[Not actually OT] Trouble in node.js land

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 12:33 am, Random832 wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016, at 05:03, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> https://medium.com/@azerbike/i-ve-just-liberated-my-modules-9045c06be67c
>> 
>> Of course, moving his allegedly infringing package "kik" to github isn't
>> going to fix the problem. It's still allegedly infringing.
> 
> I think the issue, and it is a reasonable one, is that this was not
> determined in a court of law. It's not actually clear to me that it's
> infringing or not (yes, they're both computer programs, but they do very
> different things, so it's not clear if they are or that they ought to be
> the "same area"), and it's arguably something that Kik Interactive Inc.
> should have had to actually sue him for rather than demanding a third
> party to arbitrarily mess with his stuff.
> 
> And there's also the fact that corporations apparently have absolutely
> no concept of how to properly communicate with someone to ask them to
> change something or stop doing something.

I don't think this is the case at all. If the author of the package had
tried to negotiate, and been rebuffed, he surely would have said so. "Look,
I tried to be reasonable, but they wouldn't be reasonable, so I had no
choice!". But that's not what his own account of the story shows. His
account shows clearly:

- He didn't bother to check to see whether the name was in use when he
picked it.

- The lawyers were polite but firm.

- He apparently made no attempt to negotiate, just told them no. Twice.

- His own account didn't dispute the possibility of confusion between two
software packages with the same name. He could have argued "My software in
a command-line tool for creating Javascript projects; yours is a chat
client. There is no possibility of confusion between the two." But he gives
no indication that he did this.

It probably wouldn't do him much good if he made that argument, since the
courts tend to use the "Moron in a hurry" test. If a stupid person who is
not paying attention could be confused by the reuse of the name, then it
shouldn't be allowed. They're both software, right? It's not like one was
software and the other was a brand of chocolate biscuit. But, judging from
his own story, it doesn't appear he even made that argument.

Instead, it seems that his argument was simple: "No. Don't want to."

So the lawyers did the right thing: instead of suing him, they approached
the people hosting the software, and got them to take it down. There is a
prima facie evidence of trademark infringement, and the alleged infringer
has made no attempt to deny infringement, defend himself or rename the
package, even when asked. 

So they took down *one* package. At which point, the author spat the dummy
and took down 250 or so packages, including the one which brought Node.js
to its knees.

It's hard to feel sympathy for the guy when *his own account* of what took
place makes him out to be a totally self-centred dick with poor impulse
control.

But now this is off-topic. There are difficult people in all programming
language communities, and it could have been *any* package that was removed
suddenly with no warning. What's more interesting is the difference between
language communities which can easily weather such troubles or those that
can't.


-- 
Steven