4 ms·

At what point does a site become "big enough" that it becomes a marketplace monopoly which is not legally permitted to discriminate? Obviously all sites have a

• sp332 16y ago
  When? As soon as I start using it. :-)
• A1kmm 16y ago
  IANAL, but they are unlikely to hit anti-discrimination laws in many countries for anything outside a narrowly defined set of prohibited criteria for discrimination. I think the biggest concern is that the social network effect creates a barrier to entry (it is hard to create a competing network with the same value to users as Facebook's because the value of people's existing networks outweighs the value of benefits like freer speech or a better user interface for most people). Many governments regulate anti-competitive and monopolistic behaviour, with the aim of opening up competition in markets and allowing greater participation that way. In this case however, Lamebook isn't really a competitor.
  • enjo 16y ago
    You will however trip a whole host of anti-trust laws in a number of countries. Europe, in particular, is usually pretty quick on the trigger with this.
• jerf 16y ago
  Enforcing one's trademark does not constitute "discrimination". Facebook is in the right here. Lamebook is clearly an attempt to cash in on the Facebook name, trademark law does not permit that, trademark law is correct here. Merely being "the little guy" doesn't make you right or give you carte blanche to ignore whatever laws you want.
  • scotus69 16y ago
    ...and you are a lawyer and this is your professional opinion?
  • ugh 16y ago
    You could make the case that it’s a free speech issue. (Which has obviously nothing to do with whether Facebook is a monopoly or not.)
    • generalk 16y ago
      If you're making reference to the Freedom of Speech guaranteed by the US Bill of Rights, you absolutely can't. Facebook isn't the government, the First Amendment doesn't apply to them.
      • ugh 16y ago
        I’m very skeptical about that claim. It’s of course true that the first amendment and basic rights in general (usually?) only apply to the government. I know too little about US law to say with certainty whether there are exceptions in the USA. (I know with certainty that in certain, very limited circumstances some basic rights apply even between private entities in Germany.) The submitted article, however, quotes a law professor who explicitly portrays this as a first amendment issue which doesn’t support your hypothesis that the first amendment only applies to the government in this case. I’m relatively certain that Facebook is free to block Lamebook on their own site all they want. Freedom of speech doesn’t come into play. I’m not so sure about that when it comes to the trademark.
  • generalk 16y ago
    Would the Fair Use doctrine apply here, or does that not apply to trademarks?
  • CPops 16y ago
    Parody and commenting about something and humor and so forth is protected as fair use even under our horrendously fucked up "intellectual property" system. Now, I think Facebook has the right to block whatever links they want to block on their own website. It's their website and they should do what they want that they feel is in their own self-interest. Casting this as Lamebook doing something that violates Facebook's trademark is incorrect without any actual evidence that they are indeed violating Facebook's trademark. Merely having a name that rhymes with Facebook isn't enough to call that a violation of Facebook's trademark.
• JoeBracken 16y ago
  Regardless of how big Facebook gets. If users continue to blindly accept the terms of use when they sign up, they will continue to agree to this type of censorship. FB is a private site that you elect to join and you accept their rules by doing so. The public at large should be outraged but nobody cares.