4 ms·

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 prod

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.
    - munk-a 5y ago
      If they've got a site with branding and all that jazz rearing and ready for launch then no - it's not their fault the giant stepped on them. It would even appear (from the letter) that facebook was already aware of this name conflict and decided to go ahead with the rename anyways. Also Meta is a terrible name - for both companies., but that's beside the point (but it's like really stupid).
    - heavyset_go 5y ago
      > Then get a different name. Meta clearly had no mindshare That doesn't matter, they own the trademark.
      - bpodgursky 5y ago
        No they don't. You have to prove significance in a particular market to get trademark protections; you don't get trademark protection over the word as used in all contexts (and since they have no marketshare, because it hasn't launched, there's no conflict at all).
    - jlkuester7 5y ago
      > it's still a bad name because it's a super common word. I said the same thing about matrix.org back in ~2015 when I first heard of the project. Fast forward to now, though, and "Matrix Room" links are ubiquitous among open source projects....
- heimidal 5y ago
  If they have a registered, accepted trademark (and it appears they do), they can reasonably argue that Facebook has damaged their ability to establish the brand's identity despite significant outlay for design, marketing, and advertising -- those are dollars already spent. "Livelihood" includes income, sure, but it can also be read to include lasting damage done to their brand by Facebook prematurely usurping their ability to control the mark.
  - mapcars 5y ago
    Right, but as we don't see anything from this company let the court decide if and how big the damage is.
  - munk-a 5y ago
    That is true - unless their livelihood (they mentioned how low the offers were repeatedly) was just to squat the company name and extort FB or whoever else wanted it - especially if they got advanced knowledge of the renaming and registered it after they learned facebook would want it. It's like domain squatting all over again.
    - heimidal 5y ago
      "Squatting" a trademark generally isn't possible; if you can't prove use of the mark, the USPTO will simply cancel your registration. I imagine their activity related to the mark would be covered in any potential court proceedings and would be Facebook's primary defense.
      - munk-a 5y ago
        Yea - but having a github repository with active development and a meta-logo dating back to early 2021 would probably be pretty compelling to prove active use. This is definitely going to be a headache for somebody but I can't imagine the story as this letter tells it (FB reaching out repeatedly to acquire the name and then going ahead regardless) is a perfect telling of events. Either FB was totally unaware of this company's existence before today or else their lawyers looked over the company and didn't think it was a threat to their usage.
oceliker 5y ago
There's nothing in the article that answers the question "What does meta.company do?"
jjulius 5y ago
>Your questions are answered in the linked article. No they are not. Your quote, the article, and the empty social media pages the article links to do not answer the question, "What does meta.company do?".

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.
  - munk-a 5y ago
    If they've got a site with branding and all that jazz rearing and ready for launch then no - it's not their fault the giant stepped on them. It would even appear (from the letter) that facebook was already aware of this name conflict and decided to go ahead with the rename anyways. Also Meta is a terrible name - for both companies., but that's beside the point (but it's like really stupid).
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    > Then get a different name. Meta clearly had no mindshare That doesn't matter, they own the trademark.
    - bpodgursky 5y ago
      No they don't. You have to prove significance in a particular market to get trademark protections; you don't get trademark protection over the word as used in all contexts (and since they have no marketshare, because it hasn't launched, there's no conflict at all).
  - jlkuester7 5y ago
    > it's still a bad name because it's a super common word. I said the same thing about matrix.org back in ~2015 when I first heard of the project. Fast forward to now, though, and "Matrix Room" links are ubiquitous among open source projects....
heimidal 5y ago
If they have a registered, accepted trademark (and it appears they do), they can reasonably argue that Facebook has damaged their ability to establish the brand's identity despite significant outlay for design, marketing, and advertising -- those are dollars already spent. "Livelihood" includes income, sure, but it can also be read to include lasting damage done to their brand by Facebook prematurely usurping their ability to control the mark.
- mapcars 5y ago
  Right, but as we don't see anything from this company let the court decide if and how big the damage is.
- munk-a 5y ago
  That is true - unless their livelihood (they mentioned how low the offers were repeatedly) was just to squat the company name and extort FB or whoever else wanted it - especially if they got advanced knowledge of the renaming and registered it after they learned facebook would want it. It's like domain squatting all over again.
  - heimidal 5y ago
    "Squatting" a trademark generally isn't possible; if you can't prove use of the mark, the USPTO will simply cancel your registration. I imagine their activity related to the mark would be covered in any potential court proceedings and would be Facebook's primary defense.
    - munk-a 5y ago
      Yea - but having a github repository with active development and a meta-logo dating back to early 2021 would probably be pretty compelling to prove active use. This is definitely going to be a headache for somebody but I can't imagine the story as this letter tells it (FB reaching out repeatedly to acquire the name and then going ahead regardless) is a perfect telling of events. Either FB was totally unaware of this company's existence before today or else their lawyers looked over the company and didn't think it was a threat to their usage.

oceliker 5y ago

There's nothing in the article that answers the question "What does meta.company do?"

jjulius 5y ago

>Your questions are answered in the linked article. No they are not. Your quote, the article, and the empty social media pages the article links to do not answer the question, "What does meta.company do?".