• Lvxferre@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think that’s neither. The whole thing boils down for me to an adult trying to strike a deal with a kid so the kid gives up their ice cream, the kid saying “no!”, and then the adult still grabbing the ice cream by force.

      In other words I think that Meta run some risk assessment on the move, and decided that it was still profitable.

      • joemo@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, I’d actually argue it’s the opposite. Meta knows exactly what it’s doing, it just sucks for the little guy.

        Meta will just drag this out in the courts until the little guy can’t afford to keep going and then they settle.

          • joemo@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            How so? The lawyers at Meta are actually good at their job, they are doing what lawyers should do when they have more money than the opposition. Just like the managers are doing what they should do when they want something and can burn cash to get it.

    • Overzeetop@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Considering that Threads was not trademarked by Meta before their launch (or, at least, isn’t listed on their Trademarks page ) it is a massive fail on their legal department.