[kkielhofner]

As I've noted in other comments many people see business as war. There are good examples in business but the history of war has even better examples. Time and time again "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" can work until one enemy is vanquished.

In WW2 Stalin initially made a pact with Hitler while all the while knowing Hitler would violate it and invade anyway. Stalin just used it to buy time to ramp up the Soviet military. From what I recall it's likely Hitler assumed this as well and used the pact to delay dealing with the Soviets militarily and focus on his Western front to snatch up as much of Europe as possible.

Obviously a very dramatic example but as it applies here there's a very good chance that even if a competitor seems helpful, etc at first they could very well leverage the entire scenario to their advantage eventually (somehow).

[freedomben]

I think it really depends on the size here. In my personal experience most small businesses aren't ruthlessly competitive. That seems to happen once you grow to a size where there are clear lines between the management classes (upper, lower) and worker class.

It's a roll of the dice for sure, but I'd take that roll over a cold call of a lawyer.

[slashdev]

> Time and time again "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" can work until one enemy is vanquished.

That is partly true, but in this case the patent troll is not vanquished and so doesn't apply.

Often competition is not that cutthroat. It's not usually a zero sum game. There are definitely outcomes where your competitors even add net value by legitimizing the market, educating potential customers, providing a source of ideas, etc. My general philosophy here is the world is big enough for all of us, I don't treat it as war, and don't seek to crush competitors - I seek to make my users and employees happy. That's it. Being competitor focused is an error, at least in a high margin business.

> In WW2 Stalin initially made a pact with Hitler while all the while knowing Hitler would violate it and invade anyway.

By accounts I've seen, Stalin was genuinely surprised and caught off guard by the invasion.

Not sure how this thread turned to Hitler so quickly. What's that internet law called?

[mullen]

> In WW2 Stalin initially made a pact with Hitler while all the while knowing Hitler would violate it and invade anyway. Stalin just used it to buy time to ramp up the Soviet military. From what I recall it's likely Hitler assumed this as well and used the pact to delay dealing with the Soviets militarily and focus on his Western front to snatch up as much of Europe as possible.

Not true at all. 1) Stalin was caught off guard by the invasion. We know this because he holded up in his private residence for a few days afterwards until the Politburo came visited him and asked him what he was going to do.

2) The Russian military was not tactically or strategically ready when the Germans attacked. We know this because the Russians lost millions of soldiers by encirclement in the days and weeks after the start of the war. If Russian military had been ready, it would have been in much better position(s).

3) Stalin had purged thousands of quality officers and NCOs from the Russian military. You can't have a good military without a professional, respected and well maintained NCOs core. If Stalin thought the Germans would really attack, he would have built up a professional officer and NCO core.

The three things that really saved Russia are January, February and the willingness of the Russian people to do anything for Russia, regardless of who is in charge.

[Firehawke]

So the theory he was Stalin is clearly not true.