Hacker News Reader

Comment by polalavik | Hacker News Reader

Just because there are rules doesn’t mean they make sense in context. This doesn’t serve ARMs best interest nor Azeria. It’s a lose lose.

Maybe it was automatically triggered, but I guess the point is a lot of things in the world are some shade of grey and employing machines to make a binary decision without any review process doesn’t serve anybody’s best interest. Perhaps throwing “drama on Twitter“ is the only way to get a real human in the loop of the automated insanity we’ve trapped ourselves in.

View on HN

I don't think Arm's boss is personally offended by any of this but trademark laws require companies to protect their own trademark, otherwise they might simply lose the rights to own it.

It is explained in the article:

"At the same time, we have a duty to protect the Arm brand, which has been built over more than 30 years. Like all companies with registered trademarks, Arm is legally obligated to ensure those trademarks are protected and used appropriately. We recognize that this activity is sometimes met with frustration and are actively working to find a solution that works for all parties involved."

It's not about 'rules', it is a legal requirement.

This is wrong. Companies only need to “protect” trademarks by going after companies that offer similar products using that trademarked name. Unless a company gets a service mark, trademarks also only apply in certain categories.

This was massive overreach by ARM. And frankly it was really inappropriate of the hosting provider to interfere with the websites.

For a case like this, it's easy: give this site a license (or sell it one for $1), have them put trademark notices, and call it a day.

That's the assertion ARM made.

Yet it seems to me that is is pretty unclear that this is an open and shut case of trademark infringement. This appears to an example of fair-use to me as there is nothing her that would indicate any potential for confusion to the market or harm to the brand.

Part of problem here is that the incentives support over enforcement, there is little to no legal consequence when companies go after fair use and a lack on enforcement does carry risks of eventually losing the trademark.

However, that doesn't justify ARM's actions here. There are plenty of ways that ARM could have approached this that would have protected their trademark without the loss of goodwill from someone they have a valuable relationship with.

Taking this approach is indicative of laziness and indiffence.

Understandable, it's unfortunate

Reply on news.ycombinator.com