3 ms·

I'd like to point out that in this case Facebook is only pursuing trademark issues. They have not asked the author to take down the script. They asked him to

by teej 17y ago

I'd like to point out that in this case Facebook is only pursuing trademark issues. They have not asked the author to take down the script. They asked him to change his name from "Facebook Purity". He changed it to "FB Purity". Facebook says that's not good enough. I'm inclined to agree.

barrkel 17y ago
And I guess the fact you didn't mention your obvious conflict of interest in this specific case is perfectly cromulent, eh?
nym 17y ago
Ahem, "Fluff Busting Purity"... you could also call it "Fluff BP", but then British Petroleum might get upset too.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
_delirium 17y ago
Do they really even have a trademark case here? It seems there's very little likelihood of confusion between "Facebook Purity", a Greasemonkey script, and "Facebook", a social-networking website. If it were a violation, then the hundreds of Greasemonkey scripts that use the trademarked names "Wikipedia" and "Google" in their titles, to indicate that they somehow change the display of Wikipedia and Google, respectively, must also be running afoul of trademark law.