4 ms·

1. FB's lawyers sent him a letter asking him to stop. No more, no less. 2. Being 'banned from FB' is not really a legally defined classification for human bei

1. FB's lawyers sent him a letter asking him to stop. No more, no less. 2. Being 'banned from FB' is not really a legally defined classification for human beings, and HR organizations are paid to care about actual legal reality. 3. If he's not using FB APIs or other licensed information, how are FB's options for "further escalation" anything more than a louder brand of saber rattling? All it takes is one good lawyer looking to stand up to Goliath pro-bono, in a case that we know would be very highly publicized, and suddenly all the downside to a court battle is on FB's end. On what legal theory could FB hope to receive damages? 4. Despite all of the above, sometimes knuckling under and running for cover is the right move. A good programmer knows his limitations, and he's under no obligation to stick his neck out.

DanBC 15y ago
> On what legal theory could FB hope to receive damages? Possibly: Increased costs of support to 130,000 people using unapproved software in combination to Facebook, who get weird results from the software when Facebook updates something and blame Facebook not the software, and who bitch and moan to Facebook for support? (Obviously most people don't bother with support, and they just complain to friends.)
fauigerzigerk 15y ago
The problem with real life David v Goliath cases is the disproportionate distribution of risk. An individual losing a court battle against a big coroporation may leave him (and possibly his family) financially crippled for the rest of his life. That's why civil law is a complete farce. In this particular case I see very little justification for even trying to play David in spite of Facebook's grotesque overreaction.