4 ms·
I would say: file a claim with the FTC against Google, Instagram and the “complainant” for anti-competitive behaviour, and when those 3 come begging to dismiss
by sebastien_b 4y ago
I would say: file a claim with the FTC against Google, Instagram and the “complainant” for anti-competitive behaviour, and when those 3 come begging to dismiss it say they need to take it up with the FTC as it’s now in their court (similar to how Google is passing the buck to deal with the “complainant” directly to get Google to restore the app).
- shadowgovt 4y agoWhat is the standing? The user's app isn't competing with any of those entities.
- sebastien_b 4y agoAnti-competitive behavior: disallowing a commercial app from existing by means that are illegitimate.
- shadowgovt 4y agoThe app can definitely still exist and even be vended on other stores, such as F-Droid. This smells similar to the Fortnite / Apple dustup, and the end result of that wasn't that Apple was forced to re-list Fortnite in their App Store; it was that [edit: my mistake; misremembered] Apple was barred from retaliating against Epic but the only way to play Fortnite (legally) on Apple hardware now is through Microsoft's cloud service. I don't know what legal precedent would force Google to list an app in their (obviously large and market-dominant) private store that they wholly own.
- tadfisher 4y agoUnlike copyright, there is no safe harbor for hosting trademark-infringing content, so what that would accomplish is a potential lawsuit against F-Droid alongside the developer.
- Meph504 4y agoDMCA would protect google from this, if the company appdetex (for instagram) files a valid DMCA take down request, google has to comply, and the appeals process can get it reinstated. But the DMCA request has to be honored first. I've always felt it was a shitty policy, it has been exploited countless, even more so in time sensitive situations. But that is the requirement as it stands now and no company is going to challenge it as a failure in attempt is far more harmful to them, than taking down someone else problematic content.
- donmcronald 4y agoIsn’t the DMCA only for copyright infringement [1]? > The DMCA safe harbor provisions only apply to claims of copyright infringement. Therefore, they do not provide any protection against trademark claims, whether for trademark infringement, trademark dilution, or cybersquatting. If the FTC has the authority I’d love to see them bring the hammer down on big tech for stuff like this. A $100 million fine for destroying someone’s small business would be fine by me. 1. https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/trademark-user-generated-content https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/trademark-user-generated-co...
- Meph504 4y agoThe problem if the dmca claim form is valid is the standard for take down, the court determines whose copyright claim is valid, not Google. And though they could argue the point, why argue a point that would have a detrimental effect for being wrong, and very little positive for being right? But yes, I think the Dmca system is flawed greatly without a serious punishment for those who abuse it.
- lsaferite 4y agoThey need to file a DMCA counter claim. That absolves Google and the next step for the original claimant after that is court.
- tadfisher 4y agoThis is a trademark infringement complaint, not a DMCA takedown notice. There is no safe harbor for Google here, thus no counter-notice procedure, and no incentive for Google to be named themselves in a trademark infringement suit.