Threads Software Limited says its lawyers have informed Meta that it will seek an injunction from the courts if the Facebook parent keeps using the name Threads...
“Meta” had been registered as a trademark in the United States in 2018 (after an initial filing in 2015) for marketing, advertising, and computer services, by a Canadian company that provided big data analysis of scientific literature. This company was acquired in 2017 by the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI), a foundation established by Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan, and became one of their projects. Following the rebranding announcement, CZI announced that it had already decided to deprioritize the earlier Meta project, that it would be transferring its rights to the name to Meta Platforms, and that the project would end in 2022.
So, they bought it through their (non-profit?) foundation and killed it to harvest the name?
Considering that Threads was not trademarked by Meta before their launch (or, at least, isn’t listed on their Trademarks page ) it is a massive fail on their legal department.
I think that’s neither. The whole thing boils down for me to an adult trying to strike a deal with a kid so the kid gives up their ice cream, the kid saying “no!”, and then the adult still grabbing the ice cream by force.
In other words I think that Meta run some risk assessment on the move, and decided that it was still profitable.
How so? The lawyers at Meta are actually good at their job, they are doing what lawyers should do when they have more money than the opposition. Just like the managers are doing what they should do when they want something and can burn cash to get it.
As long as the other company was actually USING the trademark, Meta will probably have to pay up. If the company was doing “Trademark-squatting”, with no real market use, Meta will probably get control of it. That’s all assuming they don’t settle for a few hundred thousand.
Hi @Leafeytea - I’ve removed this comment because a lot of folks are reading it as threatening toward Meta employees. I don’t want to assume that’s your intention, though. If you’d like, shoot me a DM or reply here and I will restore the comment if you would like to edit it to clarify what you meant.
What?? How are you getting that I am threatening people?? I was clearly saying that META people do not seem to take no for an answer even when NO is meant. I said I would keep this in mind the next time I am downtown and come across anyone from their staff. I live in San Francisco and pass by both Twitter and Google for that matter on a daily basis so I see people that work there all the time, at coffee shops in the morning, at lunch etc. As in TO AVOID THEM. Good grief.
Uh, I don’t want to know exactly what you are implying but those people are still people. It’s really not okay to threaten groups like that. These are folks making a living where they can. How does that make it okay to imply that you are going to attack them?
Oh, interesting. I also initially read it as a thinly-veiled threat but I think you’re right it was more of a “will i be assaulted”. Still a weird thing to say.
The bit about “no” not meaning “no” means they’re specifically implying meta employees can be sexually assaulted even if they say no. I’m sure it’s said in jest, but it’s still a fairly offensive comment.
That is NOT what I said and NOT what I meant. The Mod removed this comment due to everyone saying I was somehow threatening everyone. They did not publish my response to the message they sent me, so this needs to be cleared up.
What I am saying is that clearly these people do not take NO for an answer, even when it’s clear NO means NO. They ignored it and did what they wanted anyway. I said I would keep this behaviour in mind whenever I am downtown because I live in SF and go by their headquarters literally every day and have already see a lot of their people, and in fact some awful behaviour from some that work there. Interacting with them is something a **WANT TO AVOID. ** I was not implying in ANY WAY that I intended to harm or threaten them.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
How well do you think this is going to go over with their lawyers? I remember what happened to that other company called Meta…
What happened?
From Wikipedia:
So, they bought it through their (non-profit?) foundation and killed it to harvest the name?
That sounds like a great outcome for the original company
These lawyers at Meta suck, or management sucks at Meta. Meta sucks?
Considering that Threads was not trademarked by Meta before their launch (or, at least, isn’t listed on their Trademarks page ) it is a massive fail on their legal department.
I think that’s neither. The whole thing boils down for me to an adult trying to strike a deal with a kid so the kid gives up their ice cream, the kid saying “no!”, and then the adult still grabbing the ice cream by force.
In other words I think that Meta run some risk assessment on the move, and decided that it was still profitable.
Yeah, I’d actually argue it’s the opposite. Meta knows exactly what it’s doing, it just sucks for the little guy.
Meta will just drag this out in the courts until the little guy can’t afford to keep going and then they settle.
Except that’s not opposite that’s the same
How so? The lawyers at Meta are actually good at their job, they are doing what lawyers should do when they have more money than the opposition. Just like the managers are doing what they should do when they want something and can burn cash to get it.
Time to bust out the checkbook, Zuck.
As long as the other company was actually USING the trademark, Meta will probably have to pay up. If the company was doing “Trademark-squatting”, with no real market use, Meta will probably get control of it. That’s all assuming they don’t settle for a few hundred thousand.
https://threads.cloud/ is linked directly from https://www.jpy.com/products so it seems safe to bet they’re using it.
I mean, they’re obviously not going to, so I guess Zuckerberg better go dust off what I can only assume is his comically large chequebook…
removed by mod
Hi @Leafeytea - I’ve removed this comment because a lot of folks are reading it as threatening toward Meta employees. I don’t want to assume that’s your intention, though. If you’d like, shoot me a DM or reply here and I will restore the comment if you would like to edit it to clarify what you meant.
What?? How are you getting that I am threatening people?? I was clearly saying that META people do not seem to take no for an answer even when NO is meant. I said I would keep this in mind the next time I am downtown and come across anyone from their staff. I live in San Francisco and pass by both Twitter and Google for that matter on a daily basis so I see people that work there all the time, at coffee shops in the morning, at lunch etc. As in TO AVOID THEM. Good grief.
Uh, I don’t want to know exactly what you are implying but those people are still people. It’s really not okay to threaten groups like that. These are folks making a living where they can. How does that make it okay to imply that you are going to attack them?
It reads to me like they’re saying that they feel like they might be attacked by Meta employees.
That said, it’s uh… quite a choice to have made to say that.
Oh, interesting. I also initially read it as a thinly-veiled threat but I think you’re right it was more of a “will i be assaulted”. Still a weird thing to say.
The bit about “no” not meaning “no” means they’re specifically implying meta employees can be sexually assaulted even if they say no. I’m sure it’s said in jest, but it’s still a fairly offensive comment.
That is NOT what I said and NOT what I meant. The Mod removed this comment due to everyone saying I was somehow threatening everyone. They did not publish my response to the message they sent me, so this needs to be cleared up.
What I am saying is that clearly these people do not take NO for an answer, even when it’s clear NO means NO. They ignored it and did what they wanted anyway. I said I would keep this behaviour in mind whenever I am downtown because I live in SF and go by their headquarters literally every day and have already see a lot of their people, and in fact some awful behaviour from some that work there. Interacting with them is something a **WANT TO AVOID. ** I was not implying in ANY WAY that I intended to harm or threaten them.