2 ms·

This is just stupid. I'm usually fine with the TechCrunch criticism — frankly, we deserve it sometimes. But this was about protecting a source. Oftentimes wh

This is just stupid. I'm usually fine with the TechCrunch criticism — frankly, we deserve it sometimes. But this was about protecting a source. Oftentimes when we receive information like this we won't reveal the source unless we're given explicit permission to do so. This is especially important when an application or service is running on a platform they don't control, like the iPhone or Twitter, because the informant stands the risk of retaliation. I agree that the Tweetknot site design is derivative, but that wasn't the point of the story in the first place. What is important is the fact that Twitter is changing its stance with regard to the use of words like 'Twitter' and 'Tweet'. In fact, Twitter just wrote a blog post about it: http://blog.twitter.com/2009/07/may-tweets-be-with-you.html http://blog.twitter.com/2009/07/may-tweets-be-with-you.html

mquander 17y ago
The fact that Tweetknot is extremely derivative is crucial to the story. If Twitter had pressured a more unique, independent product about using "Tweet" or "Twitter", one might reasonably draw the conclusion that their goal is really to protect the terms "Tweet" and "Twitter." But when Twitter attacks Tweetknot through this charge, the most obvious explanation is that they have a particular problem with Tweetknot's general (in my opinion) rip-off of Twitter's aesthetic, and they're using "Tweet" as an initial concrete and legally solid means by which to force Tweetknot to stop copying Twitter. I do not see any evidence that Twitter is going to start going after people who are using their trademarks with unique and useful products and services. The blog post you linked delineates this policy from the horse's mouth. Your original article, on the other hand, obscured Twitter's intentions in order to present a more compelling and alarming story. In retrospect, given how derivative Tweetknot was, Twitter's email looks absolutely reasonable and makes their intentions totally clear. (Reference: original TC story -- http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/07/01/twitter-grows-uncomfortable-with-the-use-of-the-word-tweet-in-applications/ http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/07/01/twitter-grows-uncomfort...)

mquander 17y ago

The fact that Tweetknot is extremely derivative is crucial to the story. If Twitter had pressured a more unique, independent product about using "Tweet" or "Twitter", one might reasonably draw the conclusion that their goal is really to protect the terms "Tweet" and "Twitter." But when Twitter attacks Tweetknot through this charge, the most obvious explanation is that they have a particular problem with Tweetknot's general (in my opinion) rip-off of Twitter's aesthetic, and they're using "Tweet" as an initial concrete and legally solid means by which to force Tweetknot to stop copying Twitter. I do not see any evidence that Twitter is going to start going after people who are using their trademarks with unique and useful products and services. The blog post you linked delineates this policy from the horse's mouth. Your original article, on the other hand, obscured Twitter's intentions in order to present a more compelling and alarming story. In retrospect, given how derivative Tweetknot was, Twitter's email looks absolutely reasonable and makes their intentions totally clear. (Reference: original TC story -- http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/07/01/twitter-grows-uncomfortable-with-the-use-of-the-word-tweet-in-applications/ http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/07/01/twitter-grows-uncomfort...)