4 ms·

Everyone copies everyone else. That's just the way this business works, and there's nothing anyone can do to stop it. I agree they should just change the name

Everyone copies everyone else. That's just the way this business works, and there's nothing anyone can do to stop it. I agree they should just change the name and try to out hustle these guys. If they didn't have the $ to buy the .com domain in the first place, they certainly can't afford to pay lawyers to wage a protracted trademark battle. Does anyone know who posted the original entry? Was it someone at twitvid.io/fliggo, a friend, or just someone random?

pg 17y ago
There's a difference between copying individual elements, and making a knockoff of something. That's why there's a distinct word "knockoff" for that case.
- sayrer 17y ago
  To me, the only thing that makes twitvid.com wrong is choosing the same name. Some of the features and accompanying copy are the same, but the layout is basically a combination of any ugc site and Twitter. These two both look a lot like justin.tv and okcupid.com. Also, twitvid.com looks better, which makes this situation more painful, I'm sure.
- jimboyoungblood 17y ago
  In my experience, that line is pretty fuzzy in this business. E.g., take all the various mafia games on facebook, myspace, iphone, and now twitter. They're more or less all knockoffs of one another, but nobody seems to care. In fact, consumers seem to love them all. In this case, shame on twitvid.com for using the exact same name (and filing a trademark application for it), but I think copying features and design elements is fair game. Ultimately the one that provides the best service will win.
- zimbabwe 17y ago
  Both sites took a ridiculously generic template for designing their page. Bubbly letters, Twitter colors, show users, 1-2-3 list. The designers for both products lack imagination and created products that fail to stand out. Maybe that works because they're making such a "widespread use" product, but you can't accuse people of stealing genericism. Not when every Twitter site works the exact same.

pg 17y ago

There's a difference between copying individual elements, and making a knockoff of something. That's why there's a distinct word "knockoff" for that case.

sayrer 17y ago
To me, the only thing that makes twitvid.com wrong is choosing the same name. Some of the features and accompanying copy are the same, but the layout is basically a combination of any ugc site and Twitter. These two both look a lot like justin.tv and okcupid.com. Also, twitvid.com looks better, which makes this situation more painful, I'm sure.
jimboyoungblood 17y ago
In my experience, that line is pretty fuzzy in this business. E.g., take all the various mafia games on facebook, myspace, iphone, and now twitter. They're more or less all knockoffs of one another, but nobody seems to care. In fact, consumers seem to love them all. In this case, shame on twitvid.com for using the exact same name (and filing a trademark application for it), but I think copying features and design elements is fair game. Ultimately the one that provides the best service will win.
zimbabwe 17y ago
Both sites took a ridiculously generic template for designing their page. Bubbly letters, Twitter colors, show users, 1-2-3 list. The designers for both products lack imagination and created products that fail to stand out. Maybe that works because they're making such a "widespread use" product, but you can't accuse people of stealing genericism. Not when every Twitter site works the exact same.