Re: Patent clauses in licenses
John Hasler wrote:
> Michael Poole writes:
>> Company B's "defensive" claims also affect all other users of the
>> original software -- now that they attempt to enforce their patent
>> rights, no other users can assume themselves to be safe.
>
> Why do you assume that company B's claims must have to do with the
> original software, or even with software at all?
Because in the case of the narrow form of termination clause we are
discussing, B's rights would only be terminated if they had to do with the
original software.
Debian-legal seems to have consensus that termination for unrelated patent
lawsuits is non-free.
Now, in Andrew's example:
> Company A releases a piece of software that includes this clause in
> its license.
>
> Company B releases a modified version of this software, that includes
> an extra feature.
Here, company B must license all its patents which apply to the modified
version for use with the modified version or any subsequent modified
version. Otherwise the version isn't free....
> Company A has no interest or use in the piece of software created by
> company B; furthermore it desires to eliminate this version.
>
> Company A sues company B alleging that the extra feature in the
> modified version infringes some of its patents.
If company B countersues alleging that the software released by A violates
its patents, then either
(1) the software released by B is covered by the same patents
or
(2) somehow, it isn't
After thinking about it, these cases don't differ. B still loses its license
to the software released by A. Oddly enough, A does *not* have a patent
license to use B's patents in A's software. Although in case (1), like
everyone else it has a patent license to use them in B's software and all
derived versions.
Does A care about the countersuit? Maybe, if A absolutely wants to continue
distributing A's version of the software.
I suppose this is a case where A can screw B.
--
This space intentionally left blank.
Reply to: