Bluesky Trademarks ATProto
atproto.com
Bluesky Trademarks ATProto
1–10 of 157 posts
Re: Bluesky Trademarks ATProto
#2Any word on which entity was trying to trademark it first?
Re: Bluesky Trademarks ATProto
#3>We plan to transfer that ownership to an appropriate, independent protocol governance organization in the future.
I never realized there is no independent governance org that should have registered this. So AT is governed by a single for-profit entity, that also runs the only viable instance?
Re: Bluesky Trademarks ATProto
#4Any word on which entity was trying to trademark it first?
[deleted]
Re: Bluesky Trademarks ATProto
#5Thank god!
Re: Bluesky Trademarks ATProto
#6I can’t imagine being a first time bootstrapped founder running a business without a trademark and not knowing that someone with bad faith would just register a trademark and just sue or order you to change your name.
These are the things that most startups account for when raising capital.
Re: Bluesky Trademarks ATProto
#7> Bluesky recently acquired the rights to the trademark for “ATPROTOCOL” and its variants—including “AT Protocol” and “atproto”—from another company that was threatening to take legal action preventing the company and others from using the term. Now that Bluesky owns it, the atproto community’s continued use of the mark can be protected.
The policy around usage is shared in the rest of the post but the goal is to make this very simple for everyone
Re: Bluesky Trademarks ATProto
#8Who? What?
Re: Bluesky Trademarks ATProto
#9Any word on which entity was trying to trademark it first?
You can see the original application here: https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn97700166&docI...
Atsign, Inc. for this thing probably https://atsign.com/resources/white-papers/the-atprotocol/
Re: Bluesky Trademarks ATProto
#10>We plan to transfer that ownership to an appropriate, independent protocol governance organization in the future. I never realized there is no independent governance org that should have registered this. So AT is governed by a single for-profit entity, that also runs the only viable instance?
There is an IETF Working Group these days https://atproto.com/blog/kicking-off-the-atp-working-group
Those can't register trademarks, of course.
> that also runs the only viable instance?
This is false, both in the framing ("instances") and in the viability of running alternative infrastructure.