[duskwuff]

So, let me get this straight.

Conference asks Martin to give a presentation. No money is to change hands, no contract is signed.

Conference changes their mind and decides to not have him speak after all.

Martin's reaction is to throw around legal threats like "breech of contract" [sic] and "tortious interference"???

Sounds to me like the conference dodged a bullet.

[throwawaygh]

I've never quite understood why Robert Martin carries so much currency in the software development world. That whole portion of industry group-think -- what to call it? consulting-revenue-oriented-dev-culture? you know, the agile/xp/enterprise software/oop-cum-fp-design-pattern "flavor of the month while pretending to be profound" thing -- had noble intentions but feels like a huge left turn in retrospect. Fortunately that crowd is taken less and less seriously as software progresses toward something more reminiscent of traditional engineering; the next generation of the sort seems to be piling into the "data science" world.

Given his views on software-related things, it's not particularly surprising to me that his approach toward a dis-invitation is... provocative, designed to go viral by tapping into certain aspects of a certain subset of dev culture, and not particularly well thought out.

[rektide]

Clean Code filled niche about programming in the large, & yes, overall we had a huge thought-leader driven worldview of computing & development.

[emsy]

Verbal agreements still count as contracts in some jurisdictions and having your schedule booked on a certain date means you're missing out on paying opportunities. I assume you're employed otherwise you wouldn't spout nonsense like that.

[duskwuff]

There is no contract, verbal or otherwise, because there was no consideration -- Martin would not have received anything in exchange for giving his presentation. (Intangible benefits like "exposure" don't count as consideration for the purposes of contract law.) The conference never had any obligations to him, and consequently he has not lost anything by no longer being engaged to speak.

Even if there had been a speaking fee, the conference could have fulfilled their end of the contract by paying him but not having him speak. There is no scenario under which the conference would have been forced to allow him to give a presentation.

[vapapav]

And conversely, if he had backed out last minute for personal reasons, it would have sucked for the conference, but they wouldn't have been able to go after him for damages.

[robinduckett]

"Had we agreed on a speaking free"

The many spelling mistakes in this post lead me to believe that he was very, very angry when typing this up. I'd not be surprised if it was deleted by Monday.

[dmit]

There won't be a lawsuit. There was never intended to be a lawsuit. There are no grounds for a lawsuit! This is all about getting exposure and perhaps channeling wallets towards his Patreon (or SubscribeStar, or whatever platform is en vogue with the bob martins right now).

[duskwuff]

> There won't be a lawsuit. There was never intended to be a lawsuit. There are no grounds for a lawsuit!

Of course not. But that isn't my point.

My concern isn't that he would actually file a lawsuit -- that's a non-starter. My concern is that his reaction to being snubbed is to publicly threaten the conference organizers, and the other speakers at the conference. That sort of behavior suggests a hostile, combative attitude that likely goes beyond this incident. That is the bullet I'm suggesting that the conference may have dodged.