But maybe that was obviously the point to everyone, and my comment is rendered unnecessary.
It seems like a pretty clear-cut public appeal to Instagram/Facebook to actually do something, which is to choose a different name before the product launches..
One has to hope/assume that Bolt has already tried private channels and met with little or no success, which is what forced them to go this public route..
Or are you implying they want to be paid off?
Obviously, I'm not Bolt and can't know what their thought process was. If it were me, though, here's what I'd do:
I'd be angry that they're probably stealing my app's name, enough to write something like this with genuine feeling behind it. I mean, it sucks. But I'd also realize that (1) they're a big company with no prevailing need to listen to me, (2) any attempt on my part to force them to give up the name would result in lengthy, unpleasant legal proceedings I might very well lose, and (3) without some upset customers, they have zero incentive to do anything but throw lawyers at me till I go away.
So I would take my appeal, which I wrote back at the beginning, and instead of sending it through private channels, I'd post it online. This way, I win (or at least suffer less) no matter what happens. My app gets free publicity (and sympathy), users might feel like they need to pressure Facebook/Instagram to not let this happen, and even if neither of those occur, my company looks like a good and reasonable company.
I believe that if they had tried back-channels and failed, they would have said so in the letter (probably not with details, but with some sort of mention). I don't think they want to be "paid off" per se (i. e., settle for a large sum of money), but I think they want to reap some benefit from this circumstance mostly out of their control, and I don't blame them.
GP means with this blog post Bolt is using this opportunity not to appeal to Istangram, but to get free publicity for the company.
> We've been using the Bolt name in the mobile messaging market for a year, and technically we have to "police our mark", otherwise we risk losing it.
> We don't want a legal battle over this, and we think it's not too late for you to consider an alternate name before launch.