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
> bankrupcy.
Can you explain how a new owner could invalidate/revoke previous
irrevocable grants?
That's not rhetorical. I want to know if that's possible.
Perhaps patent law [in some countries] requires contracts as opposed to
licenses?
Nico
--
