9 ms·

What we did when a patent troll asked for our help

83 points by mojowo11 14y ago

Domenic_S 14y ago
> At least for now, we use the law as our guide [...] since it is the point at which these issues cease to be a matter of opinion. Of course, if you’re an asshole, you'll still get the boot—that policy remains firmly in place. So you're objective until someone makes you mad. Got it.
- mojowo11 14y ago
  We're pretty patient with anything up until the point of what is obviously verbal abuse. Frustration is obviously a reality of customer service, and we understand that. I think we've maybe only politely urged one person to try out other options in the eight months I've been with the company, and generally if someone reaches the point of being genuinely mean, they're not going to use the software anyway. I see your point, however, and I won't pretend that there's not a little bit of cognitive dissonance there.
- jarrett 14y ago
  I think his point is that he'll kick someone who makes trouble for his business. Someone who is a jerk in their life outside that particular business relationship get a pass, provided they don't break the law. That seems like a very rational policy.
huhtenberg 14y ago
Am I missing something? I want my two minutes back. > What we did when a patent troll asked for our help? I gave the patent troll a demo of our system, complete with genuine recommendations about how he could best track his entire process from start to end. ... While we did set up customization for him, ...
- stephengillie 14y ago
  This is just a publicity stunt for this company. It's an ad. "Oh hey look, we have patent trolls using our product"
motters 14y ago
If you're running a software business then it's probably not a great idea to actively assist people who are trying to damage the software business with trolling behavior. It would be self-defeating. It's a slightly different situation when dealing with other people whose views or activities you might not entirely concur with. In most cases their activities won't be directly harming your industry.
- mojowo11 14y ago
  This is pretty much what we struggled with -- at one point, we thought about how dumb we would feel if we did everything we could to streamline the guy's workflow and then received one of his letters demanding payment. That's another interesting place to draw the line, though -- self-preservation, or at least protection of your own industry. It's pretty compelling, although it still feels a bit odd to be protective of only one's own industry, while being okay with things that might be destructive to others. Hm.
  - CamperBob2 14y ago
    That's another interesting place to draw the line, though -- self-preservation, or at least protection of your own industry. Arguably this could be justified the same way you would justify refusing to support drug dealers, even though you disagree with the War on Some Drugs. Your only justification for turning down such business (as I understand it) is that you can't accept the risk of having the whole company shut down by law enforcement. Not many people would take you to task for that reasoning, I suspect, and it would be easy to dismiss those who do. It's easy to argue that software patents carry the same existential threat as law enforcement would. At first blush it seems reasonable to write this into your TOS: I agree that I will not assert any patent claims as a non-practicing entity. I agree that my account with lessannoyingcrm.com will be terminated without recourse if I assert any such claims in a court of law, or threaten to do so. The problem is, you've only narrowed your ethical dilemma -- you haven't eliminated it. What if the patent troll in question was instead offering to buy your company for 100x revenue? What if the patent troll in question was (e.g.) Google or Apple? Would you have the fortitude to tell them to pound sand then? Google may be a good example, in fact, because they've probably already found it necessary (or soon will) to threaten other companies like Microsoft and Oracle with patents that they don't practice, but have purchased for defensive purposes. If you had turned down the patent troll's business, you would indeed have found yourself in an even murkier ethical swamp, so in that sense you did the right thing. Out of all of the entrepreneurs I've known in a long career spent in and around small companies, I only know one founder with the personal fortitude to tell a patent troll to get bent. I don't expect to meet any others, because I'm not sure you can build a large, successful company around strong personal convictions in the general case.
anonymoushn 14y ago
It's a shame that your ToS is worded in such a way that his line of reasoning causes you to turn away legitimate businesses that create actual value (like drug dealers) to instead help racketeers. Edit: Turning away illegal businesses and helping unethical businesses is probably rational, even if it is not good. I don't think we can expect a higher standard from people who set out to make a business.
andrewcooke 14y ago
but why can't you be arbitrary (within the confines of the law)? particularly a small company. you don't have to justify your actions - just don't work with people you don't want to. why does it have to be consistent or logical? just say "fuck em" and move on... what, in short, is so bad about being faithful to what you feel?
- mojowo11 14y ago
  You might be right. As much as telling this guy to fuck off would have felt great, though, it also felt wrong to us to inject our opinions into it. But, well, I could probably be convinced by your perspective, too -- which is why I wrote this post. I suppose one consideration would be a legal one. We're not legal experts, and for some entities, turning them away for being distasteful or what they believe -- based on what we feel -- could be considered discrimination. And finally, we think having some consistency is pretty important. Sure, we could just do this case-by-case and that, frankly, would be pretty nice. But it's also not really fair to our users, I think, who should know that we work with some kind of framework in making decisions so that they don't have to worry about us getting pissed off and shutting down their account for (what they see as) insufficient reason.
  - andrewcooke 14y ago
    you misread my "fuck em" - i don't for a moment think you should be rude to them: simply don't co-operate. i'm not a legal expert either, but i am pretty sure that legislation related to discrimination is based on specific attributes (race, color, religion, sex or national origin for the us civil rights act). and being a spammer is very unlikely to be a reason for protection under such laws. consistency is important if you're doing this enough for it to be noticed. if it's one person in the history of your firm, you could have quietly stalled and no-one would have been any the wiser. instead, you decide to support a spammer and profit from hits on your blog. from that viewpoint you don't come across as a great company, to me...
- brelsnok 14y ago
  Exactly. The writer is looking for a 'rule' that defines wrong and right. Maybe to look for a strict pattern is the nature of a software developer but it doesn't always apply. Especially not in ethics I think.
kriro 14y ago
I think every business should be opinionated to some degree. Call it ethics if you must. I would snapcancel that account but not snoop around in data and actively try to find people that offend me to boot them. If they tell you they do something that you have ethical objections against shut down their account. Just imagine how you'd feel if he'd use your system to troll 5k people. I think the law shouldn't be your ultimate guideline it should be your moral and ethical standards in combination with the law.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- CWuestefeld 14y ago
  Agreed. The 1st Amendment is not a guarantee that any jerk can say anything he wants. It is only a restriction on government interfering. The framers of the Constitution didn't want people putting up pornographic billboards on every carriage path. They just didn't trust the government to be the ones making the call. Instead, they entrusted the ethics of society to ... society at large. If somebody says something that we feel is offensive, it's not censorship to speak out, or even to refuse that person the use of your resources to facilitate his speech. So I think that this was an incorrect decision. The OP has abdicated his right and responsibility to act as a moral member of our society, instead electing to follow a libertine philosophy of "if I can do it, there's no reason I shouldn't".
dfxm12 14y ago
You know, jury nullification is a thing. One aspect of this is when there is evidence to convict someone of a crime, the jury may choose to not convict if they feel the law is not just. This is a power granted to citizens (of the USA) to help us govern ourselves in in case our legal system becomes unjust or corrupt. You are in the position of (some) power. By knowingly choosing to to help someone do something unethical, you contribute to furthering unethical behavior. Also, what is the difference between "a jerk ... speaking up" and "an asshole"? Is an asshole still an asshole if their business is legal? I think you should reconsider your sign. It shouldn't say We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, it should say Greed is good. Remember, all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with making money, but don't try and rationalize your ethics away.
- mcherm 14y ago
  > This is a power granted to citizens Technically, no. Jury nullification is an unavoidable consequence of the fact that juries are not required to explain their reasoning. But it can only happen when a jury ignores a judge's instructions (which will say to base the decision on the existing law). > it should say Greed is good. [...] Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with making money, but don't try and rationalize your ethics away. Maybe you read a different article than I did? In the article you read, the employees at LessAnnoying got together by the water cooler and talked about how they'd LOVE to eject EvilTroll, but couldn't make payroll at the end of the month without his business. In the one I read, they didn't give a hoot about EvilTroll's money, but wanted to avoid engaging in content-based censorship.
  - jeremyarussell 14y ago
    You should replace technically with expressly. As it is technically given to American citizens, just not expressly told to them that they have this inherent right.
    - monochromatic 14y ago
      It's really not a legal right that they have. They have the ability, or the power. But in order to exercise that power, they have to disregard the oath that they swear as jurors.
gravitronic 14y ago
This is a great post because you go in expecting "we kicked that patent troll to the curb! Yeah!" and it turns out instead to be a reasoned set of implications of running a service-based business.
- pnathan 14y ago
  Reading the OP carefully, it is clear there are a lot of implications that can be derived from choosing to limit service outside of what the law requires. As a thought experiment: Suppose Oracle and Google show up and want the service. Oracle is known to be an aggressive company with respect to business and so the company denies Oracle... but accepts Google since Google is friendlier. Does Oracle have grounds for suing ? I don't know. IANAL. But if I was in their position, I would be concerned until I consulted a lawyer. What about other entities: political parties you disagree with? activist groups you disagree with? businesses who have unsavoury practices? Put anther way, what can you legally say 'no' to, and what will get you sued for denying them? If you can provide a straightfoward notice "no patent trolls" (enforceable in court), does that insulate you? Again, I don't know. But it would give me pause to ponder if (when?) I am in the position of providing services. --- more thoughts--- If you take the onus of determining who is moral onto your shoulders, you take responsibility for the inevitable screwup. And with that, you ensure that you will be arbitrary when you notice that one entity is an exception to your existing rules. You have to modify the rules, and that angers people (notice Blizzard's forums anytime changes come Where the line? Where the exceptions? How to handle it? out!) This is a scaling problem. Can you get away with not overthinking it and simply kicking the odiousness to the curb and hope that the scaling problem won't manifest?
DanBC 14y ago
What do you do if you're in a country where the law allows evil acts?
the_bear 14y ago
(I work at the Less Annoying CRM) Since a few people have brought up similar points, I'd like to address them here. My gut instinct was to tell the patent troll to fuck off. I still wish we had done that. But that would set a terrible precedent and turn us into something that I hate: the App Store Pretty much everyone here hates how arbitrary and opaque the approval system is in the App Store. It seems like there's a post on HN almost every day ranting about this. If we don't have a clear set of guidelines for what we will and won't allow, how can any of our customers trust our service? Another example: many of us are worried that Google might randomly shut down our accounts. This would be devastating. I'm sure that Google normally only shuts down accounts with good cause, but they still are developing a reputation for being a company you can't trust. We can't afford to give our customers a reason to worry about that happening with our service. So the question is, is there a way to tell the patent troll to go screw himself without jeopardizing our trustworthiness with our real customers?
- mojowo11 14y ago
  (Yeah, this is actually our CEO, Tyler.)
- stephengillie 14y ago
  You definitely showed all of us that your moral compass is tightly bound to the law. Instead of telling this despicable customer to leave, you gave him the grand tour. Your blog post could have been an explanation of your reasoning and moral outrage, making you look better while providing transparency for your customers to trust.
  - alain94040 14y ago
    That would have been the easy way out. feel good. But read the post again carefully, and you'll understand why vetting each customer is not a viable solution. Comparisons to the App Store are warranted.
  - the_bear 14y ago
    Do you think that Reddit is immoral for allowing many despicable people to hold conversations about despicable topics? This community is normally all about a free and open internet, where companies like Google, Facebook, etc. aren't trying to control what their users can do with their technology. Trust me, I don't feel good about helping a patent troll. I just don't see any sort of justifiable policy that would allow for us to act any differently. We will definitely re-evaluate the decision though. This is a tough one, and we're not in love with our current solution.
tzs 14y ago
How did he know they were a patent troll? From the description, they sound like the original owner of the patent, the patent appears to be newly granted, and we don't know if they are practicing the patent themselves or not. There is some variation in the meaning of "patent troll", but an original owner practicing the patent promptly going after people who infringe is not a patent troll under most accepted definitions.
- the_bear 14y ago
  We received an email from the user outlining their entire business. They weren't the most extreme example of a patent troll (where you can't even tell what company it is) but they didn't seem to have any real products, and their use of the CRM would be entirely for managing the victims of their lawsuits. This is kind of the point of the post though. We hated the idea of letting this person use our software, but is it really our place to make those decisions? Things are rarely black and white. Having said that, I'm really glad this guy didn't stick around.
zacharyvoase 14y ago
I semi-agree with what you did in this case, and here's why. If you had spontaneously canceled his account, without having stipulated what kind of behaviour you find unacceptable in the Terms of Service beforehand, he could rightfully accuse you of being capricious and arbitrary. As a customer, that kind of action on your part would definitely make me think twice before signing up. Even though I'm not a patent troll, what if you some day decided that what I was using it for was also unacceptable? Speaking of the letter of the law, the ToS that you both agreed to didn't mention anything about patent trolling being out of bounds. What I would do in future is maintain a list of un-OK uses as a schedule to the ToS, but grandfather existing clients into the old ToS (perhaps with a 30 day grace period, allowing customers to export all of their data). In the case of customers using the software to do things you don't like, rather than terminate their account, just politely ask them to take their custom elsewhere (with no obligation to do so). I think you'll find that most people would rather be where they're wanted. Caveat: IANAL. You might not be able to do that sort of thing (although I'm nearly sure you can).
rada 14y ago
TL;DR 1. We reject customers who speak harshly about our software. They hurt our feelings, and we simply won't stand for that. 2. We welcome customers who rob and kill as a matter of business. If it satisfies minimum legal requirements, we are happy to make a buck. 3. We are so proud of our reasoning ability that we are going on record to say that we welcome patent trolls and the Ku Klux Klan.
aculver 14y ago
The content of the post was not at all what I expected. The funny thing about principles is they're easy to have when they're not being tested. For example: "'I really don’t want this guy’s money,' Tyler said at one point. We’re glad not to have it." That's a lot easier to say when the offer of money is no longer on the table. I'm not sure at what point that was actually said, but in the article it comes after giving this guy a demo of the system, making genuine recommendations about his entire process, and doing actual customization work for the guy. Patent trolling aside, using the law of the land to justify going against your personal conscience is a horrible idea.
- mcherm 14y ago
  > using the law of the land to justify going against your personal conscience I don't see it that way at all. Their personal consciences recoiled at providing support for a patent troll and they recoiled at imposing censorship based on the content of a client's messages. They had to reconcile these two opposing attacks of conscience.
  - kkowalczyk 14y ago
    Refusing a service to someone you don't like, for whatever reason, is not censorship, so there is no conflict of ethics. The line is less clear when the company is in a position of great power (e.g. Google in search, Apple in smartphones) but it's clear that e.g. restaurant can have a dress code (which is frivolous) and refuse service if you don't comply with that dress code and an insignificant crm business can refuse you service for any reason whatsoever. It's not censorship because there's another restaurant just around the corner and another crm product a click away. The article is framed as some epic battle of ethics but all I get from it is that $10/month is deciding factor in their decisions. They don't want the money from patent trolls but they'll take it if given.
    - FuzzyDunlop 14y ago
      I think the difference with the restaurant analogy is that the dress code is applied before you enter and are seated. Thus you'll be turned away outright for dressing improperly. Compare it to this, where the issue only arose because the customer made clear their intention well after signing up. I'm seeing the main issue here being that enforcing their own ideals, so they don't serve the customers they want, involves waiting for the to contact support, lest they violate their own ethics re: privacy and data protection. How many new customers will they get when they earn a reputation of applying a personal and undisclosed set of ethics and ideals to customers any time after they sign up?
mcherm 14y ago
Thank you for posting this. It was one of the most thought-provoking things I have seen on HN for weeks.
darklajid 14y ago
This had made HN and had the chance to win a lot of sympathy. You backed down. That's fine, and - being no business owner or part of a startup myself, I'm clueless - maybe required. Maybe you just can't afford to alienate customers, especially as a small shop. That said: You asked for an opinion. The idealist in me (see previous paragraph's disclaimer) would boot all of your imaginary customers. I DO believe, naively, that most people are good - or maximum chaotic neutral. In the grand scheme of things there aren't so many assholes to ignore and kick out. But the list you presented, including the patent troll? Yeah, all of them should go. Politely, with recommendations maybe/help with the migration. No problem. But no, you cannot stay. We're sorry, but our company codex doesn't allow that. Now THAT would've impressed me.
jeremyarussell 14y ago
If it was me... My ToS would have an ethics clause in it, that if it becomes known to us you are doing something I may find unscrupulous then me and my staff have a right to refuse to help you on a personal basis. I'd hate to make any of my people have to help someone they find unethical. It is a hard question to answer though, but I think harder to answer after you are established, and therefore should be asked by every new startup that wasn't planning on having an ethics portion to their ToS.
- the_bear 14y ago
  That's actually what we thought at first, but there's a problem. Doesn't that encourage our legitimate customers to not use our customer service? If someone is running a political campaign, they can't risk asking us a question because we might not agree with their beliefs. How can we have that policy without leaving all of our real customers in a constant state of fear that we might ban them because of our own beliefs?
  - jeremyarussell 14y ago
    You could list explicitly what all you find ethically objectionable. Transparency allows for honesty and a much more fluid system. OR Allowing for each employee to be able to make that call can find you some middle ground. Lets take your political campaign example, if a democratic pro-choice advocacy group wanted to use your CRM, but your support guy/girl doing that gets the call is pro-life, she/he should be allowed to say, hey I'm sorry but someone else needs to take this for me, I can't do this. Now really that should be every company, but let it be known in your ToS that you reserve the right to not force an employee to do something they don't find agreeable with their ethics. If it happens that ALL of your employees hate patent trolls to the extent that none of them will help then simply tell the customer that they won't be able to get help. I can appreciate how hard of a question it is, censorship versus ethics. But, maybe it'll help to think of it this way, as a company you don't want to censor your customers, but at what point do you realize that in violating your own ethics you are allowing someone else to censor you. It's a tough call either way, I don't begrudge you the choice you made as it seems you put a lot of thought into it.
jarrett 14y ago
A lot of this discussion seems to boil down to several key issues: 1. Should you ever refuse service to someone because you disapprove of their lawful activities? 2. If so, where do you draw the line? 3. If so, how do you deal with the fact that you can only enforce the policy when a customer's activities are specifically brought to your attention? To answer #1, I'd make an analogy to the social responsibility rules some companies voluntarily impose on themselves. (Some companies say they will only buy from vendors who meet certain fair labor standards. Others say they will only buy from environmentally friendly vendors. Et cetera.) Refusing service based on an ethical principle is very similar to these types of policies, except you're declining to sell something instead of buy. Companies that follow these rules are generally lauded for it. Likewise, companies that are perceived as not doing so are criticized. (Think of Apple's relationship with Foxconn.) So I think it's pretty safe from a P.R. standpoint to refuse service based on ethical principles. You might have to ditch a handful of paying customers, but if your business model is about volume, it's probably not going to matter. As for the ethical imlications of refusing service, I say that nobody is entitled to use your service any more than you're entitled to customers. So I don't see a problem there. Question #2 is harder. Where do you draw the line? I'd say that's up to each company to decide, but here are some reasonable examples of things you might forbid: - Patent trolls - Hate groups - Technically lawful but sleezy stuff, e.g. certain infoproducts The exact list a company chooses would of course depend on the subjective ethical beliefs of its leadership. Which is fine--it's their company. In any case, it's very important to clearly state these rules in the TOS. You really don't want to be seen as capricious, and it's not fair to your customers, even the evil ones. Question #3 is probably the hardest. As the OP pointed out, you can't just dig through your customers' data, looking for possible violations. So you'd have to wait until something was brought to your attention. And then, as the OP said, you'd have de facto tolerance for offenders who don't speak up. Which seems kind of unfair. But here, I'd make an analogy to the TOS rules concerning criminal activity. There must be tons of people using legitimate web services for crime. Occassionally, some of these are discovered, and their accounts are terminated. The rest get away with it. I doubt anyone would say you should ignore reports of criminal activity just because some other crime goes unreported. So I think the same applies to these ethical restrictions.
- the_bear 14y ago
minhajuddin 14y ago
You guys should not have demoed your app. Just add another line in your TOS which states that you don't let "Patent Trolls" use your app. How hard is that? You have to man up and say NO. What's the point of "believing", when you don't act on it . This whole story paints a picture of a company without any conviction.
rubyrescue 14y ago
you know what's more annoying than patent trolls? arrogant posts about how much better someone is than patent trolls.
Eliezer 14y ago
Scientology certainly operates in violation of the letter of the law - framing people for murder is illegal, I'm pretty sure - they just avoid conviction by bribing local judges and so on. I don't see why you can't just tell the patent troll to go away. Are they being punished for telling you what they do? Yes, but if patent trolls have to operate furtively, not telling anyone what they do, on pain of being denied service in many places, the world is a better place. Make the world a better place. I don't see why you are obligated to lend a helping hand to evil that happens to be legal. I'm not saying to throw a punch at someone doing something legal that you don't like; I'm saying that you are not obligated ethically or morally to do business with them. Or if the law has something to do with ethics in your world, then consider that since it's legal to deny service to patent trolls, it must be all right, right? And I don't see what's unethical about one adult selling another adult neuroactive pharmaceuticals, but let's leave that aside for now. Drawing the line around what's "legal" says to me, "We'd rather not think about ethics, so we're going to draw the line somewhere defensible that we don't have to think about." In another world this might make sense, but not in a country that criminalizes marijuana and has, well, patent trolls. To respect that line, and not try to promote good or retard evil any further than that, is just an abdication of ethics. With that said, I respect Less Annoying CRM for trying to think about the issue at all and post about it, which most companies don't. I mean, they got the wrong answer, but most companies don't even try or think at all, so this blog post actually does rate LACRM in the top 10% of all companies in my book.
- the_bear 14y ago
  I think one of the questions you have to ask yourself is whether your primary responsibility to protect the interests of your real users (the non-patent trolls) or to take a stand against people you don't like. This would be a much easier decision if we sold a discrete product. A grocery store or Amazon.com can deny someone service and then they can go shop somewhere else. No big deal. Our users store their most important business data with us for years. How can our legitimate users trust us if they think they might wake up one day and be banned? Thanks for the comment, this is definitely an interesting discussion. By the way, I can tell you that I personally wouldn't have a problem with someone using the software for something illegal but not necessarily unethical (like selling drugs). The problem is that as soon as they tell you they're doing that, you're effectively assisting them in the illegal activity which makes me a criminal. That's the main reason why we have to take action when someone tells us they're using the CRM to do something illegal (not that it's ever happened).
squozzer 14y ago
Welcome to the real world -- it's kinda messy but the booze helps you get used to it. Personally, I prefer a bad decision based on reason than a good one based on emotion. So you get an informal +1 in my book. Also, it might help you (and apparently a lot of posters) to develop multiple means to achieve desired ends. Does everyone with whom one disagrees deserve the banhammer? Certain groups have darkened and stained the pages of history with their rigid ways of dealing with undesirables. Divide the world into black and white at your own peril.
jimworm 14y ago
If anybody was thinking of dismissing their decision off-hand, consider these: Pharmacists refusing to sell the morning-after pill Refusing to sell computer equipment to HFT firms Banning a child not vaccinated against polio from a swimming pool Cutting off the water supply to your local homeopathy practitioner The world is full of petty tyrants. Tyranny of the majority via the law may not be ideal, but it might be the best we can hope for.
- pessimizer 14y ago
  Pharmacists are state licensed, and granted special privileges based on that license; they don't get to be the final say about what they will or won't do. I don't see a problem with the other three. In fact, the third I actively encourage.
  - CamperBob2 14y ago
    Pharmacists are state licensed, and granted special privileges based on that license; they don't get to be the final say about what they will or won't do. You would think so, but remember that in the US, religion is the third rail of politics. Play the Jeebus card, and you can dodge almost all of the other rules and regulations in polite society. (See http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Judge-Washington-state-cannot-force-pharmacies-3352346.php http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Judge-Washington-stat... ).
debacle 14y ago
Lather and Nothing Else http://www.plymouth.k12.wi.us/OldSite/Staff%20Home%20Pages/High%20School/HS%20English/Cleary1/oldengI/lather.pdf http://www.plymouth.k12.wi.us/OldSite/Staff%20Home%20Pages/H...
pirateking 14y ago
Clicked link excited to read a tale of a cowboy startup, sticking it to the man and laying waste to patent troll scum. Instead was a story of cowboys settled on the ranch, freely doing business with all types of trolls. Not what I wanted to read personally, but it is a path that many large, successful companies have followed.
Finster 14y ago
I guess I was hoping for an outcome other than, "Well, we decided to go ahead and help him out, anyway. Luckily, he just kind of faded away on his own." Oh. Okay. That's good, I guess.
chris_wot 14y ago
To be honest, the best way of dealing with this would have been to price the customizations out of the market. You're selling a service, so price it accordingly. :-)
eevilspock 14y ago
The First Amendment only protects freedom of speech from government interference. On your private property you are free to limit speech as you see fit, unless state or local laws have broadened free speech rights to work against private actors. So unless the latter exception applies, your thought experiment is broken early in the chain. You are free to apply your own free speech limitations as long as you are within the bound of other laws, e.g. you're not discriminating in some other way that is illegal. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Ro...
phene 14y ago
> we’re not fans of the KKK’s messaging. But KKK rallies aren’t illegal, or at least not inherently so. On the contrary, they're protected free speech. Shut down the KKK account? Our answer: No This is just absurd. They are not bound by the first amendment and are entirely free to make judgements about the hosted content.
staunch 14y ago
Is the rule "we don't do business with people who are assholes" or "we don't do business with people that are assholes to us"? Because if it's the former it's obvious that it applies to all the examples.
yo-mf 14y ago
If a coke dealer is using a cloud-based CRM system to manage their "customers", you have two valid reasons for reject them; for running an illegal business and for being too stupid to use your product.
dello 14y ago
Thank you for taking a stand against patent trolls! I wish all IP attorneys would follow your lead. Ironically, IP attorneys supporting trolls are destroying the patent system that pays their bills in the first place.

83 points by mojowo11 14y ago

> At least for now, we use the law as our guide [...] since it is the point at which these issues cease to be a matter of opinion. Of course, if you’re an asshole, you'll still get the boot—that policy remains firmly in place. So you're objective until someone makes you mad. Got it.

mojowo11 14y ago
We're pretty patient with anything up until the point of what is obviously verbal abuse. Frustration is obviously a reality of customer service, and we understand that. I think we've maybe only politely urged one person to try out other options in the eight months I've been with the company, and generally if someone reaches the point of being genuinely mean, they're not going to use the software anyway. I see your point, however, and I won't pretend that there's not a little bit of cognitive dissonance there.
jarrett 14y ago
I think his point is that he'll kick someone who makes trouble for his business. Someone who is a jerk in their life outside that particular business relationship get a pass, provided they don't break the law. That seems like a very rational policy.

huhtenberg 14y ago

Am I missing something? I want my two minutes back. > What we did when a patent troll asked for our help? I gave the patent troll a demo of our system, complete with genuine recommendations about how he could best track his entire process from start to end. ... While we did set up customization for him, ...

stephengillie 14y ago
This is just a publicity stunt for this company. It's an ad. "Oh hey look, we have patent trolls using our product"

motters 14y ago

If you're running a software business then it's probably not a great idea to actively assist people who are trying to damage the software business with trolling behavior. It would be self-defeating. It's a slightly different situation when dealing with other people whose views or activities you might not entirely concur with. In most cases their activities won't be directly harming your industry.

mojowo11 14y ago
This is pretty much what we struggled with -- at one point, we thought about how dumb we would feel if we did everything we could to streamline the guy's workflow and then received one of his letters demanding payment. That's another interesting place to draw the line, though -- self-preservation, or at least protection of your own industry. It's pretty compelling, although it still feels a bit odd to be protective of only one's own industry, while being okay with things that might be destructive to others. Hm.
- CamperBob2 14y ago
  That's another interesting place to draw the line, though -- self-preservation, or at least protection of your own industry. Arguably this could be justified the same way you would justify refusing to support drug dealers, even though you disagree with the War on Some Drugs. Your only justification for turning down such business (as I understand it) is that you can't accept the risk of having the whole company shut down by law enforcement. Not many people would take you to task for that reasoning, I suspect, and it would be easy to dismiss those who do. It's easy to argue that software patents carry the same existential threat as law enforcement would. At first blush it seems reasonable to write this into your TOS: I agree that I will not assert any patent claims as a non-practicing entity. I agree that my account with lessannoyingcrm.com will be terminated without recourse if I assert any such claims in a court of law, or threaten to do so. The problem is, you've only narrowed your ethical dilemma -- you haven't eliminated it. What if the patent troll in question was instead offering to buy your company for 100x revenue? What if the patent troll in question was (e.g.) Google or Apple? Would you have the fortitude to tell them to pound sand then? Google may be a good example, in fact, because they've probably already found it necessary (or soon will) to threaten other companies like Microsoft and Oracle with patents that they don't practice, but have purchased for defensive purposes. If you had turned down the patent troll's business, you would indeed have found yourself in an even murkier ethical swamp, so in that sense you did the right thing. Out of all of the entrepreneurs I've known in a long career spent in and around small companies, I only know one founder with the personal fortitude to tell a patent troll to get bent. I don't expect to meet any others, because I'm not sure you can build a large, successful company around strong personal convictions in the general case.

anonymoushn 14y ago

It's a shame that your ToS is worded in such a way that his line of reasoning causes you to turn away legitimate businesses that create actual value (like drug dealers) to instead help racketeers. Edit: Turning away illegal businesses and helping unethical businesses is probably rational, even if it is not good. I don't think we can expect a higher standard from people who set out to make a business.

andrewcooke 14y ago

but why can't you be arbitrary (within the confines of the law)? particularly a small company. you don't have to justify your actions - just don't work with people you don't want to. why does it have to be consistent or logical? just say "fuck em" and move on... what, in short, is so bad about being faithful to what you feel?

mojowo11 14y ago
You might be right. As much as telling this guy to fuck off would have felt great, though, it also felt wrong to us to inject our opinions into it. But, well, I could probably be convinced by your perspective, too -- which is why I wrote this post. I suppose one consideration would be a legal one. We're not legal experts, and for some entities, turning them away for being distasteful or what they believe -- based on what we feel -- could be considered discrimination. And finally, we think having some consistency is pretty important. Sure, we could just do this case-by-case and that, frankly, would be pretty nice. But it's also not really fair to our users, I think, who should know that we work with some kind of framework in making decisions so that they don't have to worry about us getting pissed off and shutting down their account for (what they see as) insufficient reason.
- andrewcooke 14y ago
  you misread my "fuck em" - i don't for a moment think you should be rude to them: simply don't co-operate. i'm not a legal expert either, but i am pretty sure that legislation related to discrimination is based on specific attributes (race, color, religion, sex or national origin for the us civil rights act). and being a spammer is very unlikely to be a reason for protection under such laws. consistency is important if you're doing this enough for it to be noticed. if it's one person in the history of your firm, you could have quietly stalled and no-one would have been any the wiser. instead, you decide to support a spammer and profit from hits on your blog. from that viewpoint you don't come across as a great company, to me...
brelsnok 14y ago
Exactly. The writer is looking for a 'rule' that defines wrong and right. Maybe to look for a strict pattern is the nature of a software developer but it doesn't always apply. Especially not in ethics I think.

kriro 14y ago

I think every business should be opinionated to some degree. Call it ethics if you must. I would snapcancel that account but not snoop around in data and actively try to find people that offend me to boot them. If they tell you they do something that you have ethical objections against shut down their account. Just imagine how you'd feel if he'd use your system to troll 5k people. I think the law shouldn't be your ultimate guideline it should be your moral and ethical standards in combination with the law.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
CWuestefeld 14y ago
Agreed. The 1st Amendment is not a guarantee that any jerk can say anything he wants. It is only a restriction on government interfering. The framers of the Constitution didn't want people putting up pornographic billboards on every carriage path. They just didn't trust the government to be the ones making the call. Instead, they entrusted the ethics of society to ... society at large. If somebody says something that we feel is offensive, it's not censorship to speak out, or even to refuse that person the use of your resources to facilitate his speech. So I think that this was an incorrect decision. The OP has abdicated his right and responsibility to act as a moral member of our society, instead electing to follow a libertine philosophy of "if I can do it, there's no reason I shouldn't".

dfxm12 14y ago

You know, jury nullification is a thing. One aspect of this is when there is evidence to convict someone of a crime, the jury may choose to not convict if they feel the law is not just. This is a power granted to citizens (of the USA) to help us govern ourselves in in case our legal system becomes unjust or corrupt. You are in the position of (some) power. By knowingly choosing to to help someone do something unethical, you contribute to furthering unethical behavior. Also, what is the difference between "a jerk ... speaking up" and "an asshole"? Is an asshole still an asshole if their business is legal? I think you should reconsider your sign. It shouldn't say We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, it should say Greed is good. Remember, all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with making money, but don't try and rationalize your ethics away.

mcherm 14y ago
> This is a power granted to citizens Technically, no. Jury nullification is an unavoidable consequence of the fact that juries are not required to explain their reasoning. But it can only happen when a jury ignores a judge's instructions (which will say to base the decision on the existing law). > it should say Greed is good. [...] Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with making money, but don't try and rationalize your ethics away. Maybe you read a different article than I did? In the article you read, the employees at LessAnnoying got together by the water cooler and talked about how they'd LOVE to eject EvilTroll, but couldn't make payroll at the end of the month without his business. In the one I read, they didn't give a hoot about EvilTroll's money, but wanted to avoid engaging in content-based censorship.
- jeremyarussell 14y ago
  You should replace technically with expressly. As it is technically given to American citizens, just not expressly told to them that they have this inherent right.
  - monochromatic 14y ago
    It's really not a legal right that they have. They have the ability, or the power. But in order to exercise that power, they have to disregard the oath that they swear as jurors.

gravitronic 14y ago

This is a great post because you go in expecting "we kicked that patent troll to the curb! Yeah!" and it turns out instead to be a reasoned set of implications of running a service-based business.

pnathan 14y ago
Reading the OP carefully, it is clear there are a lot of implications that can be derived from choosing to limit service outside of what the law requires. As a thought experiment: Suppose Oracle and Google show up and want the service. Oracle is known to be an aggressive company with respect to business and so the company denies Oracle... but accepts Google since Google is friendlier. Does Oracle have grounds for suing ? I don't know. IANAL. But if I was in their position, I would be concerned until I consulted a lawyer. What about other entities: political parties you disagree with? activist groups you disagree with? businesses who have unsavoury practices? Put anther way, what can you legally say 'no' to, and what will get you sued for denying them? If you can provide a straightfoward notice "no patent trolls" (enforceable in court), does that insulate you? Again, I don't know. But it would give me pause to ponder if (when?) I am in the position of providing services. --- more thoughts--- If you take the onus of determining who is moral onto your shoulders, you take responsibility for the inevitable screwup. And with that, you ensure that you will be arbitrary when you notice that one entity is an exception to your existing rules. You have to modify the rules, and that angers people (notice Blizzard's forums anytime changes come Where the line? Where the exceptions? How to handle it? out!) This is a scaling problem. Can you get away with not overthinking it and simply kicking the odiousness to the curb and hope that the scaling problem won't manifest?

DanBC 14y ago

What do you do if you're in a country where the law allows evil acts?

the_bear 14y ago

(I work at the Less Annoying CRM) Since a few people have brought up similar points, I'd like to address them here. My gut instinct was to tell the patent troll to fuck off. I still wish we had done that. But that would set a terrible precedent and turn us into something that I hate: the App Store Pretty much everyone here hates how arbitrary and opaque the approval system is in the App Store. It seems like there's a post on HN almost every day ranting about this. If we don't have a clear set of guidelines for what we will and won't allow, how can any of our customers trust our service? Another example: many of us are worried that Google might randomly shut down our accounts. This would be devastating. I'm sure that Google normally only shuts down accounts with good cause, but they still are developing a reputation for being a company you can't trust. We can't afford to give our customers a reason to worry about that happening with our service. So the question is, is there a way to tell the patent troll to go screw himself without jeopardizing our trustworthiness with our real customers?

mojowo11 14y ago
(Yeah, this is actually our CEO, Tyler.)
stephengillie 14y ago
You definitely showed all of us that your moral compass is tightly bound to the law. Instead of telling this despicable customer to leave, you gave him the grand tour. Your blog post could have been an explanation of your reasoning and moral outrage, making you look better while providing transparency for your customers to trust.
- alain94040 14y ago
  That would have been the easy way out. feel good. But read the post again carefully, and you'll understand why vetting each customer is not a viable solution. Comparisons to the App Store are warranted.
- the_bear 14y ago
  Do you think that Reddit is immoral for allowing many despicable people to hold conversations about despicable topics? This community is normally all about a free and open internet, where companies like Google, Facebook, etc. aren't trying to control what their users can do with their technology. Trust me, I don't feel good about helping a patent troll. I just don't see any sort of justifiable policy that would allow for us to act any differently. We will definitely re-evaluate the decision though. This is a tough one, and we're not in love with our current solution.

tzs 14y ago

How did he know they were a patent troll? From the description, they sound like the original owner of the patent, the patent appears to be newly granted, and we don't know if they are practicing the patent themselves or not. There is some variation in the meaning of "patent troll", but an original owner practicing the patent promptly going after people who infringe is not a patent troll under most accepted definitions.

the_bear 14y ago
We received an email from the user outlining their entire business. They weren't the most extreme example of a patent troll (where you can't even tell what company it is) but they didn't seem to have any real products, and their use of the CRM would be entirely for managing the victims of their lawsuits. This is kind of the point of the post though. We hated the idea of letting this person use our software, but is it really our place to make those decisions? Things are rarely black and white. Having said that, I'm really glad this guy didn't stick around.

zacharyvoase 14y ago

I semi-agree with what you did in this case, and here's why. If you had spontaneously canceled his account, without having stipulated what kind of behaviour you find unacceptable in the Terms of Service beforehand, he could rightfully accuse you of being capricious and arbitrary. As a customer, that kind of action on your part would definitely make me think twice before signing up. Even though I'm not a patent troll, what if you some day decided that what I was using it for was also unacceptable? Speaking of the letter of the law, the ToS that you both agreed to didn't mention anything about patent trolling being out of bounds. What I would do in future is maintain a list of un-OK uses as a schedule to the ToS, but grandfather existing clients into the old ToS (perhaps with a 30 day grace period, allowing customers to export all of their data). In the case of customers using the software to do things you don't like, rather than terminate their account, just politely ask them to take their custom elsewhere (with no obligation to do so). I think you'll find that most people would rather be where they're wanted. Caveat: IANAL. You might not be able to do that sort of thing (although I'm nearly sure you can).

rada 14y ago

TL;DR 1. We reject customers who speak harshly about our software. They hurt our feelings, and we simply won't stand for that. 2. We welcome customers who rob and kill as a matter of business. If it satisfies minimum legal requirements, we are happy to make a buck. 3. We are so proud of our reasoning ability that we are going on record to say that we welcome patent trolls and the Ku Klux Klan.

aculver 14y ago

The content of the post was not at all what I expected. The funny thing about principles is they're easy to have when they're not being tested. For example: "'I really don’t want this guy’s money,' Tyler said at one point. We’re glad not to have it." That's a lot easier to say when the offer of money is no longer on the table. I'm not sure at what point that was actually said, but in the article it comes after giving this guy a demo of the system, making genuine recommendations about his entire process, and doing actual customization work for the guy. Patent trolling aside, using the law of the land to justify going against your personal conscience is a horrible idea.

mcherm 14y ago
> using the law of the land to justify going against your personal conscience I don't see it that way at all. Their personal consciences recoiled at providing support for a patent troll and they recoiled at imposing censorship based on the content of a client's messages. They had to reconcile these two opposing attacks of conscience.
- kkowalczyk 14y ago
  Refusing a service to someone you don't like, for whatever reason, is not censorship, so there is no conflict of ethics. The line is less clear when the company is in a position of great power (e.g. Google in search, Apple in smartphones) but it's clear that e.g. restaurant can have a dress code (which is frivolous) and refuse service if you don't comply with that dress code and an insignificant crm business can refuse you service for any reason whatsoever. It's not censorship because there's another restaurant just around the corner and another crm product a click away. The article is framed as some epic battle of ethics but all I get from it is that $10/month is deciding factor in their decisions. They don't want the money from patent trolls but they'll take it if given.
  - FuzzyDunlop 14y ago
    I think the difference with the restaurant analogy is that the dress code is applied before you enter and are seated. Thus you'll be turned away outright for dressing improperly. Compare it to this, where the issue only arose because the customer made clear their intention well after signing up. I'm seeing the main issue here being that enforcing their own ideals, so they don't serve the customers they want, involves waiting for the to contact support, lest they violate their own ethics re: privacy and data protection. How many new customers will they get when they earn a reputation of applying a personal and undisclosed set of ethics and ideals to customers any time after they sign up?

mcherm 14y ago

Thank you for posting this. It was one of the most thought-provoking things I have seen on HN for weeks.

darklajid 14y ago

This had made HN and had the chance to win a lot of sympathy. You backed down. That's fine, and - being no business owner or part of a startup myself, I'm clueless - maybe required. Maybe you just can't afford to alienate customers, especially as a small shop. That said: You asked for an opinion. The idealist in me (see previous paragraph's disclaimer) would boot all of your imaginary customers. I DO believe, naively, that most people are good - or maximum chaotic neutral. In the grand scheme of things there aren't so many assholes to ignore and kick out. But the list you presented, including the patent troll? Yeah, all of them should go. Politely, with recommendations maybe/help with the migration. No problem. But no, you cannot stay. We're sorry, but our company codex doesn't allow that. Now THAT would've impressed me.

jeremyarussell 14y ago

If it was me... My ToS would have an ethics clause in it, that if it becomes known to us you are doing something I may find unscrupulous then me and my staff have a right to refuse to help you on a personal basis. I'd hate to make any of my people have to help someone they find unethical. It is a hard question to answer though, but I think harder to answer after you are established, and therefore should be asked by every new startup that wasn't planning on having an ethics portion to their ToS.

the_bear 14y ago
That's actually what we thought at first, but there's a problem. Doesn't that encourage our legitimate customers to not use our customer service? If someone is running a political campaign, they can't risk asking us a question because we might not agree with their beliefs. How can we have that policy without leaving all of our real customers in a constant state of fear that we might ban them because of our own beliefs?
- jeremyarussell 14y ago
  You could list explicitly what all you find ethically objectionable. Transparency allows for honesty and a much more fluid system. OR Allowing for each employee to be able to make that call can find you some middle ground. Lets take your political campaign example, if a democratic pro-choice advocacy group wanted to use your CRM, but your support guy/girl doing that gets the call is pro-life, she/he should be allowed to say, hey I'm sorry but someone else needs to take this for me, I can't do this. Now really that should be every company, but let it be known in your ToS that you reserve the right to not force an employee to do something they don't find agreeable with their ethics. If it happens that ALL of your employees hate patent trolls to the extent that none of them will help then simply tell the customer that they won't be able to get help. I can appreciate how hard of a question it is, censorship versus ethics. But, maybe it'll help to think of it this way, as a company you don't want to censor your customers, but at what point do you realize that in violating your own ethics you are allowing someone else to censor you. It's a tough call either way, I don't begrudge you the choice you made as it seems you put a lot of thought into it.

jarrett 14y ago

A lot of this discussion seems to boil down to several key issues: 1. Should you ever refuse service to someone because you disapprove of their lawful activities? 2. If so, where do you draw the line? 3. If so, how do you deal with the fact that you can only enforce the policy when a customer's activities are specifically brought to your attention? To answer #1, I'd make an analogy to the social responsibility rules some companies voluntarily impose on themselves. (Some companies say they will only buy from vendors who meet certain fair labor standards. Others say they will only buy from environmentally friendly vendors. Et cetera.) Refusing service based on an ethical principle is very similar to these types of policies, except you're declining to sell something instead of buy. Companies that follow these rules are generally lauded for it. Likewise, companies that are perceived as not doing so are criticized. (Think of Apple's relationship with Foxconn.) So I think it's pretty safe from a P.R. standpoint to refuse service based on ethical principles. You might have to ditch a handful of paying customers, but if your business model is about volume, it's probably not going to matter. As for the ethical imlications of refusing service, I say that nobody is entitled to use your service any more than you're entitled to customers. So I don't see a problem there. Question #2 is harder. Where do you draw the line? I'd say that's up to each company to decide, but here are some reasonable examples of things you might forbid: - Patent trolls - Hate groups - Technically lawful but sleezy stuff, e.g. certain infoproducts The exact list a company chooses would of course depend on the subjective ethical beliefs of its leadership. Which is fine--it's their company. In any case, it's very important to clearly state these rules in the TOS. You really don't want to be seen as capricious, and it's not fair to your customers, even the evil ones. Question #3 is probably the hardest. As the OP pointed out, you can't just dig through your customers' data, looking for possible violations. So you'd have to wait until something was brought to your attention. And then, as the OP said, you'd have de facto tolerance for offenders who don't speak up. Which seems kind of unfair. But here, I'd make an analogy to the TOS rules concerning criminal activity. There must be tons of people using legitimate web services for crime. Occassionally, some of these are discovered, and their accounts are terminated. The rest get away with it. I doubt anyone would say you should ignore reports of criminal activity just because some other crime goes unreported. So I think the same applies to these ethical restrictions.

the_bear 14y ago

minhajuddin 14y ago

You guys should not have demoed your app. Just add another line in your TOS which states that you don't let "Patent Trolls" use your app. How hard is that? You have to man up and say NO. What's the point of "believing", when you don't act on it . This whole story paints a picture of a company without any conviction.

rubyrescue 14y ago

you know what's more annoying than patent trolls? arrogant posts about how much better someone is than patent trolls.

Eliezer 14y ago

Scientology certainly operates in violation of the letter of the law - framing people for murder is illegal, I'm pretty sure - they just avoid conviction by bribing local judges and so on. I don't see why you can't just tell the patent troll to go away. Are they being punished for telling you what they do? Yes, but if patent trolls have to operate furtively, not telling anyone what they do, on pain of being denied service in many places, the world is a better place. Make the world a better place. I don't see why you are obligated to lend a helping hand to evil that happens to be legal. I'm not saying to throw a punch at someone doing something legal that you don't like; I'm saying that you are not obligated ethically or morally to do business with them. Or if the law has something to do with ethics in your world, then consider that since it's legal to deny service to patent trolls, it must be all right, right? And I don't see what's unethical about one adult selling another adult neuroactive pharmaceuticals, but let's leave that aside for now. Drawing the line around what's "legal" says to me, "We'd rather not think about ethics, so we're going to draw the line somewhere defensible that we don't have to think about." In another world this might make sense, but not in a country that criminalizes marijuana and has, well, patent trolls. To respect that line, and not try to promote good or retard evil any further than that, is just an abdication of ethics. With that said, I respect Less Annoying CRM for trying to think about the issue at all and post about it, which most companies don't. I mean, they got the wrong answer, but most companies don't even try or think at all, so this blog post actually does rate LACRM in the top 10% of all companies in my book.

the_bear 14y ago
I think one of the questions you have to ask yourself is whether your primary responsibility to protect the interests of your real users (the non-patent trolls) or to take a stand against people you don't like. This would be a much easier decision if we sold a discrete product. A grocery store or Amazon.com can deny someone service and then they can go shop somewhere else. No big deal. Our users store their most important business data with us for years. How can our legitimate users trust us if they think they might wake up one day and be banned? Thanks for the comment, this is definitely an interesting discussion. By the way, I can tell you that I personally wouldn't have a problem with someone using the software for something illegal but not necessarily unethical (like selling drugs). The problem is that as soon as they tell you they're doing that, you're effectively assisting them in the illegal activity which makes me a criminal. That's the main reason why we have to take action when someone tells us they're using the CRM to do something illegal (not that it's ever happened).

squozzer 14y ago

Welcome to the real world -- it's kinda messy but the booze helps you get used to it. Personally, I prefer a bad decision based on reason than a good one based on emotion. So you get an informal +1 in my book. Also, it might help you (and apparently a lot of posters) to develop multiple means to achieve desired ends. Does everyone with whom one disagrees deserve the banhammer? Certain groups have darkened and stained the pages of history with their rigid ways of dealing with undesirables. Divide the world into black and white at your own peril.

jimworm 14y ago

If anybody was thinking of dismissing their decision off-hand, consider these: Pharmacists refusing to sell the morning-after pill Refusing to sell computer equipment to HFT firms Banning a child not vaccinated against polio from a swimming pool Cutting off the water supply to your local homeopathy practitioner The world is full of petty tyrants. Tyranny of the majority via the law may not be ideal, but it might be the best we can hope for.

pessimizer 14y ago
Pharmacists are state licensed, and granted special privileges based on that license; they don't get to be the final say about what they will or won't do. I don't see a problem with the other three. In fact, the third I actively encourage.
- CamperBob2 14y ago
  Pharmacists are state licensed, and granted special privileges based on that license; they don't get to be the final say about what they will or won't do. You would think so, but remember that in the US, religion is the third rail of politics. Play the Jeebus card, and you can dodge almost all of the other rules and regulations in polite society. (See http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Judge-Washington-state-cannot-force-pharmacies-3352346.php http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Judge-Washington-stat... ).

debacle 14y ago

Lather and Nothing Else http://www.plymouth.k12.wi.us/OldSite/Staff%20Home%20Pages/High%20School/HS%20English/Cleary1/oldengI/lather.pdf http://www.plymouth.k12.wi.us/OldSite/Staff%20Home%20Pages/H...

pirateking 14y ago

Clicked link excited to read a tale of a cowboy startup, sticking it to the man and laying waste to patent troll scum. Instead was a story of cowboys settled on the ranch, freely doing business with all types of trolls. Not what I wanted to read personally, but it is a path that many large, successful companies have followed.

Finster 14y ago

I guess I was hoping for an outcome other than, "Well, we decided to go ahead and help him out, anyway. Luckily, he just kind of faded away on his own." Oh. Okay. That's good, I guess.

chris_wot 14y ago

To be honest, the best way of dealing with this would have been to price the customizations out of the market. You're selling a service, so price it accordingly. :-)

eevilspock 14y ago

The First Amendment only protects freedom of speech from government interference. On your private property you are free to limit speech as you see fit, unless state or local laws have broadened free speech rights to work against private actors. So unless the latter exception applies, your thought experiment is broken early in the chain. You are free to apply your own free speech limitations as long as you are within the bound of other laws, e.g. you're not discriminating in some other way that is illegal. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Ro...

phene 14y ago

> we’re not fans of the KKK’s messaging. But KKK rallies aren’t illegal, or at least not inherently so. On the contrary, they're protected free speech. Shut down the KKK account? Our answer: No This is just absurd. They are not bound by the first amendment and are entirely free to make judgements about the hosted content.

staunch 14y ago

Is the rule "we don't do business with people who are assholes" or "we don't do business with people that are assholes to us"? Because if it's the former it's obvious that it applies to all the examples.

yo-mf 14y ago

If a coke dealer is using a cloud-based CRM system to manage their "customers", you have two valid reasons for reject them; for running an illegal business and for being too stupid to use your product.

dello 14y ago

Thank you for taking a stand against patent trolls! I wish all IP attorneys would follow your lead. Ironically, IP attorneys supporting trolls are destroying the patent system that pays their bills in the first place.