Hacker News Reader

Comment by waynecochran | Hacker News Reader

Are you this company: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta_(company)?

Owning the name of a common adjective seems dubious to me. It's like naming your company "big."

Seems not, meta.company links to MetaCompany and mentions Nate Skulic as founder, while Meta (company) lists Meron Gribetz as founder.

Strangely enough, Wayback Machine doesn't have any snapshots of the site https://web.archive.org/web/2018*/http://meta.company/, and finding no mentions of "MetaCompany" online, so seems weird.

> Owning the name of a common adjective seems dubious to me. It's like naming your company "big."

Or "Uber"?

I think these are separate companies, but _another_ company in the AR space called Meta seems like a crowded space!

“Face book” is itself a generic term for a literal book of faces that some colleges would print and distribute to incoming freshman classes so they could get to know each other.

And you’re on the site of a company that holds a trademark on “Y combinator,” a math term.

Yes, one can trademark generic words or terms. A trademark must be narrowly defined to cover only your specific markets and uses, and it must be in active use.

I worked on a product called "Media Center" which we applied for a trademark on. The USPTO turned it down claiming it was too generic.

Then 6 months later Microsoft comes out with a new version of Windows, with a Media Center in it.

They used the trademark "Windows Media Center": https://uspto.report/TM/78100817

Those are all nouns -- makes a bit more sense...

It would be very interesting to see Facebook/Meta make that argument in defense of what, I am assuming, is a pending lawsuit.

> Owning the name of a common adjective seems dubious to me.

Yes, but is legal. But IMHO shouldn't be, the less the more relevant (as in large) facebook is.

To some degree Facebook is committing forceful cultural appropriation of a common english word and it's usage in common language and literature (especially SiFi literature).

> Facebook is committing forceful cultural appropriation of a common english word

Seems alarmist. The word "apple" is still doing fine in the context of the firm treeborne fruit.

"cultural appropriation"? Whose culture is being appropriated exactly?

I don't think that is the same company.

  Meta (Wiki):
  - Website: metavision.com
  - Founder: Meron Gribetz
  
  MetaCompany (HN Article):
  - Website: meta.company
  - Founder: Nate Skulic

But a noun like Apple passes your personal trademark requirements?

Are there other companies named Apple who complained about the name in the past?

There's an entire Wikipedia article on just this.

Apple Music. Owned the IP to the Beatles music, IIRC.

Apple Corps and Apple Records. Was founded in the late 60s by the Beatles themselves. They also published solo works and a few other artists.

Yes (if I remember correctly), especially wrt. to the apple logo trademark.

But non are tech companies.

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

Actually, there was a complaint (The Beatles).

but at least for Apple there is little change to for any confusion, at least as long as apple doesn't sell food.

Meta on the other hand is a widely used vague defined word used in many contexts especially tech/SiFi/AR as such there is a lot of potential confusion and potential "cultural appropriation" of existing language using that wording (e.g. in a SiFi novel).

I think both shouldn't be a thing, but the negative effect Facebooks brand can have is much much larger.

As you already mentioned, the word "meta" isn't defined and is entirely conceptual. As such, it can't reasonably be associated with an existing product or service, so it can't and won't be subjected to the same strong trademark requirements.

Not really. How about a definite article e.g. "the"?

That is a different Meta.

https://apps.ilsos.gov/corporatellc/CorporateLlcController

Search Meta and you’ll find the Meta, LLC made by Nate

> It's like naming your company "big."

That's a pretty sweet brand name, to be honest.

I believe this is a different company, the CEO name and URL are different.

They don’t own the name, they own the trademark to do augmented reality business under the name. Since that company has been around since 2013 it does seem they have a case (if that is them.)

Are you talking about the one from the Wiki link? That company foreclosed 2 years ago according to the Wikipedia page.

The company in this link is another one. I have no idea what MetaCompany does.

how ... um .... meta

Reply on news.ycombinator.com