4 ms·

What does meta.company do? I can't find anything about them. How did Facebook steal the livelihood of a company that doesn't have any products or sell anything?

by ipsum2 5y ago

its_hope-lovely 5y ago
Look up their website lol https://metamaterial.com/ https://metamaterial.com/
- TehPhengophobe 5y ago
  The article claims to be from a Chicago based company, while the link you provided shows an address in Nova Scotia, Canada. Nate Skulic is also not listed in any leadership role on the website you linked.
sbarre 5y ago
Based on what is in the letter, I assume they are/were a startup still in stealth mode.
- soneca 5y ago
  Based in this whole site (which is just the letter), I assume they are positioning themselves to optimize for largest amount of money to be gained in the court against Facebook. HN is dutifully helping them.
  - teawrecks 5y ago
    What are you talking about? I can't find any posts here that are sympathetic to them. To the point that I honestly can't tell if there's some fb astroturfing happening.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  Bad luck for them, they should have taken the deal. Trademark protection is to protect trade. A company that doesn't make a product yet is at a huge risk trying to hold a name against an established company that wants it... You can only infringe a trademark if you are doing business in the same or a very nearly adjacent industry (Apple Records v Apple Computer as a historical example). I'm sure they can litigate it if they want, but when the question comes up of how Facebook being named Meta interferes with the business Meta of Chicago was engaged in, what will their answer be? If they weren't planning to do something in either the social network or virtual / augmented reality spaces, the likely answer is "neither of you are infringing the other, go about your business."
  - heimidal 5y ago
    Their answer will probably be "Facebook knew they were infringing so they contacted us and attempted to purchase the mark."
    - shadowgovt 5y ago
      It's worth a try, but if they can't positively assert "infringing on what," they have no case.
- ghostly_s 5y ago
  Then they didn't have any brand recognition/"livelihood" to steal. Sure this sucks for them, and I am no FB defender but that's the nature of trademark. Not a lawyer but even if they are in the same space as FB, I'd think they would forfeit their right to the mark if FB got their first, presuming they have not yet actually marketed a product to consumers under this name?
orhmeh09 5y ago
Your questions are answered in the linked article. I hope this quote helps. There’s more in there if you read it very carefully. > One more thing: Our new product launch just got delayed because of Facebook. We must deal with these matters. In the coming weeks, we will make an announcement earlier than we expected. We promise it will be good. Stay tuned.
- ipsum2 5y ago
  I've read the article. If they don't have a product released, then accusing someone of taking away their livelihood (aka income) is ridiculous.
  - pietrovismara 5y ago
    What if you work for months/years on a product, waiting for it to be ready-ish before announcing it to the public, only for a corporation to steal your name a few weeks before launch?
    - bpodgursky 5y ago
      Then get a different name. Meta clearly had no mindshare, because nobody in this thread has ever heard of it. (and frankly it's still a bad name because it's a super common word. it was doomed as a product name anyway.)
      - pietrovismara 5y ago
        You don't just "get a different name". You may already have a logo you paid well for. You may have prepared advertising. You may have references to the name everywhere in your code. And so on. Also even if it was easy and costless to get a new name, it still isn't fair that the big guy can come and simply take it from you without consequence.
        viraptor 5y ago
        Not just that. In the worst case, they may have a container full of their devices ready to go with "Meta" branding on everything. That's a significant cost to recall and redo.
sct202 5y ago
The message said they're from Chicago and there's a META LLC registered to him in Illinois since September 2013. Not sure what they do, but at minimum it seems like they've been using the name for some time.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- adventured 5y ago
  If that's accurate they've had eight years to produce some product/service to establish a strong commercial claim to the name prior to Facebook getting there. They appear to have failed at doing that. If you're going to stake claim to such a common, short term as your corporate name, it's definitely obvious that you're risking legal conflict with other entities that may claim that name. There's no way they didn't know what they were getting into in trying to use that name (with or without Facebook wanting it).
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - ThunderSizzle 5y ago
    Maybe companies shouldn't be allowed to be named commonly used word.
    - telendram 5y ago
      Well, indeed, there are limits to copyrights that are supposed to be applicable when using trivial common names. But ever since a certain company decided to call itself "fruit", and then go on rampage attacking small players which themselves used to be called "fruit" under the petty reason that they are actually producing and selling "fruit", there is a sense in US that, as long as you got the balls and the lawyers, there is just no limit. Limits of the rules, even when written, are for "others".

What does meta.company do? I can't find anything about them. How did Facebook steal the livelihood of a company that doesn't have any products or sell anything?

by ipsum2 5y ago

What does meta.company do? I can't find anything about them. How did Facebook steal the livelihood of a company that doesn't have any products or sell anything?

its_hope-lovely 5y ago

Look up their website lol https://metamaterial.com/ https://metamaterial.com/

TehPhengophobe 5y ago
The article claims to be from a Chicago based company, while the link you provided shows an address in Nova Scotia, Canada. Nate Skulic is also not listed in any leadership role on the website you linked.

sbarre 5y ago

Based on what is in the letter, I assume they are/were a startup still in stealth mode.

soneca 5y ago
Based in this whole site (which is just the letter), I assume they are positioning themselves to optimize for largest amount of money to be gained in the court against Facebook. HN is dutifully helping them.
- teawrecks 5y ago
  What are you talking about? I can't find any posts here that are sympathetic to them. To the point that I honestly can't tell if there's some fb astroturfing happening.
shadowgovt 5y ago
Bad luck for them, they should have taken the deal. Trademark protection is to protect trade. A company that doesn't make a product yet is at a huge risk trying to hold a name against an established company that wants it... You can only infringe a trademark if you are doing business in the same or a very nearly adjacent industry (Apple Records v Apple Computer as a historical example). I'm sure they can litigate it if they want, but when the question comes up of how Facebook being named Meta interferes with the business Meta of Chicago was engaged in, what will their answer be? If they weren't planning to do something in either the social network or virtual / augmented reality spaces, the likely answer is "neither of you are infringing the other, go about your business."
- heimidal 5y ago
  Their answer will probably be "Facebook knew they were infringing so they contacted us and attempted to purchase the mark."
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    It's worth a try, but if they can't positively assert "infringing on what," they have no case.
ghostly_s 5y ago
Then they didn't have any brand recognition/"livelihood" to steal. Sure this sucks for them, and I am no FB defender but that's the nature of trademark. Not a lawyer but even if they are in the same space as FB, I'd think they would forfeit their right to the mark if FB got their first, presuming they have not yet actually marketed a product to consumers under this name?

orhmeh09 5y ago

Your questions are answered in the linked article. I hope this quote helps. There’s more in there if you read it very carefully. > One more thing: Our new product launch just got delayed because of Facebook. We must deal with these matters. In the coming weeks, we will make an announcement earlier than we expected. We promise it will be good. Stay tuned.

ipsum2 5y ago
I've read the article. If they don't have a product released, then accusing someone of taking away their livelihood (aka income) is ridiculous.
- pietrovismara 5y ago
  What if you work for months/years on a product, waiting for it to be ready-ish before announcing it to the public, only for a corporation to steal your name a few weeks before launch?
  - bpodgursky 5y ago
    Then get a different name. Meta clearly had no mindshare, because nobody in this thread has ever heard of it. (and frankly it's still a bad name because it's a super common word. it was doomed as a product name anyway.)
    - pietrovismara 5y ago
      You don't just "get a different name". You may already have a logo you paid well for. You may have prepared advertising. You may have references to the name everywhere in your code. And so on. Also even if it was easy and costless to get a new name, it still isn't fair that the big guy can come and simply take it from you without consequence.
      - viraptor 5y ago
        Not just that. In the worst case, they may have a container full of their devices ready to go with "Meta" branding on everything. That's a significant cost to recall and redo.

sct202 5y ago

The message said they're from Chicago and there's a META LLC registered to him in Illinois since September 2013. Not sure what they do, but at minimum it seems like they've been using the name for some time.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
adventured 5y ago
If that's accurate they've had eight years to produce some product/service to establish a strong commercial claim to the name prior to Facebook getting there. They appear to have failed at doing that. If you're going to stake claim to such a common, short term as your corporate name, it's definitely obvious that you're risking legal conflict with other entities that may claim that name. There's no way they didn't know what they were getting into in trying to use that name (with or without Facebook wanting it).
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ThunderSizzle 5y ago
  Maybe companies shouldn't be allowed to be named commonly used word.
  - telendram 5y ago
    Well, indeed, there are limits to copyrights that are supposed to be applicable when using trivial common names. But ever since a certain company decided to call itself "fruit", and then go on rampage attacking small players which themselves used to be called "fruit" under the petty reason that they are actually producing and selling "fruit", there is a sense in US that, as long as you got the balls and the lawyers, there is just no limit. Limits of the rules, even when written, are for "others".