5 ms·

Disclaimer: Please don't take my (or anyone's) advice at face value without spending some serious time considering the best option for you. I can't help but th

by lbrandy 17y ago

Disclaimer: Please don't take my (or anyone's) advice at face value without spending some serious time considering the best option for you. I can't help but think there's something you aren't telling us, otherwise they've made a colossal error. Let's look at your absolute worst case scenario. They cut off your API, put you completely out business, and end your app. Let's look at what they are offering you: $250. The worst case scenario + $250. What, exactly, do you have to lose, by rejecting their offer? $250. Put another way: nothing. Absolutely, nothing. What is their worst case scenario? That you, oh I don't know, post around to bunch of places like Hacker News that they basically strong-armed you mafia style to shut down. Word spreads through dev circles that they are basically screwing their devs and abusing the trust of the dev community. They have to do all kinds of PR damage control. The entire point of an open API is to attract devs to help spread your brand. If they want to turn around and start screwing the very people who help them, they'll find that dev pool dry very, very quickly. In other words, the position they've put you in, you have virtually nothing to lose, and they have quite a bit. I'd respond accordingly. Save all their emails. Start working on the "zillow.com screws devs" website. Name your price, and tell them for both your sake, they should accept.

Retric 17y ago
Worst case for zillow: Since launch the site has received ~50,000 visitors + links from techcrunch, apple, google (appengine) and numerous blogs + recognition in the New York Times. They let a well known company uses izillow for a while so they may have lost their trade mark by failing to defend it. PS: It's a huge risk for company's to let others use their brands without defending them. They can get him to change the name or license the use of iZillow, but doing nothing is a really bad idea for them.
- enjo 17y ago
  Since they where in contact with the app author and asked him to make a remedy to the issue (tagging it with 'unofficial version') they have effectively defended the trademark. Defense of trademark doesn't mean you have to prevent others from using it, but rather that you have to show that you are taking steps to control it to prevent it from running into the general venacular. Also to lose the trademark your going to have to show that it's become a common synonym for a particular category (think Kleenex instead of tissue). Zillow is a LONG ways from that.
mattmaroon 17y ago
I like this. At the worst, they'll probably back off. I would if I were them. I'd also be sure to get in contact with Zillow's CEO over this. I wouldn't be surprised if the guys at the top have no idea these shenanigans are going on.
- Tangurena 17y ago
  I disagree. I think they're intentionally lowballing the OP order to abuse the AntiCybersquatting act to screw them into the ground. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_vs._MikeRoweSoft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_vs._MikeRoweSoft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticybersquatting_Consumer_Protection_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticybersquatting_Consumer_Pro...
  - tvon 17y ago
    Definitely, it's an absurdly low amount for an important domain name, but at the same time they could probably win it in court without much trouble, I'd think.
    - josefresco 17y ago
      It would cost them thousands of dollars to win the domain in court. Which means he can probably get ... thousands of dollars from them instead of an insulting $250. Maybe he should sell it on SitePoint? (the PR comes free!)
  - micks56 17y ago
    Bingo. Negotiating shows bad faith and the would-be purchaser gets the domain for free, almost instantly. Negotiation is the absolute worst possible thing to do in a situation like this.
    - nostrademons 17y ago
      How much does filing a lawsuit cost, along with the associated attorneys fees? Probably a whole lot more than a few thousand dollars.
jm4 17y ago
This would make sense if he wasn't using their brand name in the domain name. It's not so much that he's got a competing application as it is that he's piggybacking on their branding by using a domain name that's different from their trademarked name by a single letter in front. I'd say he's pretty clearly in wrong on that point and they're being very cool about the whole situation. Plenty of other companies would start things off with a cease and desist. Instead of paying the lawyers to print a nastygram on firm letterhead they've offered him a little money and tried to make things easy.

by lbrandy 17y ago

Retric 17y ago

Worst case for zillow: Since launch the site has received ~50,000 visitors + links from techcrunch, apple, google (appengine) and numerous blogs + recognition in the New York Times. They let a well known company uses izillow for a while so they may have lost their trade mark by failing to defend it. PS: It's a huge risk for company's to let others use their brands without defending them. They can get him to change the name or license the use of iZillow, but doing nothing is a really bad idea for them.

enjo 17y ago
Since they where in contact with the app author and asked him to make a remedy to the issue (tagging it with 'unofficial version') they have effectively defended the trademark. Defense of trademark doesn't mean you have to prevent others from using it, but rather that you have to show that you are taking steps to control it to prevent it from running into the general venacular. Also to lose the trademark your going to have to show that it's become a common synonym for a particular category (think Kleenex instead of tissue). Zillow is a LONG ways from that.

mattmaroon 17y ago

I like this. At the worst, they'll probably back off. I would if I were them. I'd also be sure to get in contact with Zillow's CEO over this. I wouldn't be surprised if the guys at the top have no idea these shenanigans are going on.

Tangurena 17y ago
I disagree. I think they're intentionally lowballing the OP order to abuse the AntiCybersquatting act to screw them into the ground. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_vs._MikeRoweSoft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_vs._MikeRoweSoft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticybersquatting_Consumer_Protection_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticybersquatting_Consumer_Pro...
- tvon 17y ago
  Definitely, it's an absurdly low amount for an important domain name, but at the same time they could probably win it in court without much trouble, I'd think.
  - josefresco 17y ago
    It would cost them thousands of dollars to win the domain in court. Which means he can probably get ... thousands of dollars from them instead of an insulting $250. Maybe he should sell it on SitePoint? (the PR comes free!)
- micks56 17y ago
  Bingo. Negotiating shows bad faith and the would-be purchaser gets the domain for free, almost instantly. Negotiation is the absolute worst possible thing to do in a situation like this.
  - nostrademons 17y ago
    How much does filing a lawsuit cost, along with the associated attorneys fees? Probably a whole lot more than a few thousand dollars.

jm4 17y ago

This would make sense if he wasn't using their brand name in the domain name. It's not so much that he's got a competing application as it is that he's piggybacking on their branding by using a domain name that's different from their trademarked name by a single letter in front. I'd say he's pretty clearly in wrong on that point and they're being very cool about the whole situation. Plenty of other companies would start things off with a cease and desist. Instead of paying the lawyers to print a nastygram on firm letterhead they've offered him a little money and tried to make things easy.