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

91–100 of 157 posts

Re: Bluesky Trademarks ATProto

#91

Post by shafyy »

rudyfraser wrote: post #87

Chiming in to say as the CEO of Blacksky that not only do we have an independent AT Protocol implementation in Rust ( https://github.com/blacksky-algorithms/rsky ) Not only do we run a fully independent stack ( https://docs.blacksky.community/readme/list-of-our-services ) Not only are we getting paid by other orgs to stand up independent app view servers. We also received a license from Bluesky for the atproto tradem…

> We also received a license from Bluesky for the atproto trademark.

For now

Re: Bluesky Trademarks ATProto

#92

Post by danabramov »

demosthanos wrote: post #89
danabramov wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't mean it as a linguistic gotcha ("ha, you said instances! but we call them something else"). I'm saying this is a category error because the network topology is different. This is like saying that web is not free because people aren't running Google-scale indexes in their garages. Tried to clarify this here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48932956

I don't think the Google comparison is doing you any favors in resolving the concern behind the category error, though. What I'm hearing is that AT is like the web if Google had started the web themselves and designed it around their index as the primary means of accessing anything on the web. Sure, they still have Don't Be Evil as their motto at this stage, and in the 90s maybe we would have been naive enough to bel…

>designed it around their index as the primary means of accessing anything on the web

That doesn't actually translate from the analogy though.

You don't use Bluesky to access other apps' data on atproto, you use those apps. You go to https://tangled.org/ for Tangled (atproto github), you go to https://leaflet.pub/ for Leaflet (one of atproto blogging platforms), and so on. Bluesky is not a "one stop shop" for all atproto stuff, it's just one of atproto apps, and anyone can make their own app.

The apps themselves have to compete on their own merit, completely unrelated to the protocol stuff. The protocol just makes them all interoperable and changes market dynamics (e.g. someone can resurrect a dead app by creating a new projection of existing data). If your criticism is that there aren't many apps on atproto yet — fair, but you can make those! People are making those. This is something you can actively contribute to, there's no permission you need to ask.

The "Bluesky index" is the index of Bluesky posts, so naturally you access that primarily through the Bluesky app. (Although even that isn't set in stone — see Blacksky who run their own stack for everything, but also show Bluesky posts.) And then, if you make your own app with your own data types, it would not be related to Bluesky in any way.

>But in the 2020s, after watching what Google did to the web without being able to control the protocol from the beginning, a comparison of Bluesky to Google doesn't really assuage the concern people have about centralization.

Sure, and is your argument that it's better if the web had never happened? Atproto is going to IETF so it will become a "proper" internet standard. The way you shift the balance of power is by building your own stuff on it.

Re: Bluesky Trademarks ATProto

#93

Post by yomismoaqui »

shafyy wrote: post #91
rudyfraser wrote: post #87

Chiming in to say as the CEO of Blacksky that not only do we have an independent AT Protocol implementation in Rust ( https://github.com/blacksky-algorithms/rsky ) Not only do we run a fully independent stack ( https://docs.blacksky.community/readme/list-of-our-services ) Not only are we getting paid by other orgs to stand up independent app view servers. We also received a license from Bluesky for the atproto tradem…

> We also received a license from Bluesky for the atproto trademark. For now

"I'm altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."

Darth Vader, VP of Contract Renegotiation

Re: Bluesky Trademarks ATProto

#94

Post by wwalexander »

natebc wrote: post #73
danabramov wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you going to write it below my every comment? I've already replied to this here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48933050 . Also, I don't think either claim in my reply is dependent on who wrote it. You can trivially verify them yourself.

Never underestimate the siren song of scene drama.

What scene?

Re: Bluesky Trademarks ATProto

#95

Post by paride5745 »

d1sxeyes wrote: post #90
paride5745 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Bluesky does not solve these points: - content not in line with the political left is censored - sure, you have your data in your PDS, but it is de-facto useless if the central identity server of Bluesky goes down - ActivityPub and Nostr solve this already without being owned by a company - you cannot easily and cheaply have an ATProto instance. AP and Nostr solve this already

> - content not in line with the political left is censored What do you mean? Individual apps can choose to censor I guess, but you can fairly trivially run an AppView with no filtering whatsoever if that's what you fancy. > - sure, you have your data in your PDS, but it is de-facto useless if the central identity server of Bluesky goes down That's not correct. You can use plc, which Bluesky operates the largest dire…

Sure you can host your PDS, but if you want to deploy your own instance like you would do with Mastodon, you need to deploy a Relay and an AppView as well. And the way the network works, you need beefy servers for that.

On ActivityPub and Nostr you develop all kind of applications already, it is not only Twitter clones, but also Instagram clones, Reddit clones, on Nostr there is even the resurrected Vine (https://about.divine.video/).

And it is not trivial to switch from the Bluesky did:plc (which you cannot run in write-mode on your own and need to use the official Bluesky owned) to did:web, which you can run on your own.

Re: Bluesky Trademarks ATProto

#96

Post by kube-system »

account42 wrote: post #59
ReptileMan wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They use AT command set, not protocol.

... which is a protocol, thus pre-existing colloquial use of "AT protocol" that makes this trademark questionable.

The mere "pre-existing use" of a word or phrase does not disqualify a trademark.

Maybe you're thinking of prior art in a trademark? Or trademark genericization? But neither would apply here.

Re: Bluesky Trademarks ATProto

#97

Post by kube-system »

mort96 wrote: post #45
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.

Why can't the IETF register trademarks?

Well, clearly they can:

https://static.ietf.org/logos/ietf.svg

Re: Bluesky Trademarks ATProto

#98

Post by kube-system »

arjie wrote: post #17
wmf wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The community probably would have complained if they registered the trademark preemptively. But if they let the bad guys register it and then save the day it's the least bad solution.

The timeline just seems like two different brands wanted the name. atSign was using atProtocol as their thing. And trademarks are defend-or-lose. That AT Proto would grow so much more than atSign is just a thing we know now. They were both contemporaneous and it doesn't seem to have been some kind of gazumping operation so much as two groups landing on a name.

Yeah, the much more common scenario with startups is exactly what happened here:

1. you choose a name for your product, start using it

2. you try registering it as your business starts to materialize

3. "oh shit we weren't the only ones who picked that name"

Re: Bluesky Trademarks ATProto

#99

Post by demosthanos »

danabramov wrote: post #92
demosthanos wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the Google comparison is doing you any favors in resolving the concern behind the category error, though. What I'm hearing is that AT is like the web if Google had started the web themselves and designed it around their index as the primary means of accessing anything on the web. Sure, they still have Don't Be Evil as their motto at this stage, and in the 90s maybe we would have been naive enough to bel…

>designed it around their index as the primary means of accessing anything on the web That doesn't actually translate from the analogy though. You don't use Bluesky to access other apps' data on atproto, you use those apps . You go to https://tangled.org/ for Tangled (atproto github), you go to https://leaflet.pub/ for Leaflet (one of atproto blogging platforms), and so on. Bluesky is not a "one stop shop" for all at…

It's great that you can make your own independent apps on atproto, and you're right that I overstated the "anything on the protocol" in the analogy. Analogies are always lossy, but that was worse than necessary.

But notice that what you're now arguing is not that Bluesky is equally decentralized to Mastodon as a social network, you are arguing that while Bluesky the app may be in practice highly centralized that doesn't mean other apps can't exist:

> The "Bluesky index" is the index of Bluesky posts, so naturally you access that primarily through the Bluesky app.

It probably is entirely true that different apps can spin up on atproto independently, but that was never the actual point of concern. This, what you say right here, is the actual concern. This specific app (or any atproto app) appears to have significant lock-in—to the point where you identify it as "natural" that it would be so—while selling itself on decentralization.

Blacksky is an interesting case, and I'm wondering why you didn't roll it out at the beginning and why you still hedge it as "natural" that you'd access the Bluesky app data through Bluesky? I'm actually unfamiliar with the territory here, but coming from my knowledge of the fediverse that seems an odd pairing. If a fully independent implementation exists, why is it natural that you'd use the central one?

Re: Bluesky Trademarks ATProto

#100

Post by steveklabnik »

mort96 wrote: post #45
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.

Why can't the IETF register trademarks?

Does the IETF register trademarks on behalf of their working groups? It’s possible that I’m just misinformed about that.

I left this comment shortly before bed and my thought process was “a working group isn’t a legal entity and therefore can’t do this” but it’s entirely possible that that was shortsighted of me.

(Obviously the IETF itself can.)

Post reply on HN