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

Tower Bridge bot killed by Twitter, replaced with marketing

infovore.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 53 posts

Re: Tower Bridge bot killed by Twitter, replaced with marketing

#41

Post by protomyth »

jasonlotito wrote: post #27

http://support.twitter.com/articles/18311-the-twitter-rules "Trademark: We reserve the right to reclaim user names on behalf of businesses or individuals that hold legal claim or trademark on those user names. Accounts using business names and/or logos to mislead others will be permanently suspended." How they handled it might have sucked, but it was fairly clear what they would end up doing in situations like this.

Except it doesn't look like they actually have a trademark. There actual name is a longer version of the username.

Re: Tower Bridge bot killed by Twitter, replaced with marketing

#42

Post by jeffreymcmanus »

dexen wrote: post #38
jeffreymcmanus wrote: post #35

Totally permissible under intellectual property law. The internet does not invalidate the concept of trademark. Totally stupid from a customer service perspective, the on the part of both Twitter and the Tower Bridge.

Please note the sole purpose of trademarks is consumer protection. Protection from counterfeit goods and services, where `counterfeit' means coming from different source than the one the consumer expects due to branding the goods or services bear. Now ask yourself (or even better, Twitter), `were consumers being deceived, or at risk of being?' `Is account name an instance of use of any brand?' I believe Twitter shoul…

>> Please note the sole purpose of trademarks is consumer protection

Not true at all, although it's easy to understand why someone would wish that this were the case. The sole purpose of trademarks (really trademark law) is to protect the holder of the intellectual property.

Market confusion is a test used to determine whether a trademark infringement has taken place, but it's only one of several possible tests.

Re: Tower Bridge bot killed by Twitter, replaced with marketing

#43

Post by cubicle67 »

jasonlotito wrote: post #27

http://support.twitter.com/articles/18311-the-twitter-rules "Trademark: We reserve the right to reclaim user names on behalf of businesses or individuals that hold legal claim or trademark on those user names. Accounts using business names and/or logos to mislead others will be permanently suspended." How they handled it might have sucked, but it was fairly clear what they would end up doing in situations like this.

except that Twitter has a global namespace, and trademarks are what, national?

Say, as an example, I own Tim's Bike Shop in Australia, and have @timsbikeshop on Twitter. What happens if there's a US Tim's Bike Shop that decides it wants that Twitter id? To me, both have the same 'right' (I use quotes because it's obviously not a right) to the id, but I win because I was in first. Does Twitter assume because the second claimant is legit the first is not?

Re: Tower Bridge bot killed by Twitter, replaced with marketing

#44

Post by leot »

fomojola wrote: post #18

Well, its Twitter. What were you expecting? You ride on their network for free, you can't be surprised when they opt to kick you off it without warning. Yes, the courtesy would be nice, but... Set up a website.

Perhaps what's most galling is that, without users creating good content (users like the original @towerbridge) twitter would be nearly worthless.

"You ride on their network for free" as if users were leeching off of content twitter itself had made, when it's possible to just as easily argue that it's twitter who is leeching off of its users.

Musicians will often credit their "fans" as vital (e.g. [1]). Great music is still great even if only heard by a few people, making the fans impact at best indirect. Yet in the case of social networks, users and their participation are all the network has, period.

[1] http://www.celebuzz.com/2011-03-07/demi-lovato-tells-fans-i-...

Re: Tower Bridge bot killed by Twitter, replaced with marketing

#45

Post by iamdave »

corin_ wrote: post #21
iamdave wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Linking to your twitter profile as a "url" is something I've never understood. I'll see really awesome web sites, want to see what else the person has done and I have to go through the extra clicks of first going to a twitter profile, then to the site. Granted, it's one extra click, but I'm not particularly interested in your timeline of tweets. I want to see your work.

Twitter on business cards is mostly as a form of connection (same as an email address). For many people it's a dumb idea, but in some circles (a good example being tech marketing) it can be useful. If someone who actively uses twitter follows you, and you're an active user too, it's a constant reminder that they know you, and they won't forget who you are.

In the example you gave (and it was a very good one, it makes sense), wouldn't it be more prudent to link to a github profile or something otherwise reduces the layers necessary to obtain access to what makes you relevant to the viewer's interests?

Re: Tower Bridge bot killed by Twitter, replaced with marketing

#47

Post by tim_iles »

iamdave wrote: post #45
corin_ wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter on business cards is mostly as a form of connection (same as an email address). For many people it's a dumb idea, but in some circles (a good example being tech marketing) it can be useful. If someone who actively uses twitter follows you, and you're an active user too, it's a constant reminder that they know you, and they won't forget who you are.

In the example you gave (and it was a very good one, it makes sense), wouldn't it be more prudent to link to a github profile or something otherwise reduces the layers necessary to obtain access to what makes you relevant to the viewer's interests?

A tech marketer with a github profile?

Re: Tower Bridge bot killed by Twitter, replaced with marketing

#49

Post by glenngillen »

m0tive wrote: post #16
thehodge wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just as an addition to this, a friend just pointed out this tweet https://twitter.com/#!/brandcarrie/status/20333195936 About to set up a Tower Bridge Twitter with the IT boys... Any advice?

I don't think we should start blaming the marketing agency for what has happened (even if they did start the process). It is Twitter who should take responsibility for silently transferring ownership of the @towerbridge account and then effectively deleting it.

Though I feel little sympathy for an agency who looks at an already active twitter account, sees it has 4000+ followers, and makes the determination that "Hey, what we should do is take over this account and send marketing crap to all these followers rather than continue to send them what they originally signed up for. I mean, it's just a feed of what time the bridge will open/close, it's unlikely any of these people live near by."

Way to piss off your target market.

Re: Tower Bridge bot killed by Twitter, replaced with marketing

#50

Post by protomyth »

jeffreymcmanus wrote: post #35

Totally permissible under intellectual property law. The internet does not invalidate the concept of trademark. Totally stupid from a customer service perspective, the on the part of both Twitter and the Tower Bridge.

the problem being that "Tower Bridge Exhibitions" is not a trademark owner for "Tower Bridge". It actually seems like they are stomping on other companies trademarks by claiming the base name"Tower Bridge" when they don't have it as a registered trademark in any field of endeavor.
Post reply on HN