4 ms·

I do agree that any service might honor the takedown request for the registered trademark infringement. But what the author refers to is completely another iss

by dordoka 10y ago

I do agree that any service might honor the takedown request for the registered trademark infringement. But what the author refers to is completely another issue: the complete lack of support from Google. The extension author complied with the request. Tried to contact several times an only got canned responses. I guess Google doesn't care much about people that develop for their platform. At least that's what I got from the blog post. Therefore, author's conclusion about developing for that platform seens right.

FussyZeus 10y ago
Additionally, how the hell is this trademark infringement? We've been using the "Software Name for X" formula for decades to refer to programs that operate in conjunction with other systems. In this case this extension only works with Facebook, therefore the Facebook name is more or less required to describe the function of the product with any accuracy. It's not like he's written a third party app for Facebook or we made his own social network called Facebook, he's done nothing to damage the value of the trademark. I'm generally a pro IP guy but this seems extremely draconian.
- dordoka 10y ago
  I was just reproducing the term trademark infringement from the article. I also do agree that FB here is somehow taking advantage of said laws to send to /dev/null the extension that renders one of their revenue streams ineffective. I'm no expert in US trademark laws by any means, maybe they're entitled to leverage it for these kind of cases.
eganist 10y ago
> I guess Google doesn't care much about people that develop for their platform. This seems to happen to every company reaching a certain size and in need of some belt tightening (either pressured via investors or internally realized). Microsoft, for instance, has consistently flushed new frameworks away over the last decade, driving tons of Microsoft-centric developers away from the idea of building on any novel platforms and frameworks they put out. Google seems to be going down the same route by torpedoing APIs, torpedoing entire services, killing Chrome apps next year, hampering support requests, etc. If there's good harmony between the broader dev community and a given platform, it stays. There's no point in supporting a framework that doesn't catch on fast enough (why invest the time?) and also no point in supporting outliers who have a hard time implementing a service unless -- as the author hopes -- it becomes a press headache for them. ...since I upvoted the link, I suppose I'm on the author's side here.
blihp 10y ago
The problem is that the author used the wrong example to make that point. This issue was entirely on the developer and at this point in the web/mobile/app game I have to believe he really didn't want to understand what the issue was and was just trying to get some attention with that post. Let's pretend Google actually had great developer support (remember: we're pretending here) which was staffed to whatever degree it 'should' be. He still would have likely gotten nothing but automated/canned replies because this particular 'issue' has been brought up time and time again by inexperienced and/or bozo developers (i.e. 'whhaaa... you mean I can't make a living off of someone else's brand?'. No company is going to spend much/any time fielding these types of support requests, even if it's paid support) It would have been a stronger argument if he had an issue that a real person on the other end would have been able to help him with.
- dordoka 10y ago
  Don't get me wrong but, would a "do not use FB or Facebook in your extension name" reply be such difficult to respond? In my understanding, support is there to help users (developers in this case). I agree that the developer should have guessed that by himself, but the real issue here I believe is the lack of any useful response, the automatic takedown of the extension and no way to get any response after "expending" the apparent "two tries" that you get from Google when something like this happens.
- ar0 10y ago
  Your point would be valid if the author hadn't pointed out that the same issue was resolved properly by Apple within three days (by renaming to "Cleaner - for Facebook"). My understanding is that Apple is bound by the same laws as Google when it comes to trademarks and IP. So you do not have to pretend here: If Google had developer support that would be as good as Apple's (which I believe is a very low bar considering all the anger Apple is getting about how they treat developers), the extension would still be in the Chrome App Store and doing just fine.

by dordoka 10y ago

FussyZeus 10y ago

Additionally, how the hell is this trademark infringement? We've been using the "Software Name for X" formula for decades to refer to programs that operate in conjunction with other systems. In this case this extension only works with Facebook, therefore the Facebook name is more or less required to describe the function of the product with any accuracy. It's not like he's written a third party app for Facebook or we made his own social network called Facebook, he's done nothing to damage the value of the trademark. I'm generally a pro IP guy but this seems extremely draconian.

dordoka 10y ago
I was just reproducing the term trademark infringement from the article. I also do agree that FB here is somehow taking advantage of said laws to send to /dev/null the extension that renders one of their revenue streams ineffective. I'm no expert in US trademark laws by any means, maybe they're entitled to leverage it for these kind of cases.

eganist 10y ago

> I guess Google doesn't care much about people that develop for their platform. This seems to happen to every company reaching a certain size and in need of some belt tightening (either pressured via investors or internally realized). Microsoft, for instance, has consistently flushed new frameworks away over the last decade, driving tons of Microsoft-centric developers away from the idea of building on any novel platforms and frameworks they put out. Google seems to be going down the same route by torpedoing APIs, torpedoing entire services, killing Chrome apps next year, hampering support requests, etc. If there's good harmony between the broader dev community and a given platform, it stays. There's no point in supporting a framework that doesn't catch on fast enough (why invest the time?) and also no point in supporting outliers who have a hard time implementing a service unless -- as the author hopes -- it becomes a press headache for them. ...since I upvoted the link, I suppose I'm on the author's side here.

blihp 10y ago

The problem is that the author used the wrong example to make that point. This issue was entirely on the developer and at this point in the web/mobile/app game I have to believe he really didn't want to understand what the issue was and was just trying to get some attention with that post. Let's pretend Google actually had great developer support (remember: we're pretending here) which was staffed to whatever degree it 'should' be. He still would have likely gotten nothing but automated/canned replies because this particular 'issue' has been brought up time and time again by inexperienced and/or bozo developers (i.e. 'whhaaa... you mean I can't make a living off of someone else's brand?'. No company is going to spend much/any time fielding these types of support requests, even if it's paid support) It would have been a stronger argument if he had an issue that a real person on the other end would have been able to help him with.

dordoka 10y ago
Don't get me wrong but, would a "do not use FB or Facebook in your extension name" reply be such difficult to respond? In my understanding, support is there to help users (developers in this case). I agree that the developer should have guessed that by himself, but the real issue here I believe is the lack of any useful response, the automatic takedown of the extension and no way to get any response after "expending" the apparent "two tries" that you get from Google when something like this happens.
ar0 10y ago
Your point would be valid if the author hadn't pointed out that the same issue was resolved properly by Apple within three days (by renaming to "Cleaner - for Facebook"). My understanding is that Apple is bound by the same laws as Google when it comes to trademarks and IP. So you do not have to pretend here: If Google had developer support that would be as good as Apple's (which I believe is a very low bar considering all the anger Apple is getting about how they treat developers), the extension would still be in the Chrome App Store and doing just fine.