On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 07:32:34AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-07-23 10:27:10 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 07:08:32AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > On 2018-07-23 09:56:47 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > 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
> > > > bankrupcy.
> > >
> > > Huh? Bancruptcy doesn't simply invalidate licenses which successors then
> > > can ignore. By that logic a license to use the code, like the PG
> > > license, would be just as ineffectual
> >
> > You are not thinking this through.
>
> Err.
>
>
> > It depends if the patent owner retains some un-released/un-shared
> > rights to the patent, e.g. patent can only be used by others in
> > GPL-licensed code.
>
> Please point me to any sort of reference that bancruptcy simply
> terminates perpetual irrevocable license agreements; that's simply not
> the case afaik. Even if the patent rights are liquidated, the new owner
> would be bound by the terms.
> Also, as I pointed out above, how would the same not be applicable to
> the code itself?
I am explaining a case where some of the patent rights are given to a
group, but some rights are retained by the company. They cannot change
the rights given, but can change how the company-controlled rights are
used.
I am just guessing since I have not heard of any such cases, but I know
that companies have limited rights now their assets are sold.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@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 +