[otterley]

Can we see the demand letter, please?

If not, why not?

My concern here is that this is like a child going to their parents to complain their sibling hit them, only to find out when you ask the sibling that the first one pushed them off their bicycle.

If you don't share it, I think it's a reasonable assumption that you're coming in with unclean hands, trying to use the court of opinion to gain sympathy while denying us the full picture.

[mrandish]

Ladyada mentions in the current top post of this thread that they've reached out to the Flux.ai founder to hopefully discuss a mutually satisfactory resolution.

Unilaterally publishing Flux's demand letter probably isn't prohibited but doing so prior to discussion or any notice IS a signal. And it's a signal that could be interpreted by Flux as non-constructive, escalation or possibly even combative. In the absence of clear communication, things can be interpreted incorrectly.

I've been in far too many of these potentially contentious, early-lawyer-letter loops over the decades. It's actually shocking how easily things can spiral into unintended escalation over essentially nothing, especially very early on. And the more things start amping up, even if only in one party's imagination, it's absurd how hard to can be to climb back down. Especially with lawyers in the loop who are incentivized to fully preserve all their client's rights, posture aggressively for tactical position and burn retainer 12 minutes at a time.

I finally started to "get it" after maybe the third time in three years where I discovered after several months, $15,000 and a bunch of stress that the whole stupid thing could have been sorted in the first week by acting slowly, dismissing my assumptions and resisting all my instincts about how to respond. Let's just give these folks a week to see if there's a way to hit CTRL+Z, before we start demanding details just so we can pass meaningless mob judgement on who's right or wrong.

[otterley]

I don’t disagree with you, but if we’re talking about the wisest course of action here—assuming what you’re saying is true—it would be to resolve the matter privately and abstain from publishing this blog post in the first place. Perhaps publishing the letter is an escalation, but so is this. It’s just passive aggressive.

[mrandish]

While I haven't followed this situation, I assumed based on this...

> we have temporarily stopped publishing on the Adafruit blog

That they needed to explain to their audience why they stopped publishing on their blog, and I inferred they might have previously mentioned on social media that an article was in the works, as many blogs do (which might also explain the demand letter). But I don't know for sure, and apparently neither do you.

The only difference is I didn't demand any documents, post uninformed speculation or "reasonably assume" lack of compliance with my demands would be "unclean hands" and "passive aggressive" behavior. I clearly need to work harder at being a more engaged uninformed bystander. I haven't even slung any accusations or roused any rabble yet.

[otterley]

They could just as easily have said nothing at all (and was probably the wisest course). Fewer questions arise from a quiet pause in publishing than from this sort of announcement.

> The only difference is I didn't demand any documents, post uninformed speculation or "reasonably assume" lack of compliance with my demands would be "unclean hands" and "passive aggressive" behavior. I clearly need to work harder at being a more engaged uninformed bystander. I haven't even slung any accusations or roused any rabble yet.

Speaking of passive-aggressive...sheesh.

[AviationAtom]

Their legal council may have advised them not to publish it at this moment

[otterley]

As an attorney myself, I wonder why. Something about this smells super fishy to me. If I were their counsel, I'd advise them to be consistent: either publish the demand letter along with their blog post, or remain silent about the matter entirely until the dispute is resolved.

[sroussey]

Yes, almost certainly. My council has told me the same before, but I published anyhow to no ill effect other than opposing council shocked I did so. Too bad for them.

[johnobrien1010]

It seems prudent to me to not assume anything either way until you have more information

[4Humboldt]

While usually legal to do so, it is typically also equally unwise to do so. That may displease you and others, but I don’t think that aspect is a highly relevant factor here.

[otterley]

What's "unwise" about it? If you're on the right side of both the facts and the law, what harm or prejudice can come from doing so?

[modriano]

The legal route can be very expensive, and it can be short circuited when the parties come to some agreement, which is harder to do when parties are unnecessarily antagonistic.