First, The only thing most companies have they could use against facebook, if facebook were to sue them, are patents.
Second, "saying, "We don't actually infringe that" does not trigger this clause."
This is false.
Such a claim is a claim that facebook's patent claim is unenforceable against you.
This falls directly into the "unenforceable" language.
Also note that you claim it requires lawsuits.
Actually, as worded, it does not.
In fact, it says "
The license granted hereunder will terminate, automatically and without notice, for anyone that makes any claim (including by filing any lawsuit, assertion or
other action) alleging".
It specifically says "assertion or other action". It does not require lawsuits.
So arguably, just by posting a blog post that says facebook's patent is invalid, you'd lose rights, because that is an assertion that a right in a patent of facebook's is invalid.
If it's not meant to cover this, it's not at all clear what the difference between "an assertion" and "a lawsuit" are supposed to be in the examples, or what "other action" would constitute.
> First, The only thing most companies have they could use against facebook, if facebook were to sue them, are patents.
Facebook sues me for stealing proprietary information after hiring one of their engineers. I have no patents. How do patents help me?
> This is false. Such a claim is a claim that facebook's patent claim is unenforceable against you. This falls directly into the "unenforceable" language.
It is not false. Claiming a patent is unenforceable is not the same as claiming something you are doing in a specific case is not covered by a patent. "Unenforceable" has a specific legal definition.[1] The list of common actions that argue unenforceability: patent is invalid; inequitable conduct by patentee; delay in braining suit for infringement; patent misuse. Please explain how "our product doesn't infringe this patent" meets this definition.
> Also note that you claim it requires lawsuits. Actually, as worded, it does not.
I did not state that it requires lawsuits. You claimed the clause grants Facebook the ability to sue with impunity, and I was using the clauses to refute that statement in that context. I am well aware that the clause, as written, does not require lawsuits.
Presumably their "assertion or other action" could cover things like the patents stack exchange too? If they make one of those common terrible patents, and you point out prior art somewhere public like that, you'd seem to lose all these licenses.
Second, "saying, "We don't actually infringe that" does not trigger this clause."
This is false. Such a claim is a claim that facebook's patent claim is unenforceable against you. This falls directly into the "unenforceable" language.
Also note that you claim it requires lawsuits. Actually, as worded, it does not.
In fact, it says " The license granted hereunder will terminate, automatically and without notice, for anyone that makes any claim (including by filing any lawsuit, assertion or other action) alleging". It specifically says "assertion or other action". It does not require lawsuits.
So arguably, just by posting a blog post that says facebook's patent is invalid, you'd lose rights, because that is an assertion that a right in a patent of facebook's is invalid.
If it's not meant to cover this, it's not at all clear what the difference between "an assertion" and "a lawsuit" are supposed to be in the examples, or what "other action" would constitute.