4 ms·

It seems that lots of people are missing that part. The Kik guys were doing their corporate double-speak b/s about ‘let’s find a solution’ when the only solutio

It seems that lots of people are missing that part. The Kik guys were doing their corporate double-speak b/s about ‘let’s find a solution’ when the only solution is handing over the name. All while threatening with door-banging lawyers. And he did offer them a solution: $30,000 dollars, to which they promptly - albeit indirectly - replied with fuck you.

ivanhoe 6y ago
well, friendly solutions don't charge per hour, unlike lawyers...
otterley 6y ago
Because they didn't have to pay him $30k. They had a registered trademark and a right to use the name. And in the end, they didn’t have to spend nearly that amount. All they had to do was send a few emails to the npm maintainers. I’d say they made a logical decision.
- jbverschoor 6y ago
  The right to use that name in a certain context. Kik was a dick. 30k is a lot, but lawyers would’ve cost way more than that
  - otterley 6y ago
    An initial consult is often free, and even a $500 consult would have been worth every penny because the lawyer would have (correctly) told him to back off and let them have the name. In any event, escalating - even when you think the other party is being a dick - is never the right answer.
    - reaperducer 6y ago
      An initial consult is often free If you're hiring a lawyer off a television commercial in order to make a quick buck off of a fender bender. Corporate law is different.
      - otterley 6y ago
        When I was sued I was able to get an hour with many of the initial attorneys I called. The biggest challenge in most cases was ensuring there were no conflicts. And as an attorney, if I go back into practice someday, of course I’ll do the same.
- modernthumb 6y ago
  I have a hard time seeing your position here. Because of their actions they broke their own build and made a lot of folks in the open source community upset. Was it even worth it to waste the time fixing their broken build? To investigate the failure and replace a dependency of a dependency? To lose credibility in the community they've evidently just decided to become involved with? I really don't see how that's not worth 30 grand. They have a right to use their name but they don't have the right to use someone else's work.
  - otterley 6y ago
    It is a principle of American and English law that the person who uses someone else’s property unlawfully is responsible for the foreseeable injuries caused to others by its use - not the lawful owner of the property.
    - chris_wot 6y ago
      You are being downvoted because you fundamentally misunderstand and mischaracterise the situation you are referring to.
      - otterley 6y ago
        I am referring to naming an npm module “Kik” that has nothing to do with the service of the same name. What do I misunderstand?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
scottrice 6y ago
With regards to the trademark issue: > and we’d have no choice but to do all that because you have to enforce trademarks or you lose them. They aren't threatening him for the fun of it, this is classic trademark stuff. Also the "solution" he offered them was: > Yeah, you can buy it for $30.000 for the hassle of giving up with my pet project for bunch of corporate dicks Would _you_ give this guy $30,000, after he calls you a dick multiple times and tells you in no uncertain terms to fuck off? No one comes out looking good in this interaction, don't get me wrong, but Azer was super unprofessional and nasty during those interactions. He gets no sympathy from me.
- stevenjohns 6y ago
  Good luck trying to enforce trademark law for namespace on a public code repository. It’s “classic trademark stuff” insofar that people classically don’t understand what a trademark is or how it’s enforced. Consider reading through Github’s policy on trademarks[0] to better understand why a casual fuck off should be given whenever you get misleading, threatening emails. [0] https://help.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-trademark-policy#what-is-not-a-github-trademark-policy-violation https://help.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-tradema...
  - felipelemos 6y ago
    I agree with you. And I don't understand this normalisation of threatening. And just because it's a lawyer does not make things better. If you want me to cooperate, try to be nice. If you threat me, don't be surprise to hear a 'fuck you'.
- acituan 6y ago
  > but Azer was super unprofessional and nasty during those interactions Does he even have to be “professional“? Even though two of the parties involved happen to be corporations, he owes no allegiance to them and the exchange does not take place in a corporate context. I mean, we are talking about corporate overreach, why should we be assessing his words by corporate standards? “Professional” usually means “don’t show emotions and suck up the abuse”. I’m glad he was both showing his protest and standing up to the overreach.
Justsignedup 6y ago
The guy made a very valid point: We must pursue our trademarks or risk losing them. We must. So can we make this amicable instead of hostile? The maintainer could have requested things like "Okay can I make some blog posts and you help me with some SEO to make sure people are aware of the changes to my project name?" etc. Sounds like Kik was willing to be reasonable and help where they could. Clearly they could have gone in with an opening statement saying "this is the lawyer, I am sending trademark takedown notices, fuck you, go to hell" but they clearly did not. This is one person trying to make the best of an awkward situation, and one person just saying "duces".
- stefan_ 6y ago
  This trademark thing must be the next biggest popular HN misunderstanding after the whole "act in the shareholders interest" debacle.
  - Thorrez 6y ago
    Could you explain the trademark misunderstanding in a bit more detail?
    - anchpop 6y ago
      According to GitHub [0]: > Using another's trademark in a way that has nothing to do with the product or service for which the trademark was granted is not a trademark policy violation. Many people think that if you have a trademark, you have to sue everyone who uses your name no matter what capacity they're using it in, which doesn't seem to be the case. If their usage is unrelated to yours, you have no authority to prevent them from using it however they want. There are some exceptions to this, like the American Red Cross's logo of a red cross on a white background (nobody is allowed to use this except the red cross in any context, although it isn't always enforced) [1]. [0]: https://help.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-trademark-policy#what-is-not-a-github-trademark-policy-violation https://help.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-tradema... [1]: https://www.bradley.com/insights/publications/2012/04/one-cross--two-cross--red-cross--blue-cross-when__ https://www.bradley.com/insights/publications/2012/04/one-cr...

ivanhoe 6y ago

well, friendly solutions don't charge per hour, unlike lawyers...

otterley 6y ago

Because they didn't have to pay him $30k. They had a registered trademark and a right to use the name. And in the end, they didn’t have to spend nearly that amount. All they had to do was send a few emails to the npm maintainers. I’d say they made a logical decision.

jbverschoor 6y ago
The right to use that name in a certain context. Kik was a dick. 30k is a lot, but lawyers would’ve cost way more than that
- otterley 6y ago
  An initial consult is often free, and even a $500 consult would have been worth every penny because the lawyer would have (correctly) told him to back off and let them have the name. In any event, escalating - even when you think the other party is being a dick - is never the right answer.
  - reaperducer 6y ago
    An initial consult is often free If you're hiring a lawyer off a television commercial in order to make a quick buck off of a fender bender. Corporate law is different.
    - otterley 6y ago
      When I was sued I was able to get an hour with many of the initial attorneys I called. The biggest challenge in most cases was ensuring there were no conflicts. And as an attorney, if I go back into practice someday, of course I’ll do the same.
modernthumb 6y ago
I have a hard time seeing your position here. Because of their actions they broke their own build and made a lot of folks in the open source community upset. Was it even worth it to waste the time fixing their broken build? To investigate the failure and replace a dependency of a dependency? To lose credibility in the community they've evidently just decided to become involved with? I really don't see how that's not worth 30 grand. They have a right to use their name but they don't have the right to use someone else's work.
- otterley 6y ago
  It is a principle of American and English law that the person who uses someone else’s property unlawfully is responsible for the foreseeable injuries caused to others by its use - not the lawful owner of the property.
  - chris_wot 6y ago
    You are being downvoted because you fundamentally misunderstand and mischaracterise the situation you are referring to.
    - otterley 6y ago
      I am referring to naming an npm module “Kik” that has nothing to do with the service of the same name. What do I misunderstand?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

scottrice 6y ago

With regards to the trademark issue: > and we’d have no choice but to do all that because you have to enforce trademarks or you lose them. They aren't threatening him for the fun of it, this is classic trademark stuff. Also the "solution" he offered them was: > Yeah, you can buy it for $30.000 for the hassle of giving up with my pet project for bunch of corporate dicks Would _you_ give this guy $30,000, after he calls you a dick multiple times and tells you in no uncertain terms to fuck off? No one comes out looking good in this interaction, don't get me wrong, but Azer was super unprofessional and nasty during those interactions. He gets no sympathy from me.

stevenjohns 6y ago
Good luck trying to enforce trademark law for namespace on a public code repository. It’s “classic trademark stuff” insofar that people classically don’t understand what a trademark is or how it’s enforced. Consider reading through Github’s policy on trademarks[0] to better understand why a casual fuck off should be given whenever you get misleading, threatening emails. [0] https://help.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-trademark-policy#what-is-not-a-github-trademark-policy-violation https://help.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-tradema...
- felipelemos 6y ago
  I agree with you. And I don't understand this normalisation of threatening. And just because it's a lawyer does not make things better. If you want me to cooperate, try to be nice. If you threat me, don't be surprise to hear a 'fuck you'.
acituan 6y ago
> but Azer was super unprofessional and nasty during those interactions Does he even have to be “professional“? Even though two of the parties involved happen to be corporations, he owes no allegiance to them and the exchange does not take place in a corporate context. I mean, we are talking about corporate overreach, why should we be assessing his words by corporate standards? “Professional” usually means “don’t show emotions and suck up the abuse”. I’m glad he was both showing his protest and standing up to the overreach.

Justsignedup 6y ago

The guy made a very valid point: We must pursue our trademarks or risk losing them. We must. So can we make this amicable instead of hostile? The maintainer could have requested things like "Okay can I make some blog posts and you help me with some SEO to make sure people are aware of the changes to my project name?" etc. Sounds like Kik was willing to be reasonable and help where they could. Clearly they could have gone in with an opening statement saying "this is the lawyer, I am sending trademark takedown notices, fuck you, go to hell" but they clearly did not. This is one person trying to make the best of an awkward situation, and one person just saying "duces".

stefan_ 6y ago
This trademark thing must be the next biggest popular HN misunderstanding after the whole "act in the shareholders interest" debacle.
- Thorrez 6y ago
  Could you explain the trademark misunderstanding in a bit more detail?
  - anchpop 6y ago
    According to GitHub [0]: > Using another's trademark in a way that has nothing to do with the product or service for which the trademark was granted is not a trademark policy violation. Many people think that if you have a trademark, you have to sue everyone who uses your name no matter what capacity they're using it in, which doesn't seem to be the case. If their usage is unrelated to yours, you have no authority to prevent them from using it however they want. There are some exceptions to this, like the American Red Cross's logo of a red cross on a white background (nobody is allowed to use this except the red cross in any context, although it isn't always enforced) [1]. [0]: https://help.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-trademark-policy#what-is-not-a-github-trademark-policy-violation https://help.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-tradema... [1]: https://www.bradley.com/insights/publications/2012/04/one-cross--two-cross--red-cross--blue-cross-when__ https://www.bradley.com/insights/publications/2012/04/one-cr...