A slap fight over an awful trademark.
WhosHere's response to Brian Hamachek/Who's Near Me
61–70 of 145 posts
Re: WhosHere's response to Brian Hamachek/Who's Near Me
#62apparently according to Brian he has an obscene trust fund, so why didnt he lawyer up. Perhpas the mileage HN could bring + bad press he can bring about to a competitor was more enticing? https://whoshere.zendesk.com/attachments/token/v4qbuvns0xkik...
These emails are so strange. The tone taken by both parties is just so...unbelievable. For example, Brian's opening salvo "Neither of these options are remotely acceptable to me. It is also offensive to me that you would think my time was only worth $100/hr, considering I turn down requests offering 4 times that rate regularly." Seriously, "regularly" turning down offers for work at a rate of over $400/hr? And also,…
> seriously, "regularly" turning down offers for work at a rate of over $400/hr?
Yeah, that line stuck out like a store thumb.
Re: WhosHere's response to Brian Hamachek/Who's Near Me
#63I assume WhosAround, WhosThere, WhosClose, WhosComing and WhosUpMyAss are also trademark infringements?
> WhosUpMyAss are also trademark infringements?
No, actually, that one is free.
Show us what you can do with it! ;-)
Re: WhosHere's response to Brian Hamachek/Who's Near Me
#64You know what seems weird to me? the fact that at first they turned down this (alleged) offer to integrate a windows mobile version of the app into their version and then just a few years later
"Just a few weeks ago, we offered to partner with Mr. Hamachek. We offered to integrate his Windows Mobile work into WhosHere and offered a revenue share deal for $100,000, plus fees, for ongoing development"
something smells wrong.
Re: WhosHere's response to Brian Hamachek/Who's Near Me
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Hey, Steve. It's John at Cisco. We know you don't like the name iPhone OS since you have iPads now, and we really appreciate the prior settlement with you regarding the mark iPhone. "I know you want to use the name iOS, and to ensure that we can defend our mark in court in the future, we need you to license the mark IOS from us for $1." Who wouldn't take that? Do you really think a successful business can be run whi…
I'm not going to argue specifics with you, as I'm not a trademark lawyer. But I bet that if you have a trademark and are worried about a competitor's similar trademark, things can be worked out in a legally sound way without either of the two conditions that WhosHere came up with. You do not have to threaten nuclear war if you just want your neighbor to return the drill he borrowed yesterday.
Unfortunately, I think you're mistaken. Any dilution of a trademark invites further dilution. IANAL either, but you've made some very strong statements here, and I think they're based on a misunderstanding or lack of understanding of how trademarks work.
Re: WhosHere's response to Brian Hamachek/Who's Near Me
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not going to argue specifics with you, as I'm not a trademark lawyer. But I bet that if you have a trademark and are worried about a competitor's similar trademark, things can be worked out in a legally sound way without either of the two conditions that WhosHere came up with. You do not have to threaten nuclear war if you just want your neighbor to return the drill he borrowed yesterday.
Unfortunately, I think you're mistaken. Any dilution of a trademark invites further dilution. IANAL either, but you've made some very strong statements here, and I think they're based on a misunderstanding or lack of understanding of how trademarks work.
I don't agree. It's not dilution if you give permission; the company printing "Kleenex" on kleenex boxes is not diluting the trademark. They have permission to use the trademark in the course of their business relationship.
But just so we're not arguing about the specifics of trademark law: I think you should throw away all your legal rights to a trademark if retaining those rights means you have to be a bad person.
In this case where both names are common English phrases, I think it's especially shady to be so aggressive about enforcement. I doubt either would win against the other, in fact, but I don't think it should come to that either.
Re: WhosHere's response to Brian Hamachek/Who's Near Me
#67Honestly, I find it rather deplorable that they would post this. Regardless of any bad press they have, if they win in the end, the truth would come out.
The first thing most lawyers would say is "keep your mouth shut". Posting this doesn't do anything but make this pissing match all the more public.
I hope they can stay classy.
Re: WhosHere's response to Brian Hamachek/Who's Near Me
#68Seriously... they are not the same. When I think "Who's here?" I think who is in the same place I am. Not just near me. If I am home and someone comes to my house... they are here. If I am home and someone goes to the house across the street... they are near me... but not here. If "Who's Here" and "Who's Near Me" are close enough to cause a problem... someone needs to warn Facebook that their new app Camera is pretty…
Apple doesn't have a trademark on "Camera"
Probably because it is too generic (well... a specific but general use word)... kind of like this situation. The real idiots here are the ones that granted this trademark in the first place. Plus it was a bit of a joke.
Re: WhosHere's response to Brian Hamachek/Who's Near Me
#69I'm siding with WhosHere on this one (although it doesn't matter). Here's why.
First, they asked Brian to change the name from "Who's Near Me" to something else, and he apparently agreed to, but his rebranding was to "WNM (Who's Near Me) Live" which is basically the same thing except that "Who's Near Me" is written smaller and acronym-ized in the brand. But it's still the same name.
Second, a lot of people are talking about how the name is generic. That's exactly the point. When you're using your phone and see "Who's Here", you think, this will tell me who's here. If there's another app that's called "Who's Near Me", you think the same thing. So it's more than just them both having the word 'who'. It's more like if one app were called "Shoelaces" that tied your shoelaces for you, and then another app named itself "Tie Your Shoelaces" and did the same thing. It's, people will look at this app and know that this is what they use to tie their shoelaces, a trademark should prevent another app from being able to do that.
Third, "It is also offensive to me that you would think my time was only worth $100/hr, considering I turn down requests offering 4 times that rate regularly". I'm tired of the fake arrogance in C.S. culture. Brian's 26, I don't think he regularly gets offers for $400 an hour, and even if he did there's no reason to put it in that e-mail.
This is impersonal and based on limited information.
Re: WhosHere's response to Brian Hamachek/Who's Near Me
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's true. But you don't have to send an extremely nasty letter with the two conditions, "give us all your assets and consult for us" or "be sued for $100,000". That's where my anger comes from. They could have said, "We think your name is similar to ours, and to ensure that we can defend our name in court in the future, we need you to license it from us for $1." But instead, they chose to be shit bags. (I could be…
"Hey, Steve. It's John at Cisco. We know you don't like the name iPhone OS since you have iPads now, and we really appreciate the prior settlement with you regarding the mark iPhone. "I know you want to use the name iOS, and to ensure that we can defend our mark in court in the future, we need you to license the mark IOS from us for $1." Who wouldn't take that? Do you really think a successful business can be run whi…
"Hey Steve. It's John at Cisco. We've got a trademark that's just a descriptive combination of two common English words. We've noticed you're using one of those common words in a different three word combination as your trademaek. We demand you give us your domain name, because, ummm, derp…"
Could anyone seriously trust these guys with their social graph data after they've pulled a stunt like this? Like you say "It's business". This behavour seems to be a clear indication of how this "business" will treat _your_ rights when they think their business would be more profitable if they ignore them.