Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I don't want to defend RIM, because I don't know anything about the lawsuit (other than it's likely to be a software patent for something relatively obvious).

But I don't see this as significantly more evil than "just removing them from the store". A lawsuit shows that RIM has a serious grievance (whether justified or not) and moves to settle the matter of competition through an official legal framework (whether flawed or not).

Unilaterally removing an application from app markets that are "open to all developers unless we say they're not" for competitive reasons strikes me as more evil in some ways. We are just a lot more used to it because of Apple's app store.




There is a significant increase in evil-ness between the two IMHO.

Banning them from the store/crippling their existing installs is basically: "we don't like you competing with our first party offerings, so get the hell off our platform"

Suing them now, given that Kik is still active on other platforms, is basically: "we don't like you competing with our offerings, so we're going to prevent you from operating anywhere, even on platforms we don't own or have any control over"

I don't know about you, but the second seems a bit more evil than the first.


But at least Kik has recourse in the lawsuit case. In the former they simply don't have the right to exist because the platform holder says so. It's not good for customers and it's sure as hell not good for developers.

I agree with the parent, simply booting someone from your walled garden is more evil in the sense that they can't do anything about it.


But that's exactly the point of patents. If there's evil here, it's because of using offensively a patent that should not have been granted, not because other platforms are also involved.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: