I came here to post about exactly that. My jaw dropped while reading... not because it was flagrantly unethical, or abusing the law, or anything like that, but because it reminded me so acutely of the stereotypical movie villain who enlists the help of some hapless bystander and then impassively murmurs, "Thanks," while shooting them.

I already know this is going to get downvoted because Hacker News (wisely) disapproves of feckless criticism of big corporation business practices, and every time I post something like this, no one realizes that I'm just sharing an observation as opposed to making a hard judgment, but I was so surprised by the similarity between reality and fiction here, and so pleased to see that someone else had made the same connection, that I'm posting it anyway.

I was going to give you an upvote actually, but I viscerally hate the phrase "I know I'm going to get downvoted..." Just write what you have to say and who cares about the fools that react negatively.

I expressly condone your decision. I dislike it when anyone says that, or when people say "UGH WHY AM I GETTING DOWNVOTED." But, I have noticed that sometimes I will be spontaneously aware of someone's voting patterns, and I catch myself thinking, "This guy gets downvoted for the same stuff every time he says it. Why does he keep posting it?" So I thought I'd put the little explanation down there, in case anyone does something similar. IMHO, "I know I'm going to get downvoted..." is a little less stupid when it comes with an explanation--a pre-emptive, quiet rebuttal to all of the silent downvotes.

EDIT: Also, I never presume that people who downvote me are fools. Sometimes I find myself downvoting due to some essential gut reaction that I either can't verbalize or don't bother verbalizing. In fact, I think I have done that when people fecklessly criticize corporate business practices. Perhaps it was my initial awareness of "I might downvote the comment I'm writing, if I came across it in the wild," which inspired me to include the explanation.

Every disagreement is an opportunity for learning. By including the explanation, it invites someone to reply and say, "Actually, I downvoted you because x," and then I will learn something new about the nature of HN commenters.

He doesn't say that the CnD was actually sent.

Legal teams have zero incentive not to draft such letters. It's up to the executives at the company to have the courage to ignore the attorneys' advice. Of course, odds are it was sent and now the poor SpyHunter fan has an entertaining story to tell.

This is really important. Law firms, once on retainer (or even in-rolodex) constantly search for way to create billable hours. If you don't watch your lawyers very carefully, its not altogether unlikely that you'll get a big 'ol surprise bill for work that you not only didn't authorize, but also made you look like a total dick to your fans and customers.

Caveat emptor: watch your lawyers.

I doubt trademark law applied to those WAV files. It's likely only copyright.

>"But you have to defend your trademarks or they become worthless!"

This is an oft repeated phrase - "Please acknowledge our trademarks by using 'IdiotGaming is an RTM of Acme Company' on your pages, thanks.".

There you are, protected.

This is a factor contributing to the problem. I feel this is a lack of perspective or perhaps understanding of the end users.