3 ms·

Why should companies be able to "delete" 3rd party forums where people discuss their products and help each other? If someone asks a question on Stack Overflow

by bobbyi 18y ago

Why should companies be able to "delete" 3rd party forums where people discuss their products and help each other? If someone asks a question on Stack Overflow about using Visual Studio, should Microsoft be able to delete it? Should they be able to sue SO? Should SO not be able to run ads for products that compete with VS?

tom_rath 18y ago
I don't think there's any problem with third-parties putting together support forums, Q&A pages or the like. It's when they snatch the look-and-feel of a company's site to try and pass themselves off as an official part of that company (without permission!) which sends my alarm bells ringing.
- oldwesley 18y ago
  Yep, look-and-feel is protected as part of a company's intellectual property. As it should be.
  - RWilson 18y ago
    You're technically right. For reference, look and feel fall under "trade dress" [http://www.ivanhoffman.com/tradedress.html http://www.ivanhoffman.com/tradedress.html]. In brief, the relevant case law is: "To recover for trade dress infringement ... a plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) that its trade dress has obtained “secondary meaning” in the marketplace; (2) that the trade dress of the two competing products is confusingly similar; and (3) that the appropriated features of the trade dress are primarily nonfunctional." Continuing ... "Strength of ... trade dress depends upon the interplay of two elements, the uniqueness of the trade dress and the investment in imbuing a trade dress with secondary meaning." ... which makes trade dress difficult to prove, even to only a preponderance of the evidence.
tptacek 18y ago
They clearly shouldn't be able to stifle online discussions about products. Under US trademark law, the right to use trademarks you don't own for purposes of commentary or criticism is specifically carved out. But that's a red herring. The relevant complaint for this branch of the discussion is that GS wound up sponsoring a website that was clearly and evidently confusing to the public. They ran that site for commercial gain, and in multiple ways made appeals to 37signals for payment to gain more control over that site. None of that is kosher.

by bobbyi 18y ago

tom_rath 18y ago

I don't think there's any problem with third-parties putting together support forums, Q&A pages or the like. It's when they snatch the look-and-feel of a company's site to try and pass themselves off as an official part of that company (without permission!) which sends my alarm bells ringing.

oldwesley 18y ago
Yep, look-and-feel is protected as part of a company's intellectual property. As it should be.
- RWilson 18y ago
  You're technically right. For reference, look and feel fall under "trade dress" [http://www.ivanhoffman.com/tradedress.html http://www.ivanhoffman.com/tradedress.html]. In brief, the relevant case law is: "To recover for trade dress infringement ... a plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) that its trade dress has obtained “secondary meaning” in the marketplace; (2) that the trade dress of the two competing products is confusingly similar; and (3) that the appropriated features of the trade dress are primarily nonfunctional." Continuing ... "Strength of ... trade dress depends upon the interplay of two elements, the uniqueness of the trade dress and the investment in imbuing a trade dress with secondary meaning." ... which makes trade dress difficult to prove, even to only a preponderance of the evidence.

tptacek 18y ago

They clearly shouldn't be able to stifle online discussions about products. Under US trademark law, the right to use trademarks you don't own for purposes of commentary or criticism is specifically carved out. But that's a red herring. The relevant complaint for this branch of the discussion is that GS wound up sponsoring a website that was clearly and evidently confusing to the public. They ran that site for commercial gain, and in multiple ways made appeals to 37signals for payment to gain more control over that site. None of that is kosher.