Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bluesky Trademarks ATProto

atproto.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 157 posts

Re: Bluesky Trademarks ATProto

#21

Post by isodev »

1shooner wrote: post #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?

Nothing Bluesky does is really independent. This is such a transparent playbook and yet folks keep falling for a couple of open source repos and whatever hot takes Dan Abramov posts to reframe “instances” to “open social” bs.

Re: Bluesky Trademarks ATProto

#22

Post by zoul »

steveklabnik wrote: post #10
1shooner wrote: post #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?

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.

But it’s true in the general idea of Bluesky being highly centralized and dependent on a single for-profit entity.

Re: Bluesky Trademarks ATProto

#23

Post by ocdtrekkie »

sedatk wrote: post #16
1shooner wrote: post #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?

> So AT is governed by a single for-profit entity A Public Benefit Corporation to be precise. So they are legally obligated to favor public benefit.

OpenAI proved even being a nonprofit can be handled away if the money's good enough. PBCs are much weaker in that regard than nonprofits.

Re: Bluesky Trademarks ATProto

#24

Post by chowells »

kmeisthax wrote: post #14
1shooner wrote: post #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?

"Only viable instance" is not really the correct framing - Bluesky doesn't have instances . Anyone using ATProto without Bluesky will still be "on Bluesky". When you go to bsky.app, you're interacting with the Bluesky AppView ; one key feature of ATProto is that any AppView can interact with any (consenting) Personal Data Server (PDS). So you can self-host your PDS but still use bsky.app if you so choose. But critica…

Bluesky has a data store, handles account authorization, and runs a web app that provides a UI to access the backend services. That's an instance, whether they call it one or not. Refusal to admit this is obfuscation for reasons I cannot understand.

Re: Bluesky Trademarks ATProto

#26

Post by ReptileMan »

sschueller wrote: post #15
pfraze wrote: post #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 mak…

So what about the existing AT protocol modems use?

They use AT command set, not protocol.

Re: Bluesky Trademarks ATProto

#27

Post by nar001 »

steveklabnik wrote: post #10
1shooner wrote: post #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?

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.

How do you mean? As in you can run different instances or as in it's a false open protocol?

Re: Bluesky Trademarks ATProto

#28

Post by herrkanin »

nar001 wrote: post #27
steveklabnik wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How do you mean? As in you can run different instances or as in it's a false open protocol?

ATProto is closer to how RSS works than ActivityPub. In the same way talking about "RSS instances" makes little sense, the same goes for "ATProto instances".

Re: Bluesky Trademarks ATProto

#29

Post by fsflover »

eqvinox wrote: post #25

Cool people use ActivityPub. Single vendor owned & controlled standards always turn out badly, just a question when.

Actually, it is possible to join Bluesky without relying on the single point of failure, as Cory Doctorow highlighted here: https://pluralistic.net/2026/03/05/executive-dysfunction/

Re: Bluesky Trademarks ATProto

#30

Post by notpushkin »

herrkanin wrote: post #28
nar001 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you mean? As in you can run different instances or as in it's a false open protocol?

ATProto is closer to how RSS works than ActivityPub. In the same way talking about "RSS instances" makes little sense, the same goes for "ATProto instances".

It makes sense to talk about “RSS aggregators”. Especially it makes sense to talk about “RSS aggregators that speak a specific vocabulary on top of RSS, host 99% of content using that vocabulary, and if you host your own RSS feed with said vocabulary they’ll show it in their aggregator but can ban it any minute”.

Did I just describe Apple Podcasts? Huh. Regardless, yeah, there’s no “ATProto instances” technically, but there are ATProto apps and the single biggest one now owns the trademark to the protocol name.

Post reply on HN