[localhost3000]

Used to periodically get a c&d email from FB lawyers for some harmless software I published. Always completely ignored it, not even responding to acknowledge receipt. It eventually stopped. I figure they gave up and focused their efforts on targets who showed they would be responsive to threats. It was 100% bullying.

[londons_explore]

Even acknowledging receipt gives them a lot of power.

Remember that they probably have a list of hundreds or thousands of C&D's to send, and if you don't respond they would probably need to file a john doe lawsuit to get your identity from your ISP, and it's unlikely that all that effort is worth it to them.

[ericmcer]

It would be funny if legal teams at huge companies have OKRs and evaluations. “You hit your target of 250 C&Ds this quarter great work”. Justifying your paycheck is scarier when thinking about the legal dept.

[litenboll]

Do you know they don't? Otherwise I would assume they have dumb incentives like that. In my previous company the legal team measured the number of "takedowns" of countefeit merch etc. as a key number. I assume this helped to hurt their effort to prevent counterfeit in the first place.

[htrp]

Legal absolutely has OKRs.... usually around management of a hypothetical legal liability and how much they reduced it by when it came to actual payouts or vice versa

[dawnerd]

Similar back when apps on profiles were a thing. Apparently doing things like creating a scoreboard for pokes was against the terms.

[louisbarclay]

super useful to know - could I interview you about this to add to the guide? you can find contact details on my personal site louis.work

[KieranMac]

It is worth pointing out that FB has a long history of litigating this issue, from Power Ventures, to BrandTotal, to Octoparse, to Voyager Labs and more. And they have about 80-90% track record of success. Obviously, they send C&Ds more often than they file litigation. But to act as if this is a completely idle threat is naive.

[edm0nd]

Good ole Perkins Coie.

[pydry]

Was it trademark related?