5 ms·

Read again: > 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 a

Read again: > 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.

dreyfan 5y ago
That means literally zero.
EugeneOZ 5y ago
If product is not released yet, then their expenses of changing the name are not as huge as they declare.
- pietrovismara 5y ago
  This doesn't justify what facebook is doing at all. What if I steal 10$ from you? Would it change your life or deprive you of food? Probably not, but that doesn't make it legal to do.
- hnlmorg 5y ago
  You don't actually know that though. For all we know MetaCompany might have a large stock pile of branded hardware. At this point in time all we have is blind speculation based on a piece of PR that might or might not be true.
filoleg 5y ago
How does it change anything? If I understand it correctly, they are a company with no existing product, and yet Facebook somehow stole their name and livelihood? Stealing name implies that the company previously had some value attached to that name, such as recognition or a product. So far they have neither. I understand that it is unfortunate it happened to them, but given that the company doesn't even have a product launched yet, changing the name to something else shouldn't cause much trouble. But on the bright side, at least now they have an excuse ready in case their company flops. And a lot of people who could sympathize with them too, because "facebook bad". Media loves this stuff, because it prints clicks and views like hotcakes.
- gnu8 5y ago
  All I'm hearing is that Facebook is entitled to a name someone else was already using because they are a wealthy and successful company and I am not convinced.
  - filoleg 5y ago
    The argument isn't about whether FB is entitled to the name. FB might not be entitled to that name, and I am not saying they are. All I am saying is that the claim of Meta (non-FB one) about their "name and livelihood being stolen" is ridiculous and difficult to take at face value, given they have no product and no name-recognition.
    - gigglesupstairs 5y ago
      Do you have any internal knowledge of product this company is working on and hence it is of no real value to “you”? How much time have they been working on this product? What’s the cost involved? How many people? Does it really matter whether they have a live product or if it is successful or not if it doesn’t affect the real topic here, which is of identity?
      - ishyaboibro 5y ago
        From the USPTO docs and screenshot included within them, they seemed to describe themselves as a provider of services. Their LLC's address is a residential home, which is fine, but a little shady for a company that vaguely states the services it provides, while also having a supposed "product launch" delayed, despite no evidence whatsoever of anyone associated with the company, no SEC filings or white papers, or really anything to prove any of what theyre saying. It's kinda weird.
      - filoleg 5y ago
        > Do you have any internal knowledge of product this company is working on and hence it is of no real value to “you”? Regardless of what they are working on, if it doesn't exist, the value of it is presently zero. Also, as others have mentioned, FB fully legally bought the trademark on Meta back in 2017 (through Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative). The company in the OP has no claims towards the name. Well, it appears they have a trademark on Metacompany (no space or dots), while FB (or rather, Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative) had the trademark for Meta since 2017. If anything, the company in the article is infringing on a trademark that FB has been the owner of for nearly 4 years.
6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
That's exactly what I meant by parking. Isn't that what it means? Maybe I should have said this letter is the entire company so far.
yadaeno 5y ago
This reads like a kickstarter scam. Also the "Facebook Instagram Twitter" link at the bottom points to an Instagram account with 0 followers, 0 following.

dreyfan 5y ago

That means literally zero.

EugeneOZ 5y ago

If product is not released yet, then their expenses of changing the name are not as huge as they declare.

pietrovismara 5y ago
This doesn't justify what facebook is doing at all. What if I steal 10$ from you? Would it change your life or deprive you of food? Probably not, but that doesn't make it legal to do.
hnlmorg 5y ago
You don't actually know that though. For all we know MetaCompany might have a large stock pile of branded hardware. At this point in time all we have is blind speculation based on a piece of PR that might or might not be true.

filoleg 5y ago

How does it change anything? If I understand it correctly, they are a company with no existing product, and yet Facebook somehow stole their name and livelihood? Stealing name implies that the company previously had some value attached to that name, such as recognition or a product. So far they have neither. I understand that it is unfortunate it happened to them, but given that the company doesn't even have a product launched yet, changing the name to something else shouldn't cause much trouble. But on the bright side, at least now they have an excuse ready in case their company flops. And a lot of people who could sympathize with them too, because "facebook bad". Media loves this stuff, because it prints clicks and views like hotcakes.

gnu8 5y ago
All I'm hearing is that Facebook is entitled to a name someone else was already using because they are a wealthy and successful company and I am not convinced.
- filoleg 5y ago
  The argument isn't about whether FB is entitled to the name. FB might not be entitled to that name, and I am not saying they are. All I am saying is that the claim of Meta (non-FB one) about their "name and livelihood being stolen" is ridiculous and difficult to take at face value, given they have no product and no name-recognition.
  - gigglesupstairs 5y ago
    Do you have any internal knowledge of product this company is working on and hence it is of no real value to “you”? How much time have they been working on this product? What’s the cost involved? How many people? Does it really matter whether they have a live product or if it is successful or not if it doesn’t affect the real topic here, which is of identity?
    - ishyaboibro 5y ago
      From the USPTO docs and screenshot included within them, they seemed to describe themselves as a provider of services. Their LLC's address is a residential home, which is fine, but a little shady for a company that vaguely states the services it provides, while also having a supposed "product launch" delayed, despite no evidence whatsoever of anyone associated with the company, no SEC filings or white papers, or really anything to prove any of what theyre saying. It's kinda weird.
    - filoleg 5y ago
      > Do you have any internal knowledge of product this company is working on and hence it is of no real value to “you”? Regardless of what they are working on, if it doesn't exist, the value of it is presently zero. Also, as others have mentioned, FB fully legally bought the trademark on Meta back in 2017 (through Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative). The company in the OP has no claims towards the name. Well, it appears they have a trademark on Metacompany (no space or dots), while FB (or rather, Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative) had the trademark for Meta since 2017. If anything, the company in the article is infringing on a trademark that FB has been the owner of for nearly 4 years.

6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago

That's exactly what I meant by parking. Isn't that what it means? Maybe I should have said this letter is the entire company so far.

yadaeno 5y ago

This reads like a kickstarter scam. Also the "Facebook Instagram Twitter" link at the bottom points to an Instagram account with 0 followers, 0 following.