Hacker News Reader

Comment by mankash666 | Hacker News Reader

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

View on HN

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 profits. On the other hand, a good example of patent enforcement would be initiating legal action at the first sign of infringement — before profits are made.

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 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 would say the great majority of people would think Apple Records is part of Apple music.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer

> 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.

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-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.

Part of keeping a trademark valid is the owner's work to enforce it. If Laporte does nothing, he risks having his trademark slowly overrun.

I am not so sure. I have see Leo claim that people have asked if twit was related to twitter and searching for twit on twitter shows people referring to twitter as "twit." https://twitter.com/search?q=twit&src=typd

> Nobody confuses TWiT for Twitter, or vice versa.

It's been a nightmare trying to play TWiT on my Google Home Mini. I tried asking it "Play TWiT Live on iHeartRadio", and it replied "I looked for Twitter Live on iHeartRadio, but it either isn't available or can't be played right now". I get a similar response to "Play TWiT Live on TuneIn", though it usually turns that one into "Tweet Live".

There is no patent involved. This is why TWIT doesn't make the same claim towards/against Netflix.

Feels like shake-down-waiting-to-happen more than cease-and-desist case.

A trademark is more precarious than a patent. If you don't defend the trademark in a timely manner, the infringer can make a laches defense. Unchecked infringement - however minor - can also cumulatively damage the distinctiveness of the trademark, making it more difficult to defend against future infringement.

The "Trademarks must be defended" and the "yell fire" concepts are the 2 most over stated and misunderstood legal topics on the planet.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not...

>>Quite simply, the view that a trademark holder must trawl the internet and respond to every unauthorized use (or even every infringing use) is a myth. It’s great for lawyers, but irritating and expensive for everyone else. And when done clumsily or maliciously, it chills free expression.

>>Nobody confuses TWiT for Twitter, or vice versa

I would not be so sure on that, atleast not when it comes to legal confusion. After all no one Confused Apple the computer corporation, with a Grocery Store that used a Apple as a logo, yet Apple the Computer Corporation used market confusion to squash their logo....

I must admit, i am more likely to confuse them with Twitch than Twitter. Never mind that i had actually forgotten who they were at first.

About time i made a new company!

I think i'll call it Twicflix.

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.

Wouldn't there have to be some kind of consideration for it to be a valid contract?

Not getting sued counts as a consideration. Remember TWiT is a much older company.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com