• theinspectorst@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    11 months 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…

  • Leafeytea@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    11 months ago

    “It appears that Meta was aware of Threads before launching its platform of the same name. Company lawyers made four offers to purchase the domain ‘threads.app’ from Threads Software Ltd from April 2023, all of which were declined. Meta announced Threads in July 2023, the same time that the British company says it was removed from Facebook.”

    Another reason to find Zuck & Company disgusting. Apparently “no” doesn’t mean “no” – will keep this in mind, next time I am downtown and come across any of their team…

      • thepaperpilot@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.

      • M. Orange@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.

    • Overzeetop@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Considering that Threads was not trademarked by Meta before their launch (or, at least, isn’t listed on their Trademarks page ) it is a massive fail on their legal department.

    • Lvxferre@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      11 months ago

      I think that’s neither. The whole thing boils down for me to an adult trying to strike a deal with a kid so the kid gives up their ice cream, the kid saying “no!”, and then the adult still grabbing the ice cream by force.

      In other words I think that Meta run some risk assessment on the move, and decided that it was still profitable.

      • joemo@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        Yeah, I’d actually argue it’s the opposite. Meta knows exactly what it’s doing, it just sucks for the little guy.

        Meta will just drag this out in the courts until the little guy can’t afford to keep going and then they settle.

  • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    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.

      • renard_roux@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        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?