4 ms·

Not that I don't believe what you're saying, but how is this a thing they could possibly expect to hold up as a trademark infringement? They literally own a sin

Not that I don't believe what you're saying, but how is this a thing they could possibly expect to hold up as a trademark infringement? They literally own a single recently invented neologism of which neither the prefix nor the root is original. It seems to me that Instacart or Insta360 would be much more open to claims... honestly if it were me, I wouldn't hire a lawyer, just let them know to send me a letter what courthouse I should show up at with a dictionary.

chillingeffect 3y ago
[flagged]
smallmancontrov 3y ago
Being right doesn't matter if you aren't rich enough to fight.
diggan 3y ago
> Not that I don't believe what you're saying, but how is this a thing they could possibly expect to hold up as a trademark infringement? The worst part is that it doesn't even matter if they have a case or not. The mere threat of "Look at how much it'll cost you even if you're right" can be enough for people to pull back. Recent relevant case is the Sony vs Bleem!, where Bleem! "won" but because of costs, Bleem! had to shut down anyway. So even if Sony lost the court case, they won because they shut down the group.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
ensignavenger 3y ago
This exactly... I would represent myself, it would be fun.... and let Meta spend hundreds of thousands on lawyers. If I lost I would drag it out as long as possible and then if by some strange twist of fate I lost, I would declare bankruptcy and write a book about the whole thing.
- nimbleal 3y ago
  Or even shoot a documentary as you go. Netflix could end up paying for your time.
- frob 3y ago
  I know your comment is just internet puffery, but please know that the old adage is true: "A man who represents himself has a fool for a client." There is a reason that judges will ask defendents multiple times if they're really, really, truely sure they want to represent themselves before allowing it. As much as you wish it, a dictionary or common sense does little to nothing in a court of law. Mostly, you'll just annoy the judge who cares not about your dictionary, but the subtle details of copyright law, trademarks, uS code, registration timelines, dates of priority, common use, historical use, due diligence, and 50 other minute technical details I have never even thought about.
  - ensignavenger 3y ago
    I have represented myself in court before... and won. I wouldn't recomend it for everyone, but in a relatively low stakes case, it is better in my opinion, for me, to represent myself than to not have my side heard at all because I can't afford a lawyer. Some folks don't enjoy legal stuff like I do, and it would not be worth yheir time. I should also clarify that the OP probably made the right choice for them to settle, as they probably had more assets to lose than I do.
  - ixwt 3y ago
    I don't remember what podcast I heard it from, but another opinion about representing yourself: it's more taxing on the judge. It consumes more court resources to represent yourself; which already is scarce. Which is why they often make sure you really want to do this. In most cases, yeah. Most people have little to no idea how the courts run, so judges often have to give large amounts of leeway to non lawyer pro se defendants. I have no formal training, and am under no illusions that I'm smart enough to do it. But I am curious if I personally could do it. Argue before a judge, and antagonize court staff to figure out what needs to be filed, and how. All depending on the scale and stakes of the case.

chillingeffect 3y ago

[flagged]

smallmancontrov 3y ago

Being right doesn't matter if you aren't rich enough to fight.

diggan 3y ago

> Not that I don't believe what you're saying, but how is this a thing they could possibly expect to hold up as a trademark infringement? The worst part is that it doesn't even matter if they have a case or not. The mere threat of "Look at how much it'll cost you even if you're right" can be enough for people to pull back. Recent relevant case is the Sony vs Bleem!, where Bleem! "won" but because of costs, Bleem! had to shut down anyway. So even if Sony lost the court case, they won because they shut down the group.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

ensignavenger 3y ago

This exactly... I would represent myself, it would be fun.... and let Meta spend hundreds of thousands on lawyers. If I lost I would drag it out as long as possible and then if by some strange twist of fate I lost, I would declare bankruptcy and write a book about the whole thing.

nimbleal 3y ago
Or even shoot a documentary as you go. Netflix could end up paying for your time.
frob 3y ago
I know your comment is just internet puffery, but please know that the old adage is true: "A man who represents himself has a fool for a client." There is a reason that judges will ask defendents multiple times if they're really, really, truely sure they want to represent themselves before allowing it. As much as you wish it, a dictionary or common sense does little to nothing in a court of law. Mostly, you'll just annoy the judge who cares not about your dictionary, but the subtle details of copyright law, trademarks, uS code, registration timelines, dates of priority, common use, historical use, due diligence, and 50 other minute technical details I have never even thought about.
- ensignavenger 3y ago
  I have represented myself in court before... and won. I wouldn't recomend it for everyone, but in a relatively low stakes case, it is better in my opinion, for me, to represent myself than to not have my side heard at all because I can't afford a lawyer. Some folks don't enjoy legal stuff like I do, and it would not be worth yheir time. I should also clarify that the OP probably made the right choice for them to settle, as they probably had more assets to lose than I do.
- ixwt 3y ago
  I don't remember what podcast I heard it from, but another opinion about representing yourself: it's more taxing on the judge. It consumes more court resources to represent yourself; which already is scarce. Which is why they often make sure you really want to do this. In most cases, yeah. Most people have little to no idea how the courts run, so judges often have to give large amounts of leeway to non lawyer pro se defendants. I have no formal training, and am under no illusions that I'm smart enough to do it. But I am curious if I personally could do it. Argue before a judge, and antagonize court staff to figure out what needs to be filed, and how. All depending on the scale and stakes of the case.