5 ms·

One of the nicest cease and desist letters I've ever seen. I think what they're asking in the name change is more than fair, and providing guidence on changing

One of the nicest cease and desist letters I've ever seen. I think what they're asking in the name change is more than fair, and providing guidence on changing the functionality to comply with their api seems like a good approach. Kuddos to Slack legal for keeping the matter human and civil.

saagarjha 8y ago
Except, of course, for the fact that sending a cease and desist in this case wasn't particularly nice.
- TylerE 8y ago
  Well, I mean they are under no obligation to send a C&D. They could have gone right to a Trademark suit.
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    Which would normally cost them must more money. Cease and desists are an easy way to scare people when you don't have much of a case.
parliament32 8y ago
>providing guidence on changing the functionality to comply with their api Nice or not, that isn't what this is about at all. They effectively told the dev he's not allowed to do what he's doing -- their api doesn't support anything the author changed. Seems they just linked to their api docs for giggles.
splatzone 8y ago
No, they're bullying a developer who created something useful so they can keep control of their product. They're misleading him by saying that building a Chrome extension for a website somehow makes you agree with that website's Acceptable Use Policy They didn't provide any real guidance, there's no way the extension could work using the official API.
chris_wot 8y ago
What it highlights is that you can send a decent cease and desist letter, and still be totally horrible.
flurdy 8y ago
Agree. Was about to post the same. The name was always going to be an issue when the extension got traction and publicity (via HN etc). And the issues with script injection will always be an issue. But that is not a Legal department decision. They simply will be told to write the C&D letter. And this letter was the most polite and flexible I have seen. Usually, other companies' C&Ds are totally inflexible, technically inept and unrealistic overdramatic. Yes, Slack the company (and not the legal department's responsibility) can handle this in different ways. They can reach out and suggest alternatives, they can hire the creator to implement some of the features, they can extend the APIs for more legal interactions, etc. Or they cut him off and "Teflon shoulder" it to their forums as they seem to have done. Slack's legal department has done their job, and as I can see in the best possible matter once they got told to do so. Up to the company what they do next. If anything.
- dingaling 8y ago
  > Slack's legal department has done their job Interestingly Slack's trademark only covers usage of the name for: 'downloadable mobile application' https://www.trademarkia.com/slack-86639051.html https://www.trademarkia.com/slack-86639051.html Which would seem to leave web-based non-mobile scope open.

saagarjha 8y ago

Except, of course, for the fact that sending a cease and desist in this case wasn't particularly nice.

TylerE 8y ago
Well, I mean they are under no obligation to send a C&D. They could have gone right to a Trademark suit.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  Which would normally cost them must more money. Cease and desists are an easy way to scare people when you don't have much of a case.

parliament32 8y ago

>providing guidence on changing the functionality to comply with their api Nice or not, that isn't what this is about at all. They effectively told the dev he's not allowed to do what he's doing -- their api doesn't support anything the author changed. Seems they just linked to their api docs for giggles.

splatzone 8y ago

No, they're bullying a developer who created something useful so they can keep control of their product. They're misleading him by saying that building a Chrome extension for a website somehow makes you agree with that website's Acceptable Use Policy They didn't provide any real guidance, there's no way the extension could work using the official API.

chris_wot 8y ago

What it highlights is that you can send a decent cease and desist letter, and still be totally horrible.

flurdy 8y ago

Agree. Was about to post the same. The name was always going to be an issue when the extension got traction and publicity (via HN etc). And the issues with script injection will always be an issue. But that is not a Legal department decision. They simply will be told to write the C&D letter. And this letter was the most polite and flexible I have seen. Usually, other companies' C&Ds are totally inflexible, technically inept and unrealistic overdramatic. Yes, Slack the company (and not the legal department's responsibility) can handle this in different ways. They can reach out and suggest alternatives, they can hire the creator to implement some of the features, they can extend the APIs for more legal interactions, etc. Or they cut him off and "Teflon shoulder" it to their forums as they seem to have done. Slack's legal department has done their job, and as I can see in the best possible matter once they got told to do so. Up to the company what they do next. If anything.

dingaling 8y ago
> Slack's legal department has done their job Interestingly Slack's trademark only covers usage of the name for: 'downloadable mobile application' https://www.trademarkia.com/slack-86639051.html https://www.trademarkia.com/slack-86639051.html Which would seem to leave web-based non-mobile scope open.