[Buckleyisms]

Because that's just not how the legal system works, at least not in the United States (Kik Interactive is located in Canada, npm Inc. is located in the US, so it's possible for Kik to file a lawsuit against npm in the US.)

Full disclosure, I'm not on Kik's side here. I think they should have let Azer keep the kik npm module. I'm just trying to explain why npm could be legally threatened.

Kik sent npm a request to take down a package with their trademarked name. If npm declined, they could have filed suit against npm. They would not have to prove that their trademark was valid before doing so. Even if they didn't have a trademark, they could file the case, knowing they would lose. It would be a very short case. Npm's lawyers would have to submit evidence that Kik didn't own the trademark, and the case would be dismissed.

But the important part here is that they would need to show up to court with lawyers, and this is not free. This is why (again, at least in the US) legal threats from big companies like Kik to small developers (or other individuals, or even smaller companies) like Azer are so threatening and offensive. Even if the company is in the wrong, and the small developer is in the right, the cost of hiring a lawyer and going to court is so expensive that you're better off just letting them have their way, even if they're wrong.

[scotty79]

> they would need to show up to court with lawyers, and this is not free.

So what's the rule there? You show up to court without lawyers and you automatically lose?

[Buckleyisms]

The point is that even showing up costs time and possibly travel expenses. Court proceedings are slow, so without a lawyer, you'll spend days of your time in court fighting the case.

It's possible to defend yourself without a lawyer. People have done it successfully. However, to be successful, you have to spend a lot of time learning, understanding and using the law to your advantage, and it's usually not worth it. Even lawyers will hire other lawyers to defend them, if they're defendants in a case outside their area of speciality.

There's a pervasive attitude that representing yourself without a lawyer lowers your chance of winning, though there are no hard statistics either way.

If you don't show up at all, you'll almost always lose. In many cases, if you fail to show up, the judge is required to rule in favor of the only party that showed up. Even if that wasn't the case, if the judge is only listening to one side of an argument, they're likely to agree with that side.

[jsprogrammer]

NPM doesn't need to send a lawyer or any representative.

KIK must prove infringement to get a court order and they won't be able to because they claim no Trademark protection in any goods or services that `kik` deals in.

NPM could have been a dispassionate observer, but decided to take it upon themselves to arbitrate a Trademark dispute. To me, this opens them up to liability if they make any incorrect decision or findings. Why would they want to take on this liability?

There is no pressing need for them to become involved. They should have let Trademark courts handle Trademark disputes.

[scotty79]

> Kik sent npm a request to take down a package with their trademarked name.

I think they just asked for help in resolving the issue they made up. and used word "lawyers" few times. That's apparently is all what it takes US company to fold.