3 ms·
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 "Tw
by 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...)