9 ms·
A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook)
- scotthtaylor 13y agoCan both not exist? I don't see how there could be overlap or confusion from potential customers.
- fourstar 13y agoTell that to the makers of Candy Crush.
- ig1 13y ago"I always use Paper on my ipad for all my pictures, you should check it out" Which app would you download from the appstore ?
- scotthtaylor 13y agoIt just seems a bit melodramatic. Should Google Mail have been named Google Post, just because Yahoo Mail was first? They aren't operating in the same space; furthermore, Facebook didn't name it just "Paper" in the App Store, they've named it "Paper - stories from Facebook".
- azinman2 13y agoExactly. It's a single generic word.
- taude 13y agoPictures or drawings? I don't know anyone who uses Paper for all their pictures. Maybe it's an image editor now?
- ig1 13y agoWhich Paper are you talking about 53 or Facebook ?
- anonymouz 13y agoI would be confused about why you are putting a piece of paper on top of your iPad.
- smm2000 13y agoI do not know - there are 240 apps in Google Play store that have "paper" in name. This includes "Draw Paper", "Paper Draw ", "White Paper", "Infinite Paper" and countless others. Also at least two apps are just called "Paper" - not sure how anyone can distinguish them other than looking at company name. I seriously doubt that 53 was the first company that used Paper in the name.
- poopsintub 13y agoNever mind the hissy fit...move along now. I suppose they could go trademark "paper" and have a nice cease and desist ready to go?
- iamjs 13y agohow do two apps for iOS devices with identical names not create the potential for confusion?
- stonemetal 13y agoI don't know what you mean there is "Paper – stories from Facebook" and "Paper by FiftyThree". You know what I don't see them complaining about? "Paper" by misoft (an identical product by the way) and 100 other apps with paper in the title. Considering misoft got "paper" and fifty three had to use "Papaer by FiftyThree" it kind of makes me wonder if this isn't a case of the pot calling the kettle black. This seems much more like manufactured controversy for free press than anything else.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- gorner 13y agoProbably "Paper" in the sense of "newspaper".
- biscarch 13y agoIt makes sense for a "newspaper" type app as well. It's not often I hear someone say "I'm going to get the newspaper" but far more often I hear "I'm going to get the paper".
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- k-mcgrady 13y ago>> "Facebook's app is a newsreader that kind of somehow has to do with paper maybe?" I'm guessing the name is a reference to 'newspaper'. Most people I know just refer to the newspaper as 'the paper'.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- personlurking 13y agoThe Facebook > Facebook Paper > The Paper fixed ;)
- fastest963 13y agoIf King can trademark the word Candy then I'm sure Paper would be allowed.
- dpcheng2003 13y agoHonestly, I think we'll see more downloads of Paper (53) because of confused people looking to download Paper (FB). I see this is as a huge PR win for 53 and both will end up co-existing and succeeding (probably). There are TWO billion-dollar storage companies with Box in the name. Now that's confusing.
- MartinCron 13y agoDon't even get me started on ABC and NBC.
- freehunter 13y agoI don't know how often I hear at work "Put it in my dropbox", where "my dropbox", of course, refers to Box.com. I did work on a project once where most of the contributors referred to Google Drive as their dropbox, as well.
- valvoja 13y agoIt's like Apple Inc and Apple Corps. Lesson to self, avoid generic names.
- james33 13y agoThe generic name seems to have worked out well for Apple though, hasn't it?
- valvoja 13y ago30 years later? Sure, but I think they would have done well with any brand name. I really like 53's Paper app, but I wouldn't like it any less if it were called Doodlepad, DrawPaper etc.
- notatoad 13y agoWhich Apple? it worked out okay for the company that came along and took the name later. Apple Corp has essentially lost their name at this point though
- MartinCron 13y agoApple Corps has nothing to cry over, I am sure.
- untilHellbanned 13y agoI feel for FiftyThree but the ship of anyone caring of FB's missteps has long sailed. FB being the first $1 trillion company seems inevitable. FB is the borg of all borgs.
- personlurking 13y agoA slightly related anecdote: Yesterday I saw grafitti that said "resistance is fertile". A good twist, I thought, especially for potential startups that could go the way of "let's make another photo app" vs. "let's solve something important".
- tomasien 13y agoI think Facebook should change Paper's name mainly because Paper is a horrible name for this product, which is actually "Facebook without all the crap you never use". The fact that "Paper by FiftyThree" is a name already in use is another factor, why fight this battle when the name isn't even very good?
- sliverstorm 13y agoRight, it's simplified Facebook. Facebook with all the extra bits removed. The hardback book reduced to the paperback...
- tomasien 13y agoYeah, I mean it's not the worst, it's just not like, "MUST DEFEND THIS AWESOME NAME" level IMO.
- christiangenco 13y agoMy first thought when I read the Facebook Paper announcement was along these lines. This is a big social faux paus on Facebook's part - at least among the developer community - but I really don't see either company changing their Paper's name. I imagine it'll go similarly to Google's Go name collision[1]. How should the little guy in these situations be legally protected? On one hand it's clear that "candy" shouldn't be trademarked, but "paper" is just as generic a term. Maybe the lesson here is not to name your product generic nouns and avoid the trouble all together. 1. https://code.google.com/p/go/issues/detail?id=9 https://code.google.com/p/go/issues/detail?id=9
- rz2k 13y agoThat's what I thought of, since two programming languages are even more alike. Did it not turn out to be a legal issue because there was ultimately little commercial interest behind the Go![1] language? Apple Computer had to pay Apple Corps, even though it seemed like the computer industry had little to do with the music industry at the time[2], so it is confusing how the conflict can be ignored until it goes away. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go!_%28programming_language%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go!_%28programming_language%29 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v._Apple_Computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v._Apple_Computer
- thrush 13y agoIt's a matter of respect. Paper (FiftyThree) is a well known brand and app, so basically the Facebook developers were 100% aware that they were utilizing someone's name (at least they should have been), and therefore they went ahead to publish their new app with complete disregard for what already existed.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- pron 13y agoOn the other hand, FiftyThree have chosen a very common English word for their product name. You can't call dibs on a word like "paper", and this was a risk they should have taken into account. Either choose a proper (and trademarkable) name, or choose a common word and expect such consequences. You can't have it both ways, and I think even considering Facebook's Paper, FiftyThree have probably made the right tradeoff. Whining about it now just makes them look bad.
- austenallred 13y agoWhat about something like "Square?" That's about as generic as it gets, yet is there any question as to what someone is referring to when they are talking about "Square" in the context of an app?
- pron 13y agoIf Square whines about someone else using the name, I will say the same thing. It's a tradeoff, and they've made their choice.
- thrush 13y agoThere are two sides of the story. Square (Paper in this case) probably does not benefit greatly from whining (from both PR and legal perspectives), but why would a company take the name to begin with. Either they were blind, or confident that there brand would bypass whatever was existing, or they are hoping to ride off existing brand recognition for a quick boost.
- k-mcgrady 13y agoIf I was in FiftyThree's position I would be pissed off. But it is a very common word. Simply changing the name of the app to 'Facebook Paper' would probably help with a lot of the issues it might cause.
- sliverstorm 13y agoYeah, it will be pretty ridiculous if FiftyThree manages to enforce some kind of IP over the use of the word "paper" as a name for a product... Trademarking common English words, anyone?
- fleitz 13y agoWindows, Apple, etc are all trademarked, pls stop being an arm chair lawyer and recognize there is a huge amount of precedent in using common english words to trademark things other than their common usage. MS can trademark Windows in conjunction with computer interfaces, but not if they decide to make windows that go in houses. That's where the common usage trademark issue arises. Also, if like kerosene the word becomes common usage then the trademark can be revoked. The law is nuanced, there is no blanket ban on trademarking words in common usage.
- sliverstorm 13y agoYes, I understand that. It just looks to me like a lack of much overlap between the products. In the case where the products don't overlap, if you are successful at legal action against the other product then it starts to look a lot more like "trademarking a word" rather than "trademarking a word as a name for a product that operates in X space", and one of these two things is much more irksome than the other. If it makes you feel any better, this is not my "legal opinion", this is my John Publik voter's opinion.
- Touche 13y agoYou should read up on Microsoft v Lindows.
- ynniv 13y agoPeople are going to call the app by Facebook "Facebook Paper" because "Paper" is simply too generic. 53's drawing app name is not strong either. Their iOS app is not called "Paper", but "Paper by FiftyThree". Their icon is not of paper, but of a napkin style rendering of "53". For all intents, the drawing simulation brand name is "FiftyThree". There was a brief moment in history when people thought "I wonder if 53 was acquired". That time has passed, and no one will mistake them from now on. "Facebook Paper" is an alternative interface to Facebook. "Paper by FiftyThree" is a drawing application. Other than that they are both software, there's little room for confusion. 53 can get upset and write a blog post about it, but there is no substantive damage done. They'll probably sell more of their own product because of this.
- fleitz 13y agoAnd 'facebook' is original? FB's legal team has a hernia anytime someone on the web uses face or book, perhaps they should take their own advice? If it continues it might be funny for 53 to release Paper Facebook.
- ynniv 13y ago"Facebook" is also pretty generic, but when you have enough well paid lawyers these things matter less. Also, it is very unlikely that Facebook is attempting to benefit from 53's brand. Facebook wanted to call their product something descriptive, and the names collided. Compare this to any name involving "Facebook", which likely is attempting to benefit. Outside of a directly competing service, it's unlikely that the name of a product would include the word "Facebook". This makes "Facebook" less generic and more enforceable than "Paper".
- ig1 13y agoFacebook was completely generic. Facebook used to be term for the paperback student profile books that universities produced. Facebook the website started as an electronic version of the paper facebooks.
- 13y ago
- fuzzywalrus 13y agoI admire FiftyThree but this ship has sailed. Unless FiftyThree is willing to lawyer up, I can't imagine anything changing.
- sleepyK 13y agoMaybe they'll release it as Facebook Paper... But to be honest, if there's a genuine app already bearing that name, they're better off going with something else...
- freshyill 13y agoIt's listed as "Paper – stories from Facebook" on the App Store.
- throwaway420 13y agoI'm a big fan of Paper from 53 (not the most feature-filled drawing tool, but definitely the most pleasant to use) and respect that they wrote a polite request about this and tried to use this as a marketing opportunity rather than threatening legal action or citing some bizarre trademark argument where they claim to have the right to force others not to use a word. 53 comes across pretty well here thus far IMO.
- petenixey 13y agoPfft. What a silly request. This is an entirely different application. Should we expect an upcoming blog post from 53 complaining that Crayola has released a new product entitled "Pencil"? If you want to protect your name, use a protectable name. If you're going to use an entirely generic name then deal with it... wait hang on... Dunder Mifflin just called... they want their name back too. Cool company, great products, daft blog post.
- phreeza 13y agoWhats more, Wacom also has an app called Paper, which does something very similar to 53 paper. Not sure which one was there first, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was Wacom.
- mchusma 13y agoIt was Wacom. Which was why Paper called themselves "Paper by 53".
- tomweingarten 13y agoWacom seems to brand their product as Bamboo Paper. Was it always branded that way, or is it a reaction to 53/Facebook?
- mchusma 13y agoSorry, wrong developer, same point. The actual developer name is Contradictory. Timeline: (1) Contradictory made "Paper" (2) 53 made "Paper by 53", with the same function as "Paper" (just a lot better) (3) Facebook made "Paper - stories from Facebook"
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- throwaway420 13y agoInsofar as FiftyThree is merely making a polite request as a matter of professional courtesy rather than threatening legal action, then I don't think your criticism applies. They didn't get nasty about it, they didn't cite some bizarre legal arguments where they claimed to forever own the word Paper. They just made a cordial request. I think that's entirely reasonable and makes them come across very good in this situation.
- rokhayakebe 13y agoI, for one, do not think Facebook should change the name because these guys do not own the word "Paper." It would have been different if their app was called FiftyPapers and Facebook used the same name.
- SimonDawlat 13y agoSearch for "Paper" in the App Store? Problem solved.
- Touche 13y agoNo, you don't own the word Paper.
- basseq 13y agoTo be honest, I thought of FiftyThree first, too, when I heard the Facebook announcement. Reading between the lines on this blog post, it doesn't sound like FiftyThree has any legal claim or trademark to hold against Facebook (even if they wanted to litigate). Facebook has already "gone live" with the Paper name—I think it's too late to change it. Whether it's malicious (are they "building their story" off FiftyThree's work?) or not ("Oops") is almost irrelevant here.
- Finster 13y agoIf 53 didn't register Paper as a trademark, they are pretty much SOL, right? If they did, it's pretty clear that Facebook's property creates confusion in the market. Trademark law seems pretty clear here, but IANAL.
- tomweingarten 13y agoIANAL either, but my understanding is that, in the US, they don't need to file a trademark as long as they can prove they were using the name in commerce first. As far as international usage, that's a different story.
- pirateking 13y agoHumans have done just fine for a long time managing their own mental namespaces. Paper already means different things in different contexts before either of these apps - "I am writing a paper", "have you read today's paper?", "have your papers ready for inspection". There are also many different brands and types of paper with very different material properties and use cases. Choosing an already in use word for any new publicly accessible thing complicates the global namespace a little more than it already is, but if it is the name you really wish to give it, sometimes a little distributed parsing overhead is better than the alternatives - trademarking "paper" or calling your product "Payper" instead.
- jrockway 13y agoSee also: Microsoft Windows vs. X Window System.
- BrownBuffalo 13y agoThe bigger your footprint becomes in the arena of the Internet, the more care it takes to make sure you are not stepping on other's IP. The problem with the Interwebs is that IP crosses so many silos and this isn't just a problem of name but of application of the use here. I can't see FB being more than apologetic to FiftyThree. As much as FiftyThree thinks they have just cause here - its more of a use / intention than it is the confusion with name. I highly doubt anything will come of this, because of the logical difference. Its an identity thing vs. market clash over the same product.
- shanselman 13y agoCompanies, even hip web 3.0 companies, need to stop taking generic common nouns and declaring them trademarks. From Surface to Paper, these names are far too easy to confuse.
- jonny_eh 13y agoI recall people complaining about all the made up words being used for company names from the web 2.0 era.
- stusmall 13y agoI like that Microsoft even stepped on their own toes with Surface. When something comes up about it sometimes I have to clarify if its about the tablet or the "big ass table"
- atacrawl 13y agoOne of Facebook’s board members is an investor in FiftyThree. This line tells the whole story. This isn't just the case of a large company perhaps not noticing another product in the digital space with the same name. This is very deliberate, and the CEO comes across as flabbergasted with Facebook's decision.
- jawaddeo 13y agoPlease don't monopolise language! If you tell me I cannot use the word Paper any longer, I resent that deeply, even if Apple and others have done that. Paper is not distinctive enough, not even very imaginative, 'creative' dare I say, of an app that claims to be all about creativity.
- micahgoulart 13y agoThis app is very unrelated to Facebook as we know it: our friends and their content. That is just one part of the app. It's more a curated news app on the whole. Either Facebook released this as a project their engineers did to test out interfaces or they are collecting data from this app about what is shared and what content is viewed to improve their own feed algorithms.
- covercash 13y agoThe actual app titles from the App Store seem different enough to me, and I'm a huge fan of FiftyThree. Paper by FiftyThree (FiftyThree, Inc.) Paper - stories from Facebook (Facebook, Inc.) Another distinction to keep in mind is FiftyThree's Paper is iPad only and Facebook's is iPhone only (although it will install on iPad).
- qq66 13y agoYesterday: Vitriol slung at King for trying to trademark "Candy." Today: Much more sympathy for 53 attempting the "trademark of public opinion."
- Gigablah 13y agoThat's to be expected. In both cases vitriol is directed at the Goliath.
- etanazir 13y agois this trademark 'descriptive', 'distinctive', or 'generic' ?
- plusbryan 13y agoWon't this only benefit FiftyThree now that many more people are searching the App Store for "Paper"? Seems like a victimless crime.
- wavesplash 13y agoThere are some great opinions posted so let me add some data from uspto.gov (use 'trademark search' from the menu) and a touch of what I understand of Trademark law after filing a few myself: 53 was granted a US Trademark on the phrase 'Paper by FiftyThree' on December 2013 for trademark categories 21 23 26 36 38 and it appears international category 9 with a first-used-in-commerce claim of March 2013. 53 are obligated to enforce their mark in those categories otherwise they risk losing it. This is the same reason Facebook goes after anything with 'face or book' that even vaguely seems similar. If they don't they risk losing the Facebook mark. The law sides with the trademark holder as long as they enforce the mark. As many people have mentioned, 'Paper' is generic and 53 didn't get the word 'Paper' by itself. It was granted the mark 'Paper by FiftyThree'. Since Facebook's app isn't called 'Paper by Facebook' this leaves some wiggle room if FB wants to challenge the claim if it heads to court. Facebook has deep pockets and good lawyers, so perhaps they've already calculated the risk and is willing to fight in court. 53 may not be able to afford that fight (cash or distraction wise). TL;DR: 53 is obligated to enforce their Trademark and the letter to Facebook is a manifestation of that obligation. Unfortunately their mark isn't just on the word 'paper' so it will be interesting to see if this fades away or the parties head to court.
- seandougall 13y ago> 53 is obligated to enforce their Trademark and the letter to Facebook is a manifestation of that obligation. But the open letter is not. A simple C&D would have protected them; publishing it is purely about marketing.
- wavesplash 13y agoAgreed, seems an intentional move from the marketing playbook: If goliath gets news, pick a public fight when you're David. A very cheap investment for that level of exposure.
- amjaeger 13y agonext they're going to write to wb mason that they should change the name of their product to "printer sheet" or something like that....
- iambateman 13y agoMight I suggest that this is not the first time Facebook has drawn the ire of the tech community and won't be the last. It seems Facebook simply doesn't care. FiftyThree's complaint will blow over in a few days. However, FiftyThree is signing up plenty of new users from the story. They're probably genuinely upset but this won't be their death and it might even be a good thing. I'd never heard of Paper beforehand.
- drfloob 13y agoAll respect issues aside, generic names like this are a pain in the ass. "go" (google) and "react" (facebook) are similar. For example, Twitter-folk have taken to using #ReactJS to mean Facebook's React UI framework, but react.js[1] has been around a while already, and it does some similar stuff (if you squint a bit). You can't mention or search for them without barfing out the company name, and sometimes a specific property alongside to be unambiguous about your meaning. It makes finding discussions and blog posts harder because people don't have a common language for these poorly-named things. It just seems like these companies are shooting themselves in the foot. Is natural word-of-mouth growth no longer a concern? [1]: http://reactjs.com/ http://reactjs.com/
- nikcub 13y agoThe irony here is that Facebook are extremely aggressive about protecting their own name. They have sued other companies for using generic words as part of their names, like 'face' or 'book' or 'wall'. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/25/business/la-fi-0826-facebook-suit-20100825 http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/25/business/la-fi-0826-...
- nicolethenerd 13y agoWhen I first heard about Facebook's Paper, I wondered how that conversation could have possibly gone down... "So we're building this great new experience, and we want to call it Paper..." "Isn't there already an incredibly popular mobile application called Paper?" "So?" Some variant of this conversation must have happened, right? It's not like nobody at Facebook has heard of 53 - how did this name ever get out the door? It seems like most of us here on HN think of 53's Paper when we think of 'app called Paper' - perhaps this isn't the case in the overall consumer market (but then again, Paper - 53's, that is - was once featured prominently on Apple.com - not just the app store, but the main website) - but to me at least, it feels like Facebook is using a name which is 'already taken'.
- BryantD 13y agoThere was a drawing app called Paper in the App Store in October 2011, five months before 53 released their app. It doesn't look very good, but that's not the point. https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/paper/id474402870?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/paper/id474402870?mt=8
- Aardwolf 13y agoI don't get it, does this involve actual paper?
- bikamonki 13y agoThe world of app names is weirdly. Obviously you cannot put up an app named Facebook but most likely you can put one named FB Calculator. The way I see it, parts of an app name can be protected, others are generic. It is like subdomains: news.ycombinator.com cannot ask news.fiftythree.com to stop using news. Anyhow, what's the name of that FB Android app that turns your phone's desktop into a FB desktop? Or was it iOS app? What exactly was it anyway? FB OS? Don't worry Paper53, PaperFB is probably another fluke, a quick yet clumsy response to Medium's menacing growth, to the wall's irrelevance, to the teens running away....
- arthurcolle 13y agoits called Facebook Home
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- antr 13y ago>There’s a simple fix here. We think Facebook can apply the same degree of thought they put into the app into building a brand name of their own. It seems to me that both FB and 53 applied the same degree of thought. IMHO, I find it absurd that private companies want to make common words their own. Couldn't the "degree of thought" 53 put into their naming process led them to think that "paper" was an extremely generic word and this conflict was bound to happen?
- cheshire137 13y agoOver here in Android land, there's no confusion at all, because neither app is in the Play Store. :P
- malandrew 13y agoSince the Apple store rankings are intentionally opaque and controlled by Apple for its own gain, I secretly hope that the Apple artificially ranks 53 Paper above Facebook Paper. At the end of the day Paper has been an excellent app for the Apple ecosystem and it would be a nice way to say "thanks" to 53. If this happens, then Facebook's use should help 53 get more downloads since most users will go along with the first result in the store.
- dctoedt 13y agoIt's helpful to analyze this the way a U.S. court likely would. Suppose hypothetically that the following are true: (A) that the mark PAPER is protectable for what 53 sells -- and I think that's highly likely; PAPER in this context strikes me as a "suggestive" and therefore protectable mark [1]; and (B) that 53 was the first user of the mark; and (C) that there's a "likelihood of confusion" about the origin, sponsorship, or endorsement of the companies' products or services -- this entails looking at seven or eight factual questions, namely the "strength" of the mark; the proximity of the goods; the similarity of the marks in appearance and/or sound; any evidence of actual confusion; similarity in marketing channels used; the type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser the junior user's intent in selecting the mark; and the likelihood of expansion of the respective product lines [2]. In that situation, as the junior user, Facebook would (or should) be liable for infringement. Another point: 53 can be damaged by "reverse confusion," namely people thinking that 53 is the one that's ripping off Facebook [3]. [1] http://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/detail/manual/TMEP/Oct2012/TMEP-1200d1e6993.xml http://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/detail/manual/TMEP/Oct2012/TMEP-1... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_infringement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_infringement [3] http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/reverse-confusion-trademark/ http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/reverse-confusion-trademark...
- tethis 13y agoSweet jesus I cannot read that font.
- conductr 13y ago53 has chosen to use generic single word nouns for their products. Paper, Pencil, Book. When you do that, you do not deserve the consideration the author is expecting from Facebook. Yes it may cause confusion, but they should have used unique names for their products if they wanted the differentiation.
- cx42net 13y ago"And that is why, folks, we are proud to announce our newest product : Facebook". That should do it ;)