5 ms·

It's scoped to video games and associated entertainment and services so it shouldn't apply to Twitter, if that's what this post is getting at.

devalnor 3y ago
"Entertainment services, namely, providing interactive multiplayer game services for games played over computer networks and global communications networks; providing computer games and video games downloadable over computer global communications networks; providing information on the video game and computer game industries via the Internet; and providing information on computer games, video games, video game consoles and accessories therefor via the Internet"
tchbnl 3y ago
I recommend checking under "Goods and Services" on that page. Some of those seem _just_ vague enough that Twitter could run afoul of them.
- gruez 3y ago
  The fact that it's vague also means it's easier to have it invalidated on the basis that it's too broad.
  - Retric 3y ago
    Vague but still within a narrow domain which is much harder to invalidate for being too broad. The Internet seems huge to programmers, but it’s still a fairly narrow slice of economic activity. We aren’t talking about nursery schools, hospitals, fast food, or even the XGames etc just because they happen to have a website.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
superfrank 3y ago
Musk's vision for X seems to be an everything app similar to WeChat. Wouldn't MS's trademark at least limit him from expanding X into gaming?
- netsharc 3y ago
  Or, it seems, any tweet that talks about gaming. It'd be funny if gaming companies and publications had to be removed from Twitter because of this trademark issue. Or if a Microsoft game studio tweeted about a game and it'd be a basis for a Microsoft trademark lawsuit against Twitter: A similar sort of trademark fight: > In 1978, Apple Corps, the Beatles-founded holding company and owner of their record label, Apple Records, filed a lawsuit against Apple Computer for trademark infringement. The suit was settled in 1981 with an undisclosed amount being paid to Apple Corps. [...] As a condition of the settlement, Apple Computer agreed not to enter the music business, and Apple Corps agreed not to enter the computer business. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer

devalnor 3y ago

"Entertainment services, namely, providing interactive multiplayer game services for games played over computer networks and global communications networks; providing computer games and video games downloadable over computer global communications networks; providing information on the video game and computer game industries via the Internet; and providing information on computer games, video games, video game consoles and accessories therefor via the Internet"

tchbnl 3y ago

I recommend checking under "Goods and Services" on that page. Some of those seem _just_ vague enough that Twitter could run afoul of them.

gruez 3y ago
The fact that it's vague also means it's easier to have it invalidated on the basis that it's too broad.
- Retric 3y ago
  Vague but still within a narrow domain which is much harder to invalidate for being too broad. The Internet seems huge to programmers, but it’s still a fairly narrow slice of economic activity. We aren’t talking about nursery schools, hospitals, fast food, or even the XGames etc just because they happen to have a website.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

superfrank 3y ago

Musk's vision for X seems to be an everything app similar to WeChat. Wouldn't MS's trademark at least limit him from expanding X into gaming?

netsharc 3y ago
Or, it seems, any tweet that talks about gaming. It'd be funny if gaming companies and publications had to be removed from Twitter because of this trademark issue. Or if a Microsoft game studio tweeted about a game and it'd be a basis for a Microsoft trademark lawsuit against Twitter: A similar sort of trademark fight: > In 1978, Apple Corps, the Beatles-founded holding company and owner of their record label, Apple Records, filed a lawsuit against Apple Computer for trademark infringement. The suit was settled in 1981 with an undisclosed amount being paid to Apple Corps. [...] As a condition of the settlement, Apple Computer agreed not to enter the music business, and Apple Corps agreed not to enter the computer business. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer