Not that I necessarily agree with how this case turned out, but Facebook is under no obligation to support the business model of another company...
(For the record, I agree)
Agreed, but neither should they have the ability to destroy a business by the single act of sending out a letter. Pretty much from that point on the company can't legally operate.
If a business is flimsy enough to be destroyed by a letter, it was toast anyway.
Not to mention this argument that someone else's business is this precious thing that can't be destroyed. Its totally bizarre. How often does Apple release features that eat another company's lunch? Better yet, think of all the disruptive SV business models that are purely based on destroying businesses and replacing them with alternatives.
Completely disagree. In the early stages of its life, almost any business is very vulnerable. If Microsoft had irritated IBM just the slightest bit in the early days, they would have been toast, or at best a small niche company, because they were completely dependant on IBM's goodwill. An IBM executive could have decided they preferred the boys at Apple instead. no letter even required. Yet look at Microsoft today. Who is to say that a business starting out using a Facebook API today, could not diversify and be a powerhouse and industry leader, tomorrow?
The point is that this ruling allows one company to make illegal, the business activity of another just by sending out a letter irrespective of whether that company's activity is actually illegal
This is how it should be. If I, as a company, decide I don't want to do business with you, either individually or corporately, barring discrimination rules, why shouldn't I have that right?