4 ms·
This one is different in that is says that they will one day charge for it so instead of just shutting it down the author will have a lawsuit on his lap.
by simlevesque 8y ago
This one is different in that is says that they will one day charge for it so instead of just shutting it down the author will have a lawsuit on his lap.
- jjeaff 8y agoAre there examples where an alternative client was successfully sued? Seems like it would be like suing Firefox because you want your users to use the browser you provided. I would think that worst case, slack could kick users off for breaking their terms of service (assuming there is a clause for that). But a random software maker is not subject to slack's terms.
- simlevesque 8y agoWell I don't know any paid alternative clients. All of the ones I know are free.
- jonathanlydall 8y agoNot exactly an alternative client scenario, but Blizzard successfully shutdown a US company that developed and sold World of Warcraft botting software. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDY_Industries,_LLC_v._Blizzard_Entertainment,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDY_Industries,_LLC_v._Blizzar.... The gist of Blizzard’s argument was that the software was designed for the sole purpose of facilitating customer violations of their EULA causing monetary harm to Blizzard. Disclaimer: I used to be a customer service representative of Blizzard Europe, but not since 2012.
- jjeaff 8y agoYa, I'd say that case is quite a bit different due to the actively harmful effect it would have on other users. Slack would also need to prove monetary harm. I can't imagine a more efficient client would hurt their service. Maybe just their pride.
- realusername 8y agoDepends on the country this developer is based, 3rd party clients are legal in a most places regardless of what they say in their TOS.