There’s a fight over the Threads name.

  • Jeena@jemmy.jeena.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Same happened to X and they’re still using it. Once you a billionaire you’re above stupid laws like copyright or trademark.

    • Hannes@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you pirate stuff they can sue you to the ground but if a fine is not related to total income or wealth it’s just something to be ignored.

      Can’t understand why not more people lobby for fines to be proportional in general…

      • gregorum@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        1 year ago

        if the punishment for a crime is a fine, it’s only a crime for the poor.

        • Hannes@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          If the fine is not a fixed amount but actually gets more expensive the more money you have it actually is quite nice though

          Always enjoy those stories about millionaires paying some big sums for speeding tickets in Switzerland

          • Solemn@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            1 year ago

            For a person making $30,000 a year, a $1,000 fine could mean very significant impacts on their daily life.

            For a person making $30,000,000 a year, a $1,000,000 fine may mean they can’t afford an extra Ferrari.

            For a person “making” $30,000,000,000 a year, a $1,000,000,000 fine may mean they can’t… Buy another island? You still have $29,000,000,000 that you can do who knows what with. This is the entire GDP of some countries. I also don’t know if this one is a realistic example.

            Anyway, proportional is nice, but really you need a progressive system to really match the weight of punishments, as far as impacting your daily life or happiness.

            • Venicon@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Trouble is governments generally won’t vote in something like that cos their mates too often are those rich people or donors to their party.

              Unless you get some really wild folk who give zero shits but they normally don’t end up in power for long.

  • solarvector@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The corporation formerly known as Facebook also shouldn’t be using the name “Meta”.

  • ChiwaWithMujicanoHat@mujico.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    A British software firm, Threads Software Limited, has given Meta a 30-day ultimatum to cease using the name “Threads” in the UK, citing ownership of the trademark.

    So it’s just a threat with no actual value or feasible legal repercussions?

    • LKPU26@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They usually give them an ultimatum. If that isn’t followed then they’ll sue.

  • Threads Software Limited successfully trademarked the name “Threads” in 2012 for its intelligent messaging hub, which offers the capability to store a company’s emails, tweets, and voice-over internet protocol phone calls in a cloud database.

    How would anyone confuse the social media company Threads with the business-to-business “upload your emails to a database” company, which apparently serves law firms? If I Google there names, I encounter no less than three different companies with the same name that offer products more closely related to Threads than the one filing the lawsuit.

    Sounds to me that they thought they could squeeze more out of Meta but found out that their domain name isn’t as critical as they thought.