3 ms·

> Frankly, it would have taken just one thing - remove references to Facebook. Unless you're part of the team at google with the power to reinstate extensions,

by fenomas 10y ago

> Frankly, it would have taken just one thing - remove references to Facebook. Unless you're part of the team at google with the power to reinstate extensions, I don't know how you can possibly claim to know that.

nkozyra 10y ago
This strikes me as pedantic - we can probably safely assume that not doing the thing that caused the extension to be removed might in fact not cause the extension to be removed. Can I say that with authority? Of course not. I can't say the window wouldn't be broken had you not thrown a baseball at it, either. But I can tell you the window is broken because you threw a baseball at it.
- fenomas 10y ago
  In your metaphor, the article isn't about why the window broke. It's premise is that once broken, Google makes it impossible to find out how or whether it can be fixed. Chastising the author for breaking it in the first place is neither here nor there.
  - nkozyra 10y ago
    I'd start by saying characterizing my responses as "chastising" is a bit disingenuous. I find the notion that the extension was removed without any clear reason equally disingenuous. The reasoning was provided in the included email screenshot. It's not a grand leap to suggest that not repeating the precise reasoning for the extension's removal would likely mitigate future action. The OP fundamentally resubmitted the app without addressing the complaint. How to fix a trademark transgression seems pretty straightforward, doesn't it?
    - zenopopovici 10y ago
      Actually no. The same extension is OK in the Safari store by using "Cleaner - For Facebook". This is OK according to the law. I didn't get the clear reasons my extension was taken down. It is a grand leap to what needs to be changed in order for the app to be compliant and in the same time not confusing existing users.
      - nkozyra 10y ago
        > Actually no. The same extension is OK in the Safari store by using "Cleaner - For Facebook". This is OK according to the law. The fact that Safari allows it is not some broad-sweeping legal pronouncement. Nor is it proof that they even truly evaluated it more than superficially. It's not even validation that the extension is compliant via Apple's terms. It just means your extension got back in. Apple could get a takedown notice tomorrow and do the exact same thing. This is clearly a risk of using the Facebook trademark, even if you're doing it in a "fair use" way. I'm not trying to be rude here, so please don't read it this way. But bluntly, invoking Facebook's name in your extension is kicking the hornet's nest. If Facebook doesn't like it, they will send takedown notices and Apple and Google will assuredly respond to those by suspending extensions. Your beef is still ultimately with Facebook, not Google.
        pitay 10y ago
        You clearly are ignoring fair use, because you are so invested in supporting incumbents for some reason. Would you like to tell why you think that just because someone makes something that a powerful incumbent doesn't like, that is must be shouted down. It wasn't even violating trademark because of fair use http://www.inta.org/TrademarkBasics/FactSheets/Pages/FairUse.aspx http://www.inta.org/TrademarkBasics/FactSheets/Pages/FairUse... . Why are you on their side, because clearly you are. Why? Is it because you are paid to do this? Something else? What is the position you are in? Because you trying to discredit the author so intently, you must have some interest, and it seems dishonest that you don't reveal it, because it is not a position a rational person observing would come up with, not in any way that I can think of anyway.
        nkozyra 10y ago
        This is an absurd way of expressing your disagreement ("only an irrational person would disagree with me!"). I am in no way affiliated with anyone involved.

by fenomas 10y ago

nkozyra 10y ago

This strikes me as pedantic - we can probably safely assume that not doing the thing that caused the extension to be removed might in fact not cause the extension to be removed. Can I say that with authority? Of course not. I can't say the window wouldn't be broken had you not thrown a baseball at it, either. But I can tell you the window is broken because you threw a baseball at it.

fenomas 10y ago
In your metaphor, the article isn't about why the window broke. It's premise is that once broken, Google makes it impossible to find out how or whether it can be fixed. Chastising the author for breaking it in the first place is neither here nor there.
- nkozyra 10y ago
  I'd start by saying characterizing my responses as "chastising" is a bit disingenuous. I find the notion that the extension was removed without any clear reason equally disingenuous. The reasoning was provided in the included email screenshot. It's not a grand leap to suggest that not repeating the precise reasoning for the extension's removal would likely mitigate future action. The OP fundamentally resubmitted the app without addressing the complaint. How to fix a trademark transgression seems pretty straightforward, doesn't it?
  - zenopopovici 10y ago
    Actually no. The same extension is OK in the Safari store by using "Cleaner - For Facebook". This is OK according to the law. I didn't get the clear reasons my extension was taken down. It is a grand leap to what needs to be changed in order for the app to be compliant and in the same time not confusing existing users.
    - nkozyra 10y ago
      > Actually no. The same extension is OK in the Safari store by using "Cleaner - For Facebook". This is OK according to the law. The fact that Safari allows it is not some broad-sweeping legal pronouncement. Nor is it proof that they even truly evaluated it more than superficially. It's not even validation that the extension is compliant via Apple's terms. It just means your extension got back in. Apple could get a takedown notice tomorrow and do the exact same thing. This is clearly a risk of using the Facebook trademark, even if you're doing it in a "fair use" way. I'm not trying to be rude here, so please don't read it this way. But bluntly, invoking Facebook's name in your extension is kicking the hornet's nest. If Facebook doesn't like it, they will send takedown notices and Apple and Google will assuredly respond to those by suspending extensions. Your beef is still ultimately with Facebook, not Google.
      - pitay 10y ago
        You clearly are ignoring fair use, because you are so invested in supporting incumbents for some reason. Would you like to tell why you think that just because someone makes something that a powerful incumbent doesn't like, that is must be shouted down. It wasn't even violating trademark because of fair use http://www.inta.org/TrademarkBasics/FactSheets/Pages/FairUse.aspx http://www.inta.org/TrademarkBasics/FactSheets/Pages/FairUse... . Why are you on their side, because clearly you are. Why? Is it because you are paid to do this? Something else? What is the position you are in? Because you trying to discredit the author so intently, you must have some interest, and it seems dishonest that you don't reveal it, because it is not a position a rational person observing would come up with, not in any way that I can think of anyway.
        nkozyra 10y ago
        This is an absurd way of expressing your disagreement ("only an irrational person would disagree with me!"). I am in no way affiliated with anyone involved.