Technology

38722 readers

9 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

185

Meta given 30 days to cease using the name Threads by company that trademarked it 11 years ago (www.techspot.com)

submitted 2 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

15 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 16 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[+] [email protected] 54 points 2 years ago (2 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] [email protected] 28 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Uh, I don't want to know exactly what you are implying but those people are still people. It's really not okay to threaten groups like that. These are folks making a living where they can. How does that make it okay to imply that you are going to attack them?

[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The bit about "no" not meaning "no" means they're specifically implying meta employees can be sexually assaulted even if they say no. I'm sure it's said in jest, but it's still a fairly offensive comment.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

That is NOT what I said and NOT what I meant. The Mod removed this comment due to everyone saying I was somehow threatening everyone. They did not publish my response to the message they sent me, so this needs to be cleared up.

What I am saying is that clearly these people do not take NO for an answer, even when it's clear NO means NO. They ignored it and did what they wanted anyway. I said I would keep this behaviour in mind whenever I am downtown because I live in SF and go by their headquarters literally every day and have already see a lot of their people, and in fact some awful behaviour from some that work there. Interacting with them is something a **WANT TO AVOID. ** I was not implying in ANY WAY that I intended to harm or threaten them.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It reads to me like they're saying that they feel like they might be attacked by Meta employees.

That said, it's uh... quite a choice to have made to say that.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago

Oh, interesting. I also initially read it as a thinly-veiled threat but I think you're right it was more of a "will i be assaulted". Still a weird thing to say.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Hi @Leafeytea - I've removed this comment because a lot of folks are reading it as threatening toward Meta employees. I don't want to assume that's your intention, though. If you'd like, shoot me a DM or reply here and I will restore the comment if you would like to edit it to clarify what you meant.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago

What?? How are you getting that I am threatening people?? I was clearly saying that META people do not seem to take no for an answer even when NO is meant. I said I would keep this in mind the next time I am downtown and come across anyone from their staff. I live in San Francisco and pass by both Twitter and Google for that matter on a daily basis so I see people that work there all the time, at coffee shops in the morning, at lunch etc. As in TO AVOID THEM. Good grief.

[–] [email protected] 45 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

How well do you think this is going to go over with their lawyers? I remember what happened to that other company called Meta...

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

What happened?

[–] [email protected] 22 points 2 years ago (1 children)

From Wikipedia:

"Meta" had been registered as a trademark in the United States in 2018 (after an initial filing in 2015) for marketing, advertising, and computer services, by a Canadian company that provided big data analysis of scientific literature. This company was acquired in 2017 by the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI), a foundation established by Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan, and became one of their projects. Following the rebranding announcement, CZI announced that it had already decided to deprioritize the earlier Meta project, that it would be transferring its rights to the name to Meta Platforms, and that the project would end in 2022.

So, they bought it through their (non-profit?) foundation and killed it to harvest the name?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 years ago

That sounds like a great outcome for the original company

[–] [email protected] 31 points 2 years ago

I mean, they're obviously not going to, so I guess Zuckerberg better go dust off what I can only assume is his comically large chequebook...

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

As long as the other company was actually USING the trademark, Meta will probably have to pay up. If the company was doing "Trademark-squatting", with no real market use, Meta will probably get control of it. That's all assuming they don't settle for a few hundred thousand.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 years ago

https://threads.cloud/ is linked directly from https://www.jpy.com/products so it seems safe to bet they're using it.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago

Time to bust out the checkbook, Zuck.