Roy T. Fielding wrote: > On a side note, since software patent law is applied to the "method" > of something and not to the particular expression, a patent license > for doing that something remains in force regardless of the software > that is later used to do it. The license is from the owner of the > method to the legal entity using that method.
Correct, although a patent license grant may very well be limited to one particular application. For example, I could license you under my patent to practice a method using only the software I provide to you. > In other words, it is a blanket permission -- once you have the > permission, you can use whatever tool you like (even one not derived > from the ASL2 work) up until the permission is revoked. The ASL2 grants in clause 3 a "patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work". If I Contribute software for one of my patented methods to ASL2- licensed code, you have the right to use *that code* to practice my patented method. You do not have permission to use your own software to practice my patented method. In that case you are not using the Work. > If a company sues for infringement on the basis of a patent > being included in XY, where XY consists of X (non-infringing) and > Y (infringing), then that will be brought up by the defense and > the company will have to claim Y infringes as well (or drop > the case entirely). As such, there is no need for the patent license > to talk about derivative works. Nor would it be safe to do so, > since derivative work is a concept of copyright law, not patent law. I'm not even sure the license still exists if you take out the Contribution I made (embodying my patented method) and put it in some other work. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3