2 ms·
Yeah, it's a game of silly buggers all around. At least it's not on the level of the "app store" nonsense. It's also hard not to develop a rather cynical attit
by glimcat 15y ago
Yeah, it's a game of silly buggers all around. At least it's not on the level of the "app store" nonsense.
It's also hard not to develop a rather cynical attitude towards the USPTO given the unending tide of negative press swirling around it. The system is infamously broken. What are companies supposed to do? Not file applications? Not try to defend a granted trademark because it's generic, only to have someone turn that against them? Is it the company being overly grasping or trying to do their due diligence in a high-stakes game of CYA?
- dpark 15y agoI feel like trademarks aren't quite as screwed up. Trademarking colors is completely broken, but I don't think everything is. I think "Dropbox" is a reasonable name. While it's obviously been used in the past, it was not widely used, and it has not been used as a brand. I think it's reasonable to allow a company to use it. I also think that anyone who previously used the term should be allowed to continue to use the term indefinitely (but not as branding). I think Filesanywhere is outright trolling, as they never tried to establish the term as a brand. They have a legitimate claim to use the term, and to dispute Dropbox's claim, but not a legitimate claim to the domain. The domain existed 4 years before the Filesanywhere product launched. Patents on the other hand are appearing more and more broken. 99% of software patents are crap, and probably 100% of "business method" patents are.