41–50 of 93 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know there's a show called This Week in Tech, but do people actually call it 'twit'?
They actually do, yes. Source: Listened to many Leo Laporte podcasts over the years, but stopped a couple of years ago, due to the noise/ads to content ratio.
How is this any different from patent trolling? Nobody confuses TWiT for Twitter, or vice versa. I don't think TWiT should be in a position to make money off Twitter's entry into video, just like some random patent troll shouldn't be able to monetize ludicrous patents
It's usually the case that the property owner is some big multinational company (like Disney or something) and the supposed infringer is some small artist. This time, it's reversed: Twitter is the 900-pound gorilla and TWiT is the plucky underdog. But the principle is the same, this is an absurd lawsuit only possible because of the modern legal system's screwed up obsession with intellectual property.
Leo laporte is not a cool guy.
I've been listening to some of his podcasts but narrowed it down to only SN. On his other podcasts I get news that I have already picked up here (days earlier). I remember that the drop that did it for me was some guy on his M$ podcast 'commanding us' to be good slaves and shut up about the M$ excessive and intrusive telemetry because if M$ wants something we should just shut up and comply. Leo also tends to invite p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference is that somewhat haphazardly, Ev created an oral agreement and then confirmed the existence of the agreement in an email stating that Twitter wouldn’t violate it. There’s now a paper trail saying that Twitter wouldn’t do this, and that basically confirms that at minimum a breach of contract has occurred. Patent trolls wait forever to take action on patent use only after a company gains susbstantial pro…
For the contract to be valid, there needs to be "cause" for confusing TWiT with Twitter. Most people would agree that there's no cause here, voiding the "contact"
It doesn't matter what "most people would agree" if the defendant themselves are on record acknowledging the problem.
I've never heard anyone confuse Apple (The computer company who sell music) with Apple (The record company founded by the beatles), yet you'd be a fool to not see the problem in the overlap when Apple were on contract saying they'd only use it in the computer industry and then started venturing into the music industry.
I find it quit nonsense. And moreover, why don't they sue twitch then too in the first place?
does anyone remember the name of the alternate microblogging platform leo laporte was using when this first came up ~ 10 years ago? I remember one episode he just gave in and used twitter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the contract to be valid, there needs to be "cause" for confusing TWiT with Twitter. Most people would agree that there's no cause here, voiding the "contact"
From TFA: "At that time Williams, on behalf of Twitter, acknowledged the confusion which likely would arise from the use of TWITTER in the marketplace, as well as instances of actual confusion which already had arisen." It doesn't matter what "most people would agree" if the defendant themselves are on record acknowledging the problem. I've never heard anyone confuse Apple (The computer company who sell music) with A…
How is this any different from patent trolling? Nobody confuses TWiT for Twitter, or vice versa. I don't think TWiT should be in a position to make money off Twitter's entry into video, just like some random patent troll shouldn't be able to monetize ludicrous patents
Totally agree, this is a case of "intellectual property gone too far". Twitter didn't become big because of riding on the back of the TWiT trademark, and if people have heard of TWiT, no one confuses it with Twitter. It's usually the case that the property owner is some big multinational company (like Disney or something) and the supposed infringer is some small artist. This time, it's reversed: Twitter is the 900-po…