3 ms·

From FB's ToS regarding usernames: If you select a username for your account we reserve the right to remove or reclaim it if we believe appropriate (such as wh

by BRadmin 17y ago

From FB's ToS regarding usernames: If you select a username for your account we reserve the right to remove or reclaim it if we believe appropriate (such as when a trademark owner complains about a username that does not closely relate to a user's actual name). As an aside, where is evidence that shows (or even suggests) that Facebook actually sold the URL for $$?

ComputerGuru 17y ago
Read the article: it's his name. He's not squatting on their trademark!
- BRadmin 17y ago
  Where did I say he was? I just quoted the ToS and tangentially remarked that, despite the articles title, I couldn't find any evidence that Harman International actually paid Facebook. I edited to avoid ambiguity.
jacquesm 17y ago
It looks to be pretty circumstantial, but the fact that Harman International contacted 'Harman' to try to persuade him to turn it over 'voluntarily' in return for some beads and mirrors, and that within a very short time after that his vanity url is taken back leaves open only two possibilities: - facebook has indeed sold the name - facebook gives trademark law preference over personal names (they may have been threatened to be sued, but then they should have simply stood up for their users). Facebook uses 'impersonation' in their terms of service there is no reasonable case that could be made the 'Harman' is trying to impersonate 'Harman International', it is simply his name. Facebook is first and foremost a site for PEOPLE, not companies so the rights of users should always go before the rights of incorporated entities.
- BRadmin 17y ago
  I'm going with the latter. They offer a guy some free swag, so they must have come up with enough dough to pay-off FB to do the deed for them? I'm not saying it's impossible, but based on just that I don't see how TC can run such a headline... FB's actions being deplorable or not.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    > but based on just that I don't see how TC can run such a headline... You mean techcrunch would use a headline that is not 100% the truth simply to get more viewers? 'Honour' and 'Techcrunch' have not been used in the same sentence other than this one since they posted twitters internal documents, 'because otherwise someone else would have'. Using a misleading title is small fry on that scale.
- sailormoon 17y ago
  - facebook gives trademark law preference over personal names (they may have been threatened to be sued, but then they should have simply stood up for their users). Sued? For what? Under the Fair Facebook Vanity Names Act? There is no conceivable case Harman would have against FB for URLs on their own site! FB might have a policy which would give companies priority. I think Twitter has been doing something similar when it reassigns celebrity names; in such cases the personal name of the original user is irrelevant as the decision is based upon what most people would expect from that name/what the company wants. Obviously, both Twitter and FB want to encourage companies and celebrities to endorse their service and offering them the names they want is a great way to get that endorsement.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    Trademark law would be enough. Whether they would win the suit or not does not matter, they can sue. Whether they have a case or not is for a judge to decide.
    - sailormoon 17y ago
      Well, obviously anyone can sue anyone for anything. That doesn't make it anything other than an absolute no-hoper of a case. For a threat to sue to have any effect at all it has to be at least somewhat credible. And if you disagree with that, pay me $1000 or I'll sue you! ;-)
      - jacquesm 17y ago
        > That doesn't make it anything other than an absolute no-hoper of a case Errm. No, sorry. I wished that was true but it really isn't. If you are a corporation suing another corporation for trademark infringement on something as silly as what is essentially a path name then you can only lose, even if you win. After all, both parties can expect to pay a solid amount of money to their lawyers, and only in rare exceptions will you be able to recover that. The monetary loss due to the lawsuit could only be offset by an unknown quantity of PR backlash in case you give in too early. But lose you will. So by suing, even if the one party 'has no case' there is a fair chance the other one will call it a day and give in. Simply because it isn't worth $50K to $100K or thereabouts to facebook to stand by this one individual user. On the one hand I don't blame facebook, on the other I think they are underestimating the $value of that PR backlash. If facebook is lucky some of the PR flak will be directed at Harman International and they will reconsider their stupid request. Facebook is between a rock and a hard place on this one. On the one hand a company that has a legitimate (even if it is a stretch) reason to sue, which will cost them money, on the other hand their users who will all feel their vanity urls are going to be given to the highest bidder or the one with the largest legal department. Neither is good. Facebook giving in this quickly is definitely a losing proposition to them, they should have said, 'ok, this user may be infringing, but since that is not proven in a court of law you will have to get a ruling, and then we will yank the account but you can not have it'. By rolling over like this and potentially giving harman international the url they have clearly crossed a bunch of lines.
sailormoon 17y ago
where is evidence that shows (or even suggests) that Facebook actually sold the URL for $$? Any hard evidence will be on private email servers and we may never see it. But the fact of the confiscation and reallocation is obvious; it is its own evidence. Whether or not money actually changed hands or whether it was part of some quid pro quo arrangement or whatever is kind of besides the point. Obviously FB is getting something out of the deal, or it wouldn't have done it. Either way the user is getting screwed.

by BRadmin 17y ago

ComputerGuru 17y ago

Read the article: it's his name. He's not squatting on their trademark!

BRadmin 17y ago
Where did I say he was? I just quoted the ToS and tangentially remarked that, despite the articles title, I couldn't find any evidence that Harman International actually paid Facebook. I edited to avoid ambiguity.

jacquesm 17y ago

It looks to be pretty circumstantial, but the fact that Harman International contacted 'Harman' to try to persuade him to turn it over 'voluntarily' in return for some beads and mirrors, and that within a very short time after that his vanity url is taken back leaves open only two possibilities: - facebook has indeed sold the name - facebook gives trademark law preference over personal names (they may have been threatened to be sued, but then they should have simply stood up for their users). Facebook uses 'impersonation' in their terms of service there is no reasonable case that could be made the 'Harman' is trying to impersonate 'Harman International', it is simply his name. Facebook is first and foremost a site for PEOPLE, not companies so the rights of users should always go before the rights of incorporated entities.

BRadmin 17y ago
I'm going with the latter. They offer a guy some free swag, so they must have come up with enough dough to pay-off FB to do the deed for them? I'm not saying it's impossible, but based on just that I don't see how TC can run such a headline... FB's actions being deplorable or not.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  > but based on just that I don't see how TC can run such a headline... You mean techcrunch would use a headline that is not 100% the truth simply to get more viewers? 'Honour' and 'Techcrunch' have not been used in the same sentence other than this one since they posted twitters internal documents, 'because otherwise someone else would have'. Using a misleading title is small fry on that scale.
sailormoon 17y ago
- facebook gives trademark law preference over personal names (they may have been threatened to be sued, but then they should have simply stood up for their users). Sued? For what? Under the Fair Facebook Vanity Names Act? There is no conceivable case Harman would have against FB for URLs on their own site! FB might have a policy which would give companies priority. I think Twitter has been doing something similar when it reassigns celebrity names; in such cases the personal name of the original user is irrelevant as the decision is based upon what most people would expect from that name/what the company wants. Obviously, both Twitter and FB want to encourage companies and celebrities to endorse their service and offering them the names they want is a great way to get that endorsement.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  Trademark law would be enough. Whether they would win the suit or not does not matter, they can sue. Whether they have a case or not is for a judge to decide.
  - sailormoon 17y ago
    Well, obviously anyone can sue anyone for anything. That doesn't make it anything other than an absolute no-hoper of a case. For a threat to sue to have any effect at all it has to be at least somewhat credible. And if you disagree with that, pay me $1000 or I'll sue you! ;-)
    - jacquesm 17y ago
      > That doesn't make it anything other than an absolute no-hoper of a case Errm. No, sorry. I wished that was true but it really isn't. If you are a corporation suing another corporation for trademark infringement on something as silly as what is essentially a path name then you can only lose, even if you win. After all, both parties can expect to pay a solid amount of money to their lawyers, and only in rare exceptions will you be able to recover that. The monetary loss due to the lawsuit could only be offset by an unknown quantity of PR backlash in case you give in too early. But lose you will. So by suing, even if the one party 'has no case' there is a fair chance the other one will call it a day and give in. Simply because it isn't worth $50K to $100K or thereabouts to facebook to stand by this one individual user. On the one hand I don't blame facebook, on the other I think they are underestimating the $value of that PR backlash. If facebook is lucky some of the PR flak will be directed at Harman International and they will reconsider their stupid request. Facebook is between a rock and a hard place on this one. On the one hand a company that has a legitimate (even if it is a stretch) reason to sue, which will cost them money, on the other hand their users who will all feel their vanity urls are going to be given to the highest bidder or the one with the largest legal department. Neither is good. Facebook giving in this quickly is definitely a losing proposition to them, they should have said, 'ok, this user may be infringing, but since that is not proven in a court of law you will have to get a ruling, and then we will yank the account but you can not have it'. By rolling over like this and potentially giving harman international the url they have clearly crossed a bunch of lines.

sailormoon 17y ago

where is evidence that shows (or even suggests) that Facebook actually sold the URL for $$? Any hard evidence will be on private email servers and we may never see it. But the fact of the confiscation and reallocation is obvious; it is its own evidence. Whether or not money actually changed hands or whether it was part of some quid pro quo arrangement or whatever is kind of besides the point. Obviously FB is getting something out of the deal, or it wouldn't have done it. Either way the user is getting screwed.