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 --
