saying in the second paragraph (I've edited it a bit to try to make that clearer). This is definitely an improvement from that original language.

But I don't see how the original license was somehow worse than the open source projects that use the MIT or BSD licenses without any patent license, thus potentially allowing the patent owner to use patents against you offensively or defensively. (As far as I know, it is still unresolved whether the MIT or BSD licenses include an implied grant of patent rights, but at the very least there would be serious legal uncertainty.)

For one example, see the license on this Google project: https://github.com/google/trace-viewer/blob/master/LICENSE. No mention of patent rights, and unless you could successfully argue that there was an implied license, Google could sue a user for patent infringement for using this software (not that Google has ever used patents offensively, to my knowledge). So it confused me to see a Google employee complaining in the other thread that they weren't allowed to use Facebook open source software due to the limited patent grant. I'd be really interested to know more about this policy.

[Lawyer, but not a patent lawyer]

I was perplexed by the uproar on HN about the original patent language (in the thread announcing the release of React Native [1]). This kind of open-source patent license--which, in effect, allows Facebook to use its patents against users of React defensively but not offensively--is exactly what we need more of in the open source world. Why did people think that their defensive patent license was somehow worse than the industry standard (the MIT or BSD copyright license with no patent license, which made patent rights murky at best)?

But this new language eliminates the major limitation on the original language, which was that the license would be terminated if you attempted to invalidate one of Facebook's patents or defensively argued that it was invalid or unenforceable (or even, according to a strict though implausible reading of the language, if you publicly stated that the patent was invalid).

Glad to see Facebook paying attention, even if the original complaint was overblown.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9271246

If this is just a terminology debate, O'Hagan-style misappropriation theory cases are called "insider trading" cases by nearly everyone, including the SEC[1], the Justice Department[2] and the SDNY (a judge recently issued an opinion discussing "insider-trading cases prosecuted under a misappropriation theory"). They are usually contrasted with "classical theory" insider trading cases.

[1] http://www.sec.gov/answers/insider.htm

[2] http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/December13/Wei...

The copyrights are often dispersed, with different publishers owning different rights. It's not a matter of just "arrang[ing] for worldwide licensing." It's dealing with a completely different set of owners who may have no interest in signing on.

Of COURSE Amazon wants to access customers in other countries, it's not like they haven't thought of it!

He isn't saying that there's a possibility "however remote"; he's saying that we have absolutely no reason to prefer one explanation over another.

"So although we have seen evidence for it time and time again": you're begging the question and assuming the principle of induction, which is exactly what Hume is saying you can't justify.

Great post. I don't know why you feel so hesitant--it's your design and implementation that made the game a hit.

Looking forward to trying your app version.

Under these facts (the prosecution theory was a stretch that they don't want tested; the original conviction was caused in part by the defendant's stupid behavior during the first trial; the defendant already served time; the New Jersey federal prosecutors who brought the case can't do it again) the government is very likely to back off.

You're almost right, but the judgment was vacated, so the prosecutors could bring it again. They won't, though.

No, because the judgment was vacated. They didn't grant a judgment of acquittal. So the government is still free to bring the case again.

Still, the prosecution is really unlikely to do so.