51–60 of 93 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On a related note TWiT!=Twitter, just like app!=Apple. Where is the legal case here?
The legal case is that Ev, the CEO of Twitter at the time, confirmed the existence of an oral contract that precludes the two companies from crossing domains. Breach of contract.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure. William stepped down from CEO and is only a board member. Unless I am wrong, since there is no formal contract ever signed, then this implicit, informal contract/agreement may be null after William’s resignation. Consider the following scenarios: 1. Suppose there was a board meeting in which William had voted No on the expansion, since thr majority ruled in favor of the expansion, could plantiff now argue t…
You may be right on these specifics (and I'm sure Twitter's lawyers will spend hundreds of hours searching through all the possible permutations), but on the other hand, as long as someone is acting in the capacity of a corporate officer with duly appointed authority, and makes an agreement in that capacity, then the agreement binds the corporate entities . Whether that officer then informed other members of the comp…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I used to listen to TWiT but signed up for Audible based on their recommendation of the service and I stopped listening to podcasts and listen to audiobooks!
Even though they share the same channel (text, audio, etc.), those are not replaceable things. Or at least that's my opinion.
Just curious, if he loses this, in what range would the monetary costs that he'd have to shoulder lie?
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"
Meanwhile, Leo Laporte has had people asking him for almost a decade if TWiT is related to Twitter. The marketplace gets confused more easily than you believe. And a founder will get inundated with this confusion when it is about a company as well known as Twitter.
I find it quit nonsense. And moreover, why don't they sue twitch then too in the first place?
I upvoted because Twitch is a really interesting case. The Levenshtein distance between the trademarks is closer, and Twitch is pretty much entirely focused on video, which makes it encroaching on TWiT's domain of business.
Leo laporte is not a cool guy.
Care to elaborate? I never got too into his shows, but he never seemed particularly uncool to me.
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
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
>Just got your letter. Don't worry: We're not expanding to audio or video under the Twitter brand. That news story was the result of an over-zealous production company (and extremely sloppy reporting by AP). See our post: http://blog.twitter.com/2009/05/were-not-making-tv-show.html
There's a world of difference between "we are not" vs. "we will not". I am not eating a sandwich right now, but I will most definitely at some point in the future. One would have to be a fool to interpret this as an agreement to never expand into audio/video in all of perpetuity. Furthermore, Twitter's own trademark filing (since 2007) lists "video and audio" as part of the goods and services provided by their brand. Perhaps this argument should have been made in 2007, or when it was published for opposition (which is basically the USPTO's way of saying 'hey, if you are concerned about this trademark infringing your rights... speak up!') in Feb of 2008 (however no such filing was placed according to TTAB's records), not 2018.
[1] https://www.scribd.com/document/369311229/TWiT-vs-Twitter