6 ms·

So, there is a bunch of info we dont have... But would it not make sense to just rebrand? From a preliminary search on twitter, there is a huge amount of users

So, there is a bunch of info we dont have... But would it not make sense to just rebrand? From a preliminary search on twitter, there is a huge amount of users still using twitpic. Seems like this is a biz that could/should make millions a year with some cost reductions and run mostly on autopilot. Also, what happens to the millions of pictures previously hosted with these guys? Even if you can backup/export all your data, think about all those links on twitter that are going to suddenly stop working. Its basically like a URL shortener shutting down. Shit, send the site over here and Il provide the resources to keep it going. Just seems like such a shame.

MikeKusold 12y ago
> But would it not make sense to just rebrand? Most likely not. TwitPic's only possible exit was an acquisition by Twitter, who has since developed their own image hosting platform. This is the danger of tying your startup to another company that has the power to shut you down. The company that you are tied to needs to either acquire you, or you are at their mercy.
- adventured 12y ago
  On the bright side, Noah earned millions in profit with TwitPic over the years (by his own admission). If he has played it smart at all, he's not going to have to ever worry about money. On to the next.
  - colinbartlett 12y ago
    Really? How? With advertising? I guess I am spoiled by AdBlock and didn't know they even made money.
danbruc 12y ago
Sound to me like they are trying to see if Twitter is willing to change their mind when they threaten to shut the service down and break all the tweets. Rebranding would be an obvious option but they would still have to keep to current domain alive in order to not break the links. Could they abandon the trademark and still keep the domain or could Twitter just grab the trademark and based on that later also try to claim the domain and maybe restore all the links from a backup?
- snowwrestler 12y ago
  Twitter could issue them a license on their brand name, with the contract limiting its use to catching and redirecting old links. As long as there is a nominal license fee, that should satisfy the trademark lawyers.
gorner 12y ago
Yeah, they really should have just looked at rebranding. A few Instagram-related services (e.g. Webstagram, Statigram) had to do so recently, IIRC, and I don't think they're significantly worse off. Thing is, even if Twitter tacitly condoned it for years, the name "TwitPic" is pretty obviously derived from "Twitter" and is trading on their (Twitter Inc.'s) reputation. Even their logo is styled similarly to the old Twitter wordmark. The blog post didn't even say Twitter wanted to force them to stop using the name, only that they shouldn't attempt to register a confusingly-similar trademark (though granted, forcing a rebrand might well have been the next step).
- richrad 12y ago
  Leo Laporte had "twit" first and gave Twitter permission to use it back in the beginning.
  - cowsandmilk 12y ago
    Leo Laporte likes to play up having "twit" in relation to twitter, but as far as trademarks, his claim would have been laughable. They aren't in the same business.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
  - danellis 12y ago
    He should buy TwitPic and mix things up a bit.
IgorPartola 12y ago
My thoughts exactly. Why is the trademark so important to them? And as I read it, Twitter never demanded that they stop using the name, just that they do not apply for the registered trademark. This decision seems rash.
- at-fates-hands 12y ago
  >>> My thoughts exactly. Why is the trademark so important to them? Because it would protect them from Twitter going after them for infringement on Twitter's trademarks. I'm sure Twitter knew they had no argument for the "Likelihood of Confusion" Test and TwitPic would've been granted its trademark in due time. From a legal perspective, it looks like Twitter felt if they got trademark protection, they wouldn't have any leverage to sue them to get them to stop treading on their business. Instead of mounting a legal defense in the courts, they simply used what leverage they did have and threatened to cut them off from their API - which is everything for TwitPic. For you non-legalese folks: http://marklaw.com/trademark-glossary/confuse.htm http://marklaw.com/trademark-glossary/confuse.htm "The terms, "confusingly similar" or "likelihood of confusion" both refer to the standard required to prove infringement of a trademark. Specifically, if the relevant consuming public will likely be confused or mistaken about the source of a product or service sold using the mark in question, then likelihood of confusion exists, and the mark has been infringed. The likelihood of confusion test is also one of several examinations conducted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in determining whether to approve an applicant’s trademark application. It is worth noting here that even if there is no likelihood of confusion, i.e. no trademark infringement, you may still be liable for using another company's trademark if you are blurring or tarnishing their mark under the state and/or federal dilution laws."
  - squeaky-clean 12y ago
    >I'm sure Twitter knew they had no argument for the "Likelihood of Confusion" Test and TwitPic would've been granted its trademark in due time. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but are you saying it's not confusing that TwitPic is not owned by Twitter? (At least from a legal standpoint)? I always assumed Twitpic was owned by Twitter, and it seems many other HN members did too. I'm amazed they lasted more than a month with that name.
omfg 12y ago
That does seem pretty crazy that they wouldn't just buy another domain and keep things running. My guess is it actually has nothing to do with Twitter or Trademarks. They likely ran out of capital and are giving up.
u124556 12y ago
>Its basically like a URL shortener shutting down Did anything major happened after some of the early URL shorteners died? We survived just fine.
- MAGZine 12y ago
  This is more akin to bit.ly shutting down imo. Yes, we "survive," but that's a pretty lame measurement of the impact. URL shorteners leave a bevy of broken links everywhere, linking to content that is now lost somewhere on the net, twitpic's departure leaves use with a big hole of the social web empty. Thousands of tweets are now without context.
sp332 12y ago
There are already too many links to the twitpic.com domain that would break if they changed the name.

MikeKusold 12y ago

> But would it not make sense to just rebrand? Most likely not. TwitPic's only possible exit was an acquisition by Twitter, who has since developed their own image hosting platform. This is the danger of tying your startup to another company that has the power to shut you down. The company that you are tied to needs to either acquire you, or you are at their mercy.

adventured 12y ago
On the bright side, Noah earned millions in profit with TwitPic over the years (by his own admission). If he has played it smart at all, he's not going to have to ever worry about money. On to the next.
- colinbartlett 12y ago
  Really? How? With advertising? I guess I am spoiled by AdBlock and didn't know they even made money.

danbruc 12y ago

Sound to me like they are trying to see if Twitter is willing to change their mind when they threaten to shut the service down and break all the tweets. Rebranding would be an obvious option but they would still have to keep to current domain alive in order to not break the links. Could they abandon the trademark and still keep the domain or could Twitter just grab the trademark and based on that later also try to claim the domain and maybe restore all the links from a backup?

snowwrestler 12y ago
Twitter could issue them a license on their brand name, with the contract limiting its use to catching and redirecting old links. As long as there is a nominal license fee, that should satisfy the trademark lawyers.

gorner 12y ago

Yeah, they really should have just looked at rebranding. A few Instagram-related services (e.g. Webstagram, Statigram) had to do so recently, IIRC, and I don't think they're significantly worse off. Thing is, even if Twitter tacitly condoned it for years, the name "TwitPic" is pretty obviously derived from "Twitter" and is trading on their (Twitter Inc.'s) reputation. Even their logo is styled similarly to the old Twitter wordmark. The blog post didn't even say Twitter wanted to force them to stop using the name, only that they shouldn't attempt to register a confusingly-similar trademark (though granted, forcing a rebrand might well have been the next step).

richrad 12y ago
Leo Laporte had "twit" first and gave Twitter permission to use it back in the beginning.
- cowsandmilk 12y ago
  Leo Laporte likes to play up having "twit" in relation to twitter, but as far as trademarks, his claim would have been laughable. They aren't in the same business.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- danellis 12y ago
  He should buy TwitPic and mix things up a bit.

IgorPartola 12y ago

My thoughts exactly. Why is the trademark so important to them? And as I read it, Twitter never demanded that they stop using the name, just that they do not apply for the registered trademark. This decision seems rash.

at-fates-hands 12y ago
>>> My thoughts exactly. Why is the trademark so important to them? Because it would protect them from Twitter going after them for infringement on Twitter's trademarks. I'm sure Twitter knew they had no argument for the "Likelihood of Confusion" Test and TwitPic would've been granted its trademark in due time. From a legal perspective, it looks like Twitter felt if they got trademark protection, they wouldn't have any leverage to sue them to get them to stop treading on their business. Instead of mounting a legal defense in the courts, they simply used what leverage they did have and threatened to cut them off from their API - which is everything for TwitPic. For you non-legalese folks: http://marklaw.com/trademark-glossary/confuse.htm http://marklaw.com/trademark-glossary/confuse.htm "The terms, "confusingly similar" or "likelihood of confusion" both refer to the standard required to prove infringement of a trademark. Specifically, if the relevant consuming public will likely be confused or mistaken about the source of a product or service sold using the mark in question, then likelihood of confusion exists, and the mark has been infringed. The likelihood of confusion test is also one of several examinations conducted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in determining whether to approve an applicant’s trademark application. It is worth noting here that even if there is no likelihood of confusion, i.e. no trademark infringement, you may still be liable for using another company's trademark if you are blurring or tarnishing their mark under the state and/or federal dilution laws."
- squeaky-clean 12y ago
  >I'm sure Twitter knew they had no argument for the "Likelihood of Confusion" Test and TwitPic would've been granted its trademark in due time. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but are you saying it's not confusing that TwitPic is not owned by Twitter? (At least from a legal standpoint)? I always assumed Twitpic was owned by Twitter, and it seems many other HN members did too. I'm amazed they lasted more than a month with that name.

omfg 12y ago

That does seem pretty crazy that they wouldn't just buy another domain and keep things running. My guess is it actually has nothing to do with Twitter or Trademarks. They likely ran out of capital and are giving up.

u124556 12y ago

>Its basically like a URL shortener shutting down Did anything major happened after some of the early URL shorteners died? We survived just fine.

MAGZine 12y ago
This is more akin to bit.ly shutting down imo. Yes, we "survive," but that's a pretty lame measurement of the impact. URL shorteners leave a bevy of broken links everywhere, linking to content that is now lost somewhere on the net, twitpic's departure leaves use with a big hole of the social web empty. Thousands of tweets are now without context.

sp332 12y ago

There are already too many links to the twitpic.com domain that would break if they changed the name.