On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:27:49AM -0500, Nico Williams wrote: > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 09:56:47AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 06:31:14AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > > > It explicitly says irrevocable and successors. Why seems squarely > > > aimed at your concern. Bankruptcy wouldn't just invalidate that. > > > > They can say whatever they want, but if they are bankrupt, what they say > > doesn't matter much. My guess is that they would have to give their > > patents to some legal entity that owns them so it is shielded from > > bankruptcy. > > Can you explain how a new owner could invalidate/revoke previous > irrevocable grants?
The question is whether the promises Red Hat makes are part of the license for free use of their patents or something they fully control and just promise to do, i.e. is this a promise from the company or embedded in the patent grant. I don't know. But it is a larger question of how such a promise is embedded in the patent grant and _cannot_ be revoked, even if someone else buys the patent in a bankruptcy case and does control that promise. > That's not rhetorical. I want to know if that's possible. > > Perhaps patent law [in some countries] requires contracts as opposed to > licenses? Yes, I really don't know. I have just seen enough "oh, we didn't think of that" to be cautious. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
