4 ms·
As much as I want to sympathize with the "original" Paper app creators, the name they chose is incredibly generic, common and they must have considered this pos
by josefresco 13y ago
As much as I want to sympathize with the "original" Paper app creators, the name they chose is incredibly generic, common and they must have considered this possibility when naming their product. Not only that, Paper invokes almost no meaning by itself and Facebook's use of it almost seems more appropriate.
it certainly sucks when an 800 lbs gorilla moves into your space, but let's not break out the pitchforks until we've considered all sides of this argument.
Having recently met with the dreaded lawyers regarding product naming for a side project of mine, they were clear to advise against using generic terms in the product name.
- almosnow 13y agoIm with you man. On their public statement they rant about how FB is somehow ruining the "heritage" associated to the word "paper" that they'd built. Yeah... "paper" "We think Facebook can apply the same degree of thought they put into the app into building a brand name of their own. An app about stories shouldn’t start with someone else’s story. Facebook should stop using our brand name." - That's just delusional.
- xauronx 13y agoTo be fair, that's kind of what ownership is about. Being first the stick your flag in some common thing and claim it as your own. Like "Salesforce" is a common term, but go ahead and try to make a company/product named that. In the Apple App Store realm, there's really one app named Paper and they probably spend a few bucks (/s) trying to make it a well known name.
- josefresco 13y agoOnwership requires more than "sticking your flag" in something. You need to also execute and build a product, service or entity around that flag otherwise you can't even begin to enforce any "ownership". If you start with a generic name like Paper, it's even harder to enforce.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]