Collin Donnell writes about many people failing to acknowledge iA for dropping its patent application.

Matt wrote about the controversy on BakingPixel. Long story short, iA tried to patent their idea that was using a linguistic-tagger API that has been available for years, and they threatened other develops that were developing something similar. Many people did not like that and protested vocally. In the end, iA caved under the pressure and dropped the patent application.

Donnell points out how iA does not receive any acknowledgement for backing off:

If a company does something you don’t like, you speak out, and they correct it, that means what you did worked. It means you got what you wanted. Isn’t the right thing to acknowledge them for it? If you don’t, why would anyone listen to you the next time?

Macro Arment writes in response to Donnell’s article:

Filing a patent application was an action that they undid, but thinking they deserved one in the first place and threatening other developers (prematurely, at that) are offensive to me in ways that are harder to just cancel and sweep under the rug.

I was silent about their update because it didn’t change anything for me.

That is the point that Donnell misses. It is not just about what iA did. Hence, a reversal of their action does not warrant acknowledgement. It is a matter of principle and how the company believed that they are entitled to threaten other developers even before they were awarded the patent.

The company simply tweeted about their decision and left it as that.

I have yet to come across an apology from iA regarding the whole incident. This is a sign that they caved in under pressure from the backlash but they do not believe they are at fault. The least the company could do is to post a blog entry regarding the incident to share their perspective on the issue.

Until then, I won’t be surprised if most people stayed silent on the issue.