3 ms·

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

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.

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.