Post #653031 by hitiki on Sat, Sep 22, 2012 10:10 PM

I rarely feel the need to post, but this thread has made me uncomfortable. This was obviously a tactic to shortcut the legal process for business disputes.
It appears there was a business agreement between the two parties authorizing Taboo Island to manufacture and sell Squid designed products. The products do not simply become unauthorized reproductions when one party feels unhappy, since products were manufactured with consent. If Squid no longer authorizes Taboo Island to distribute his design, existing products should be bought back to allow Taboo Island to recoup the costs associated with the manufacture. Although their legal agreement determines the appropriate course of action, I doubt either signed a contract authorizing slander if payments are not made. If a cease and desist was in place prior to manufacture and sale, the state would process the case accordingly.

There is no need to publicly lambast a business partner. To imply existing Taboo Island customers possess unauthorized reproductions or bootleg products is an example of poor business ethics. I would be wary of entering agreements with businesses that offer emotional outbursts instead of legal proceedings when partnerships go awry.