3 ms·
> If anything, the company in the article is infringing on a trademark that FB has been the owner of for nearly 4 years. I don't disagree with you here. > if
by gigglesupstairs 5y ago
> If anything, the company in the article is infringing on a trademark that FB has been the owner of for nearly 4 years.
I don't disagree with you here.
> if it doesn't exist,
But you don't know that, do you? And that was the intent of my original comment. We can speculate basis the available data all we want, but we don't "know know" that their product doesn't exist. And no, launch of a product is not the only benchmark here.
- filoleg 5y ago>> if it doesn't exist > But you don't know that, do you? I think there was a misunderstanding here, so let me clarify. When I said that the product doesn't exist, I wasn't saying that it was all fake and they made up a non-existent product just to cash in on this controversy. By saying that it doesn't exist, I meant that there is no released product that anyone can use. Sure, they might have it somewhere on some engineer's machine or desk or whatever internally, no way for us to know. But for all practical intents and purposes, the product isn't released and there is no way for anyone to use it. Hell, there is no way for anyone to even know what the actual product is, and googling didn't help much. And if no one has access to the product and no one knows what it is, then it doesn't exist as a product on the market.