> These demands seemed outrageous to me. They also seemed outrageous to lawyers I consulted from the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, and in the U.K. But my options were limited. I’m a U.K. resident, so a lawsuit against Facebook would probably have played out in a U.K. court, where I would have been personally on the hook for Facebook’s litigation costs if I lost. Facebook is a trillion-dollar company.
Seems like this could have been answered by releasing the source code? Someone else could remake and distribute the app; and if Facebook didn't like that, they'd have to be the ones to file a lawsuit.
The author is exaggerating the risk, even if Facebook goes all the way, via hiring the most expensive gold plated Magic circle teams, and wins, the judge wouldn’t assign 100% of the inflated costs to the author.
Of course they could still be on the hook for normal costs relative to the actual workload imposed (i.e. what the median law firm would charge), but that’s a potential consequence for any lawsuit whatsoever in the UK. Or any other ‘loser pays’ jurisdiction.
> Of course they could still be on the hook for normal costs relative to the actual workload imposed (i.e. what the median law firm would charge), but that’s a potential consequence for any lawsuit whatsoever in the UK. Or any other ‘loser pays’ jurisdiction.
That still seems like too much for a free tool that they are getting no revenue or monetization from, and the author seems to agree.
And a tool that uses freely available features on the Facebook website without circumventing anything. It merely automates something everyone can do themselves.
Seems like this could have been answered by releasing the source code? Someone else could remake and distribute the app; and if Facebook didn't like that, they'd have to be the ones to file a lawsuit.