Facebook: De"face"ing the internet

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

I would just do what everyone else is doing and post the word face as many times as possible but I really don't think this is reinforceable in any meaningful fashion. How would they claim the money? What makes people pay? Why should I, a Brit, pay an American company with an American trademark for an English word?

It's just some nonsense company-based thing, and if it's not then that's what it'll turn into because there is no way this will affect normal people.

 

[BoredRolePlayer]

Oh watching this unfold will be fun, popcorn anyone?

 

[Fraught]

Jesus, I thought better of the Escapist.

They won't patent a fucking noun in the English language.

I mean, God, how gullible can you people be?

 

[Xhu]

As for Placebook, it's obvious it was intended as a similar name. I've just had a look at their site and it's about posting photos and other media about a place. Placebook is such a weird name for that site, it just seems obvious to me that they wanted the -acebook in their name.

I think you might be getting mixed up between the website Empireth linked to [http://www.triptrace.com/], now TripTrace due to the threat of litigation, and Placebook Scotland [http://www.placebookscotland.com/], an entirely separate website that does indeed sound like what you're saying. TripTrace is essentially just organising/listing the details and bookings of places you have been or will be going to. It is nothing like Facebook. Maps, bookings, budgetting and hotel details as opposed to photographs and videos. There appears to be very little of a social aspect to it, if any at all.

 

[Lexodus]

Like when that dick Tim Langdell tried to put a trademark on the word 'edge'?

 

[JamesBr]

snip

All I'm saying is that if you opened a fast food joint and called it Mc_____ you would get sued by McDick's and rightly so, due to brand name association. Although I agree that the criteria they are setting forth are vague and should be more specific (eg: not using the word Face as a prefix in the name of a social networking site), I do not disagree with copyrighting the word Face in the proper context. This doesn't make me self-involved, this just means I don't agree with you 100%. Nor do I agree with the Facebook 100%. They are in perfectly within their rights to avoid brand name association by copyrighting Face, they are wrong in the vagaries of their definition under which the word is copyrighted.

 

[Xhu]

Yeah, that's exactly what happened actually. Oops.

I can appreciate that the other one is less like facebook but it's still similar. It'd be like if I founded Appletree computers. It's similar enough to Apple to cause confusion. The important thing is that they still have to take it through the courts though so if it's a baseless accusation it'll be thrown out. If a company voluntaril changes name then they'll have considered it and realised they're probably in the wrong.

I do understand what you are saying, but note that you have just inadvertently called this system - one that seems to me to be more akin to a cross between Google Maps and a hotel chain website than to Facebook - "similar" to it. That's casting a very wide net. Most websites that allow accounts to be created have some rudimentary form of social networking and media sharing by now, even if it is not their main purpose. Does this constitute a violation of the trademark if their name includes 'face'? I can't help but wonder where the line is drawn, because one or two of the examples given in the thread look like they should be/have been on the other side of it, reasonably speaking. Their only similarities to Facebook are that all are companies with a website as their service and a similar name.

You see, Apple is a bad example. Broadly speaking, they make computer and digital equipment. They create and market several defined lines of products. Any company with a similar name and purpose are in the wrong. Facebook, however, is a social networking website. That is their purpose. The fact that they can successfully threaten websites designed for other things is strange. To use your example, it would be as if you founded a book publishing company called Appletree. Or, I don't know, Sapple. You get the idea.

Going to court is a long and costly process for both parties, and few small groups can last against a giant company like Facebook. Correct or not, it's likely a more pragmatic choice to change the name even with the smallest chance of losing.

 

[Nouw]

Yeah well fuck you Facebook, I'm in NZ! (Yes I have Facebook. What?)

Ahem, they can't really patent an English Noun. Can they?

 

[Vrach]

Erm, I could be wrong here... but these trademarks are just for company/product names afaik? So, say, Apple couldn't go off and develop an application for iPhone called iFace and shit like that. I'm pretty sure Guild Wars has "Guild Wars" trademarked, but that doesn't mean you can't talk about guild wars in other games. EA probably has "Battlefield" and "Bad Company" trademarked, that doesn't mean war generals are thinking of a new way to call a battlefield or you can't post "this party sucks, I'm in such bad company right now" on your Twitter or sth.

That's exactly what it is. As I seem to need to keep restating, the original post was exaggeration of the problem. Why? Because it might not affect you now, but if this goes through, a company will now own a major word in the English language. "Guild Wars", "Bad Company" - those are phrases. Facebook is looking to trademark a word. Sure, "Battlefield" is a word as well, but I somehow doubt it is used nearly as often as "face".

They won't own a word, they'll own a name in the business. MAJOR difference. I know you mean the same thing, but still, fact is, who gives a shit, unless you're building a company and want to name it FaceMelting incorporated, you're not going to affected at all. 99% people will never even come across it as a problem, other 1% are just gonna rethink and name their company/product something different.

No offense, but you're blowing the discussion out of proportion. What you say is an exaggeration on your part is right about equivalent to people talking about murdering babies when "discussing" video game violence. Your phrasing makes it look like something completely ridiculous, which would indeed necessitate a thread and a lot of uprising where it's just a standard business practice with a major product trademarking a somewhat more commonly used word.

And seriously, how often do you even use the word face? Hell, I use the word windows far more. I probably even talk about apples at least just as much.