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

Facebook Snatches User’s Vanity URL And Sells It To Harman International

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 54 posts

Re: Facebook Snatches User’s Vanity URL And Sells It To Harman International

#11

Post by jacquesm »

BRadmin wrote: post #9
jacquesm wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks to be pretty circumstantial, but the fact that Harman International contacted 'Harman' to try to persuade him to turn it over 'voluntarily' in return for some beads and mirrors, and that within a very short time after that his vanity url is taken back leaves open only two possibilities: - facebook has indeed sold the name - facebook gives trademark law preference over personal names (they may have been threa…

I'm going with the latter. They offer a guy some free swag, so they must have come up with enough dough to pay-off FB to do the deed for them? I'm not saying it's impossible, but based on just that I don't see how TC can run such a headline... FB's actions being deplorable or not.

> but based on just that I don't see how TC can run such a headline...

You mean techcrunch would use a headline that is not 100% the truth simply to get more viewers?

'Honour' and 'Techcrunch' have not been used in the same sentence other than this one since they posted twitters internal documents, 'because otherwise someone else would have'.

Using a misleading title is small fry on that scale.

Re: Facebook Snatches User’s Vanity URL And Sells It To Harman International

#12

Post by sailormoon »

jacquesm wrote: post #6
BRadmin wrote: post #4

From FB's ToS regarding usernames: If you select a username for your account we reserve the right to remove or reclaim it if we believe appropriate (such as when a trademark owner complains about a username that does not closely relate to a user's actual name). As an aside, where is evidence that shows (or even suggests) that Facebook actually sold the URL for $$?

It looks to be pretty circumstantial, but the fact that Harman International contacted 'Harman' to try to persuade him to turn it over 'voluntarily' in return for some beads and mirrors, and that within a very short time after that his vanity url is taken back leaves open only two possibilities: - facebook has indeed sold the name - facebook gives trademark law preference over personal names (they may have been threa…

- facebook gives trademark law preference over personal names (they may have been threatened to be sued, but then they should have simply stood up for their users).

Sued? For what? Under the Fair Facebook Vanity Names Act? There is no conceivable case Harman would have against FB for URLs on their own site!

FB might have a policy which would give companies priority. I think Twitter has been doing something similar when it reassigns celebrity names; in such cases the personal name of the original user is irrelevant as the decision is based upon what most people would expect from that name/what the company wants. Obviously, both Twitter and FB want to encourage companies and celebrities to endorse their service and offering them the names they want is a great way to get that endorsement.

Re: Facebook Snatches User’s Vanity URL And Sells It To Harman International

#13

Post by jacquesm »

sailormoon wrote: post #12
jacquesm wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks to be pretty circumstantial, but the fact that Harman International contacted 'Harman' to try to persuade him to turn it over 'voluntarily' in return for some beads and mirrors, and that within a very short time after that his vanity url is taken back leaves open only two possibilities: - facebook has indeed sold the name - facebook gives trademark law preference over personal names (they may have been threa…

- facebook gives trademark law preference over personal names (they may have been threatened to be sued, but then they should have simply stood up for their users). Sued? For what? Under the Fair Facebook Vanity Names Act? There is no conceivable case Harman would have against FB for URLs on their own site! FB might have a policy which would give companies priority. I think Twitter has been doing something similar wh…

Trademark law would be enough.

Whether they would win the suit or not does not matter, they can sue.

Whether they have a case or not is for a judge to decide.

Re: Facebook Snatches User’s Vanity URL And Sells It To Harman International

#14

Post by Tichy »

"One case in mind was for the new movie Avatar, we were able to give promotional items to the owner of twitter.com/avtr for Coke Zero"

The nerve of some people. OK, maybe "avtr" is not all that great, but to think that they'll give you some useless plastic crap (or poisonous coke) and then proceed to make their millions. It just shows how the big corps think about the "normal" people - they are just sheep, or "consumers" as they are called these days.

Re: Facebook Snatches User’s Vanity URL And Sells It To Harman International

#15

Post by sailormoon »

jacquesm wrote: post #13
sailormoon wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- facebook gives trademark law preference over personal names (they may have been threatened to be sued, but then they should have simply stood up for their users). Sued? For what? Under the Fair Facebook Vanity Names Act? There is no conceivable case Harman would have against FB for URLs on their own site! FB might have a policy which would give companies priority. I think Twitter has been doing something similar wh…

Trademark law would be enough. Whether they would win the suit or not does not matter, they can sue. Whether they have a case or not is for a judge to decide.

Well, obviously anyone can sue anyone for anything. That doesn't make it anything other than an absolute no-hoper of a case. For a threat to sue to have any effect at all it has to be at least somewhat credible. And if you disagree with that, pay me $1000 or I'll sue you! ;-)

Re: Facebook Snatches User’s Vanity URL And Sells It To Harman International

#17

Post by jacquesm »

sailormoon wrote: post #15
jacquesm wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trademark law would be enough. Whether they would win the suit or not does not matter, they can sue. Whether they have a case or not is for a judge to decide.

Well, obviously anyone can sue anyone for anything. That doesn't make it anything other than an absolute no-hoper of a case. For a threat to sue to have any effect at all it has to be at least somewhat credible. And if you disagree with that, pay me $1000 or I'll sue you! ;-)

> That doesn't make it anything other than an absolute no-hoper of a case

Errm. No, sorry. I wished that was true but it really isn't.

If you are a corporation suing another corporation for trademark infringement on something as silly as what is essentially a path name then you can only lose, even if you win. After all, both parties can expect to pay a solid amount of money to their lawyers, and only in rare exceptions will you be able to recover that.

The monetary loss due to the lawsuit could only be offset by an unknown quantity of PR backlash in case you give in too early.

But lose you will. So by suing, even if the one party 'has no case' there is a fair chance the other one will call it a day and give in.

Simply because it isn't worth $50K to $100K or thereabouts to facebook to stand by this one individual user.

On the one hand I don't blame facebook, on the other I think they are underestimating the $value of that PR backlash.

If facebook is lucky some of the PR flak will be directed at Harman International and they will reconsider their stupid request.

Facebook is between a rock and a hard place on this one. On the one hand a company that has a legitimate (even if it is a stretch) reason to sue, which will cost them money, on the other hand their users who will all feel their vanity urls are going to be given to the highest bidder or the one with the largest legal department.

Neither is good.

Facebook giving in this quickly is definitely a losing proposition to them, they should have said, 'ok, this user may be infringing, but since that is not proven in a court of law you will have to get a ruling, and then we will yank the account but you can not have it'.

By rolling over like this and potentially giving harman international the url they have clearly crossed a bunch of lines.

Re: Facebook Snatches User’s Vanity URL And Sells It To Harman International

#18

Post by andyking »

jacquesm wrote: post #2

Corporation puts bottom line ahead of its users. Color me surprised, really I am totally stunned. The reason the phone company can't use your phone number the minute you cancel your contract is so that there will not be a large number of people dialing that number and getting someone else than the one they expect. Since 'the real Harman' has probably done more than his share to promote this particular URL he's not on…

The reason the phone company can't use your phone number the minute you cancel your contract is so that there will not be a large number of people dialing that number and getting someone else than the one they expect.

Last time I took out a phone contract, I spent the first few months fielding debt collectors, university tutors and various other people looking for the number's last owner.

Re: Facebook Snatches User’s Vanity URL And Sells It To Harman International

#19

Post by jacquesm »

andyking wrote: post #18
jacquesm wrote: post #2

Corporation puts bottom line ahead of its users. Color me surprised, really I am totally stunned. The reason the phone company can't use your phone number the minute you cancel your contract is so that there will not be a large number of people dialing that number and getting someone else than the one they expect. Since 'the real Harman' has probably done more than his share to promote this particular URL he's not on…

The reason the phone company can't use your phone number the minute you cancel your contract is so that there will not be a large number of people dialing that number and getting someone else than the one they expect. Last time I took out a phone contract, I spent the first few months fielding debt collectors, university tutors and various other people looking for the number's last owner.

Popular guy :)

It depends, from country to country and from company to company it changes.

The nastiest bit about that is that you end up fielding 'air time' charges in some countries as well. In others you don't pay for incoming calls at all.

Re: Facebook Snatches User’s Vanity URL And Sells It To Harman International

#20

Post by hga »

jacquesm wrote: post #2

Corporation puts bottom line ahead of its users. Color me surprised, really I am totally stunned. The reason the phone company can't use your phone number the minute you cancel your contract is so that there will not be a large number of people dialing that number and getting someone else than the one they expect. Since 'the real Harman' has probably done more than his share to promote this particular URL he's not on…

Modification suggested: A corporation that many people feel has something of a "do be evil" attitude does all this.

Google's imperfect but still clear bias towards "don't be evil" helps them to avoid poisoning the well; if Facebook maintains its current culture, it might not end up well for them. Victory can be fleeting (e.g. see MySpace).

Post reply on HN