They don’t own the name, they own the trademark to do augmented reality business under the name. Since that company has been around since 2013 it does seem they have a case (if that is them.)
but at least for Apple there is little change to for any confusion, at least as long as apple doesn't sell food.
Meta on the other hand is a widely used vague defined word used in many contexts especially tech/SiFi/AR as such there is a lot of potential confusion and potential "cultural appropriation" of existing language using that wording (e.g. in a SiFi novel).
I think both shouldn't be a thing, but the negative effect Facebooks brand can have is much much larger.
As you already mentioned, the word "meta" isn't defined and is entirely conceptual. As such, it can't reasonably be associated with an existing product or service, so it can't and won't be subjected to the same strong trademark requirements.
> Owning the name of a common adjective seems dubious to me.
Yes, but is legal. But IMHO shouldn't be, the less the more relevant (as in large) facebook is.
To some degree Facebook is committing forceful cultural appropriation of a common english word and it's usage
in common language and literature (especially SiFi literature).
“Face book” is itself a generic term for a literal book of faces that some colleges would print and distribute to incoming freshman classes so they could get to know each other.
And you’re on the site of a company that holds a trademark on “Y combinator,” a math term.
Yes, one can trademark generic words or terms. A trademark must be narrowly defined to cover only your specific markets and uses, and it must be in active use.
What does meta.company do? I can't find anything about them. How did Facebook steal the livelihood of a company that doesn't have any products or sell anything?
Based in this whole site (which is just the letter), I assume they are positioning themselves to optimize for largest amount of money to be gained in the court against Facebook. HN is dutifully helping them.
What are you talking about? I can't find any posts here that are sympathetic to them. To the point that I honestly can't tell if there's some fb astroturfing happening.
Bad luck for them, they should have taken the deal.
Trademark protection is to protect trade. A company that doesn't make a product yet is at a huge risk trying to hold a name against an established company that wants it... You can only infringe a trademark if you are doing business in the same or a very nearly adjacent industry (Apple Records v Apple Computer as a historical example).
I'm sure they can litigate it if they want, but when the question comes up of how Facebook being named Meta interferes with the business Meta of Chicago was engaged in, what will their answer be? If they weren't planning to do something in either the social network or virtual / augmented reality spaces, the likely answer is "neither of you are infringing the other, go about your business."
Then they didn't have any brand recognition/"livelihood" to steal.
Sure this sucks for them, and I am no FB defender but that's the nature of trademark. Not a lawyer but even if they are in the same space as FB, I'd think they would forfeit their right to the mark if FB got their first, presuming they have not yet actually marketed a product to consumers under this name?
Your questions are answered in the linked article. I hope this quote helps. There’s more in there if you read it very carefully.
> One more thing: Our new product launch just got delayed because of Facebook. We must deal with these matters. In the coming weeks, we will make an announcement earlier than we expected. We promise it will be good. Stay tuned.
What if you work for months/years on a product, waiting for it to be ready-ish before announcing it to the public, only for a corporation to steal your name a few weeks before launch?
You don't just "get a different name". You may already have a logo you paid well for. You may have prepared advertising. You may have references to the name everywhere in your code. And so on. Also even if it was easy and costless to get a new name, it still isn't fair that the big guy can come and simply take it from you without consequence.
Not just that. In the worst case, they may have a container full of their devices ready to go with "Meta" branding on everything. That's a significant cost to recall and redo.
No they don't. You have to prove significance in a particular market to get trademark protections; you don't get trademark protection over the word as used in all contexts (and since they have no marketshare, because it hasn't launched, there's no conflict at all).
> it's still a bad name because it's a super common word.
I said the same thing about matrix.org back in ~2015 when I first heard of the project. Fast forward to now, though, and "Matrix Room" links are ubiquitous among open source projects....
If they have a registered, accepted trademark (and it appears they do), they can reasonably argue that Facebook has damaged their ability to establish the brand's identity despite significant outlay for design, marketing, and advertising -- those are dollars already spent. "Livelihood" includes income, sure, but it can also be read to include lasting damage done to their brand by Facebook prematurely usurping their ability to control the mark.
That is true - unless their livelihood (they mentioned how low the offers were repeatedly) was just to squat the company name and extort FB or whoever else wanted it - especially if they got advanced knowledge of the renaming and registered it after they learned facebook would want it. It's like domain squatting all over again.
"Squatting" a trademark generally isn't possible; if you can't prove use of the mark, the USPTO will simply cancel your registration. I imagine their activity related to the mark would be covered in any potential court proceedings and would be Facebook's primary defense.
Yea - but having a github repository with active development and a meta-logo dating back to early 2021 would probably be pretty compelling to prove active use. This is definitely going to be a headache for somebody but I can't imagine the story as this letter tells it (FB reaching out repeatedly to acquire the name and then going ahead regardless) is a perfect telling of events. Either FB was totally unaware of this company's existence before today or else their lawyers looked over the company and didn't think it was a threat to their usage.
Trade mark legislation, and passing off legislation, protect marks being used. They don't (in general) protect one's "ability to establish [a] brand's identity". That's the right way to do things IMO, brand camping wouldn't help society.
Prima facie it sucks but they can probably get global coverage for their product/services they're already selling (trademark registration requires current use, someone said the OP company have a trademark registered) on the basis of "what do we do now Facebook are using our name".
It seems likely that if they can't leverage this for financial benefit, in a forthright way, then they were going to fail anyway.
>Your questions are answered in the linked article.
No they are not. Your quote, the article, and the empty social media pages the article links to do not answer the question, "What does meta.company do?".
The message said they're from Chicago and there's a META LLC registered to him in Illinois since September 2013. Not sure what they do, but at minimum it seems like they've been using the name for some time.
If that's accurate they've had eight years to produce some product/service to establish a strong commercial claim to the name prior to Facebook getting there. They appear to have failed at doing that.
If you're going to stake claim to such a common, short term as your corporate name, it's definitely obvious that you're risking legal conflict with other entities that may claim that name. There's no way they didn't know what they were getting into in trying to use that name (with or without Facebook wanting it).
Well, indeed, there are limits to copyrights that are supposed to be applicable when using trivial common names.
But ever since a certain company decided to call itself "fruit", and then go on rampage attacking small players which themselves used to be called "fruit" under the petty reason that they are actually producing and selling "fruit", there is a sense in US that, as long as you got the balls and the lawyers, there is just no limit. Limits of the rules, even when written, are for "others".
If this comment is the only page on the website, then you're not convincing me of anything. What does MetaCompany do? You have a better chance of anything if you had a functioning website and this was just a link within it. Otherwise, this is a nice ploy at trying to garner some attention, but to what I have no idea because you have no website.
I hate Facebook as much as the next person but I’m not sure they were doing anything shady here. They wanted to buy the domain cheaply and without disclosing who they are. I don’t see what’s wrong in that ethically or legally.
They weren't trying to buy just the domain name, they were trying to buy the trademark. Their offer was refused, but they used it anyway. That's quite literally the definition of trademark infringement, made worse that they've implicated themselves by trying to buy it first -- which shows recognition of the validity of the trademark.
Because FB went ahead with it anyways I'm guessing they assumed they would win any court conflicts about this but wanted to not have to deal with that and offered a lower amount to buy it than what court would cost. It's not that they think it was valid but that they just didn't want to bother. FB has the money to fight it and win anyways but it they'd rather spent $5 over $10 for example.
Nothing, the problem is that they also wanted to buy the trade mark, also didn't got it (both normal and fine) and then proceeded to act as if they own it anyway (allegedly, not ok at all).
What are the odds that there is no product about to be shipped, and it wasn’t somehow delayed by this, and this is just an opportunity to kick up a fuss for money?
I think it’s possible to be deeply anti-Facebook and still consider this possibility.
It’s not really that company’s responsibility to accommodate Facebook. You can balance your imaginary odds of malice against the actual statement, though, and judge appropriately.
> One more thing: Our new product launch just got delayed because of Facebook. We must deal with these matters. In the coming weeks, we will make an announcement earlier than we expected. We promise it will be good. Stay tuned.
> One more thing: Our new product launch just got delayed because of Facebook. We must deal with these matters. In the coming weeks, we will make an announcement earlier than we expected. We promise it will be good. Stay tuned.
I was thinking the same thing. But Facebook still needs to make things right with this company since the small company has the rights to the name. Unfortunately, for the small company, they have to fight a big monster. And they will, ultimately, unless they find someone to fund the litigation, have to settle for an amount close to the original offer from Facebook. Big companies with lots of lawyers win most of the time. It's how things go. :-(
There are multiple separate registrations of "Meta" and "metacompany" with the USPTO. There is the only one linked to Chicago[1] and if so they have less standing than the others because the name is "metacompany" (with no space). There are five other registrations for just "meta" (or "meta." with a period).
Meta View, Inc. is a spatial computing company founded by Olive Tree Ventures in late 2018 following the purchase of Meta Company's assets. Meta View will build on the groundbreaking display system first commercialized in the Meta 2 headset. Jay Wright, the newly hired CEO comes with over a decade of experience in augmented reality, previously as Co-Founder and President of Vuforia and Vice-President at Qualcomm.
I was hoping to click through to see what they’re talking about, but apparently this letter is the entire company.
It reads to me like they were parking on the name and FB got there first (with regards to actually using the name). And we should care why? “Stole our name and livelihood” is ridiculous here.
> One more thing: Our new product launch just got delayed because of Facebook. We must deal with these matters. In the coming weeks, we will make an announcement earlier than we expected. We promise it will be good. Stay tuned.
This doesn't justify what facebook is doing at all. What if I steal 10$ from you? Would it change your life or deprive you of food? Probably not, but that doesn't make it legal to do.
How does it change anything? If I understand it correctly, they are a company with no existing product, and yet Facebook somehow stole their name and livelihood?
Stealing name implies that the company previously had some value attached to that name, such as recognition or a product. So far they have neither. I understand that it is unfortunate it happened to them, but given that the company doesn't even have a product launched yet, changing the name to something else shouldn't cause much trouble.
But on the bright side, at least now they have an excuse ready in case their company flops. And a lot of people who could sympathize with them too, because "facebook bad". Media loves this stuff, because it prints clicks and views like hotcakes.
All I'm hearing is that Facebook is entitled to a name someone else was already using because they are a wealthy and successful company and I am not convinced.
No, they mentioned a trademark without saying what it was on exactly which suggest to me it barely overlaps. I didn't find any recent trademarks for 'Meta' in the US that would overlap with Facebook. There's one for selling computer hardware and one for SaaS consulting.
I have a hard time imagining that it's at all relevant whether or not their business genuinely overlapped. If you're big enough, it doesn't matter unless your target has the means to drag you through court as well. I'm reminded of the Backcountry.com case from a few years ago, where they were apparently hunting down every commercial use of the term Backcountry.
The argument isn't about whether FB is entitled to the name. FB might not be entitled to that name, and I am not saying they are.
All I am saying is that the claim of Meta (non-FB one) about their "name and livelihood being stolen" is ridiculous and difficult to take at face value, given they have no product and no name-recognition.
Do you have any internal knowledge of product this company is working on and hence it is of no real value to “you”? How much time have they been working on this product? What’s the cost involved? How many people? Does it really matter whether they have a live product or if it is successful or not if it doesn’t affect the real topic here, which is of identity?
> Do you have any internal knowledge of product this company is working on and hence it is of no real value to “you”?
Regardless of what they are working on, if it doesn't exist, the value of it is presently zero.
Also, as others have mentioned, FB fully legally bought the trademark on Meta back in 2017 (through Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative). The company in the OP has no claims towards the name. Well, it appears they have a trademark on Metacompany (no space or dots), while FB (or rather, Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative) had the trademark for Meta since 2017. If anything, the company in the article is infringing on a trademark that FB has been the owner of for nearly 4 years.
> If anything, the company in the article is infringing on a trademark that FB has been the owner of for nearly 4 years.
I don't disagree with you here.
> if it doesn't exist,
But you don't know that, do you? And that was the intent of my original comment. We can speculate basis the available data all we want, but we don't "know know" that their product doesn't exist. And no, launch of a product is not the only benchmark here.
I think there was a misunderstanding here, so let me clarify.
When I said that the product doesn't exist, I wasn't saying that it was all fake and they made up a non-existent product just to cash in on this controversy.
By saying that it doesn't exist, I meant that there is no released product that anyone can use. Sure, they might have it somewhere on some engineer's machine or desk or whatever internally, no way for us to know. But for all practical intents and purposes, the product isn't released and there is no way for anyone to use it. Hell, there is no way for anyone to even know what the actual product is, and googling didn't help much. And if no one has access to the product and no one knows what it is, then it doesn't exist as a product on the market.
> Regardless of what they are working on, if it doesn't exist, the value of it is presently zero.
That’s not true. Do you know how many multi-million-dollar companies have nothing more than an idea on a paper napkin that they managed to sell to investors? You didn’t even bring up the matter of whether they have investors who have placed a valuation on their business. Or even if they have paid into their own business’ equity, which is then of monetary value.
In fact a business’ monetary valuation has nothing to do with whether it has a product. Some high-value businesses have zero products. If we’re speaking valuation, what matters is the value of the assets they have listed under the business, their liabilities, their owner’s equity, etc.
From the USPTO docs and screenshot included within them, they seemed to describe themselves as a provider of services. Their LLC's address is a residential home, which is fine, but a little shady for a company that vaguely states the services it provides, while also having a supposed "product launch" delayed, despite no evidence whatsoever of anyone associated with the company, no SEC filings or white papers, or really anything to prove any of what theyre saying. It's kinda weird.
You can’t “steal” a name. The English language is not up for ownership. Trademarks serve a specific purpose of indicating trade source and are there for public policy reasons. You have to use the trademark in trade for it to be protected.
Furthermore if you use your mark for running a noodle store and me for a shoe store there is no conflict.
If Facebook is within the law (the other guy is not even using it) there is no morality involved. (I am a lawyer)
That is an good point. If the SME is not in the same industry, it would actually work in their favor. They could use some decent SEO and clever but legal word choices for certain lines and logo choices, they could have a ton of internet traffic directed to thier site just by people typing the web address incorrectly.
I did find this: "Meta Company develops augmented reality solutions. It offers Meta 1 and Meta 2 Development Kits for developers and creators, makers and artists, which provide the field of view, access to digital information and direct hand interaction with holograms. The Company serves clients in manufacturing, communication and media, medicine, simulation and education, remote assistance and 3D modeling industries."
NFI what that exactly means, but they are in comm's and media and if that is the same company, thats pretty dam close to facebook's whole "thang" isnt it?
They were using it just as much as Facebook though... and actually less than the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative but that's beside the point I'm making.
Let's say that Meta Company had released their product a month ago, would you have sided with Facebook if they had said that the Meta Conpany stole their name? Funnily enough you probably wouldn't because they are a wealthy and successful company.
No one here is saying Facebook is entitled to that name because they are wealthy. We are saying they are entitled by that name because the Meta Company was still not doing business using that name. No one is entitled to any name, it has nothing to do with wealth. Do the Meta Company had registered a trademark on it already? Well nice, yeah I will side with them and hope that they win the lawsuit (though I wouldn't if they were the equivalent of patents trolls over trademark... which I fear is the case, but I still trust them that they plan to do real business with that name).
>Do the Meta Company had registered a trademark on it already?
From everything I read, it seems like Meta Company has a trademark registered for Metacompany (no space or dots), while Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative has had the trademark for Meta since 2017. Metacompany vs. Meta, and since Zucc is using straight up Meta (without the -company suffix), the outcome seems fairly clear.
This reads like a kickstarter scam. Also the "Facebook Instagram Twitter" link at the bottom points to an Instagram account with 0 followers, 0 following.
This is just ridiculous. I hope this post gets removed because it is now going to get picked up by major news organization and it might even overshadow the real and current problems of Facebook.
from meta, the AR company? I mean, their headset sort of lost traction a while back. I dont think FB had anything to do with it but considering their current domination of consumer VR I suppose I wouldnt put it past them to taking down/buying up a potential competitor in the AR field.
That's not how business works at all. You don't need to have a massive social media presence (or even a website) to be an operational business. And, in fact, a huge portion of startups operate in stealth mode until they are ready for public consumption -- but that doesn't mean they don't have a product or customers or investment.
They can probably out-lawyer and out-PR nearly every company on the planet, so it's not surprising from Facebook that they try this route when the negotiations failed, if they really wanted that name.
Trade War Is Hurting Silicon Valley Augmented Reality Startup
By Selina Wang
September 10, 2018, 12:06 AM EDT
Meta says lead Chinese investor froze deal at Beijing’s behest
Crackdown on Chinese investment in U.S. tech companies blamed
Augmented reality startup Meta Co. was on the verge of raising funds from Chinese backers when the lead investor froze the deal at the behest of a Chinese official who cited the trade war.
It’s the latest sign that U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods and a crackdown on foreign investment in U.S. tech companies is casting a chill in Silicon Valley. Small hardware makers are already suffering from rising tariffs, and now startups looking to raise money in China are feeling the effect.
Pretty sure this is a different Meta. The Meta the Bloomberg article is talking about used the stymied Chinese deal to cover up the fact that they were already dead, because their product just plain sucked.
Two companies can have the same name. They could have a case if Facebook was infringing on an established trademark or brand, but considering they have neither I fail to see what legal recourse they have. What does this company even do? What is their "livelihood" and how did Facebook steal it?
Please at least read the first sentence before asserting your superior legal knowledge. They literally said that Facebook was trying to buy their trademark in the first sentence of the post, which means there is an established trademark that Facebook recognized as valid.
IANAL but my understanding is that trademarks are only granted for specific goods and services (particularly for common dictionary words). What goods and services does this company provide?
It would be nice is such a post was accompanied by an a indication of what MetaCompany does, a site that's more than a stub, and a link to its trademark registration (believe it or not multiple companies have registered a trademark for Meta).
I have lost count of the number of times I have seen this exact post on HN because some company I never heard of used a common word for their company/product and Facebook, Apple, Google, etc. came out with a product with the same name. I'm not going to excuse any of the behavior by these big companies, but at a certain point you have to take responsibility for introducing this risk by naming your company a short, commonly used word that is found in the dictionary. It was only a matter of time until this issue would pop up.
If the big company was in the legal ownership of that trademark for nearly 4 years, yes.[0]
Direct quote from the link:
>"[...] Zuck's non-profit, of course, the one he runs with his wife, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, actually bought out a company called Meta back in 2017."
There are maligned incentives; companies that don't litigate and defend their IP can lose the right to their IP. Trademark and copyright law is a complete mess, and the internet only made it worse.
Yeah, but with a product its more of a problem. Calling your Widget Company "Widgets Inc.". Facebook is able to call their product "Facebook Widgets".
The problem is this is direct trademark infringement. The trademark is for a business, and will have overlap with Facebook. Facebook can try and argue that the trademark is invalid, but at the end of the day if meta.company can defend the trademark, there is going to be a settlement because renaming AGAIN isn't going to be very desirable. This could cause an Apple Records vs Apple Computer case where certain businesses are restricted for facebook.
However as both history and this event shows, facebook will just plow ahead and pay the costs later. Given opportunity costs, and everything, it likely is the most economically rational move. Having so much money that they know they can cover any verdict / settlement, and having limited - no personal liability at the director level, facebook can continue to act unconscionably. The only way you will stop them acting like this is to either extend the liability to management or so oversized and unreasonable punitive damages that they actually take a step back.
I think you should ask yourself why you're willing to expend so much energy shaming a startup for choosing a short name, but not expend the same amount of energy denouncing corporations for doing things that are blatantly illegal.
Perhaps the issue here isn't that a company chose the "wrong" name, but that large amounts of folks like yourself have become so complacent, that they're just willing to accept corporations illegally steamrolling any startup who has the nerve to defy them.
Despite your insistence that you're not excusing large corporations for their behavior, you've just done exactly that by attempting to shift the blame.
Or maybe this is a classical troll scheme, like we have seen a hundred times, black money used to confiscate a public good (a common name) and ransom it to highest bidder, all this with the entire backing of Uncle Sam's own lawyers.
The first thing that pops into my head is that kid that got really mad at zefrank because he stole the name for his vblog series. The name was "the show"
I should be pretty obvious by now that Facebook is a really bad company with way too much power.
What can we do about it as just another nerd? The answer is just as obvious. Delete your account, don't look back and encourage everyone you know to do the same.
I'm one year without now and hadn't affected my life in any negative way whatsoever.
209 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 197 ms ] threadOwning the name of a common adjective seems dubious to me. It's like naming your company "big."
The company in this link is another one. I have no idea what MetaCompany does.
Strangely enough, Wayback Machine doesn't have any snapshots of the site https://web.archive.org/web/2018*/http://meta.company/, and finding no mentions of "MetaCompany" online, so seems weird.
Or "Uber"?
But non are tech companies.
but at least for Apple there is little change to for any confusion, at least as long as apple doesn't sell food.
Meta on the other hand is a widely used vague defined word used in many contexts especially tech/SiFi/AR as such there is a lot of potential confusion and potential "cultural appropriation" of existing language using that wording (e.g. in a SiFi novel).
I think both shouldn't be a thing, but the negative effect Facebooks brand can have is much much larger.
Yes, but is legal. But IMHO shouldn't be, the less the more relevant (as in large) facebook is.
To some degree Facebook is committing forceful cultural appropriation of a common english word and it's usage in common language and literature (especially SiFi literature).
Seems alarmist. The word "apple" is still doing fine in the context of the firm treeborne fruit.
That's a pretty sweet brand name, to be honest.
And you’re on the site of a company that holds a trademark on “Y combinator,” a math term.
Yes, one can trademark generic words or terms. A trademark must be narrowly defined to cover only your specific markets and uses, and it must be in active use.
Then 6 months later Microsoft comes out with a new version of Windows, with a Media Center in it.
https://apps.ilsos.gov/corporatellc/CorporateLlcController
Search Meta and you’ll find the Meta, LLC made by Nate
Trademark protection is to protect trade. A company that doesn't make a product yet is at a huge risk trying to hold a name against an established company that wants it... You can only infringe a trademark if you are doing business in the same or a very nearly adjacent industry (Apple Records v Apple Computer as a historical example).
I'm sure they can litigate it if they want, but when the question comes up of how Facebook being named Meta interferes with the business Meta of Chicago was engaged in, what will their answer be? If they weren't planning to do something in either the social network or virtual / augmented reality spaces, the likely answer is "neither of you are infringing the other, go about your business."
Sure this sucks for them, and I am no FB defender but that's the nature of trademark. Not a lawyer but even if they are in the same space as FB, I'd think they would forfeit their right to the mark if FB got their first, presuming they have not yet actually marketed a product to consumers under this name?
> One more thing: Our new product launch just got delayed because of Facebook. We must deal with these matters. In the coming weeks, we will make an announcement earlier than we expected. We promise it will be good. Stay tuned.
(and frankly it's still a bad name because it's a super common word. it was doomed as a product name anyway.)
It would even appear (from the letter) that facebook was already aware of this name conflict and decided to go ahead with the rename anyways.
Also Meta is a terrible name - for both companies., but that's beside the point (but it's like really stupid).
That doesn't matter, they own the trademark.
I said the same thing about matrix.org back in ~2015 when I first heard of the project. Fast forward to now, though, and "Matrix Room" links are ubiquitous among open source projects....
Prima facie it sucks but they can probably get global coverage for their product/services they're already selling (trademark registration requires current use, someone said the OP company have a trademark registered) on the basis of "what do we do now Facebook are using our name".
It seems likely that if they can't leverage this for financial benefit, in a forthright way, then they were going to fail anyway.
No they are not. Your quote, the article, and the empty social media pages the article links to do not answer the question, "What does meta.company do?".
If you're going to stake claim to such a common, short term as your corporate name, it's definitely obvious that you're risking legal conflict with other entities that may claim that name. There's no way they didn't know what they were getting into in trying to use that name (with or without Facebook wanting it).
But ever since a certain company decided to call itself "fruit", and then go on rampage attacking small players which themselves used to be called "fruit" under the petty reason that they are actually producing and selling "fruit", there is a sense in US that, as long as you got the balls and the lawyers, there is just no limit. Limits of the rules, even when written, are for "others".
Nate Skulic is also not listed in any leadership role on the website you linked.
I really really hope that Facebook's attempts to distance themselves from their negative press do not work.
Edit: To be clear, I don't care that much about the company in question, more so giving Facebook a black eye.
I think it’s possible to be deeply anti-Facebook and still consider this possibility.
> One more thing: Our new product launch just got delayed because of Facebook. We must deal with these matters. In the coming weeks, we will make an announcement earlier than we expected. We promise it will be good. Stay tuned. > One more thing: Our new product launch just got delayed because of Facebook. We must deal with these matters. In the coming weeks, we will make an announcement earlier than we expected. We promise it will be good. Stay tuned.
It reads to me like they were parking on the name and FB got there first (with regards to actually using the name). And we should care why? “Stole our name and livelihood” is ridiculous here.
> One more thing: Our new product launch just got delayed because of Facebook. We must deal with these matters. In the coming weeks, we will make an announcement earlier than we expected. We promise it will be good. Stay tuned.
At this point in time all we have is blind speculation based on a piece of PR that might or might not be true.
Stealing name implies that the company previously had some value attached to that name, such as recognition or a product. So far they have neither. I understand that it is unfortunate it happened to them, but given that the company doesn't even have a product launched yet, changing the name to something else shouldn't cause much trouble.
But on the bright side, at least now they have an excuse ready in case their company flops. And a lot of people who could sympathize with them too, because "facebook bad". Media loves this stuff, because it prints clicks and views like hotcakes.
> At least two law firms were involved: One in the USA that requested our trademark and domains
But everything else you say I agree with. And the trademark was probably on MetaCompany since that seems to be their brand.
https://www.outsidebusinessjournal.com/issues/the-backcountr...
All I am saying is that the claim of Meta (non-FB one) about their "name and livelihood being stolen" is ridiculous and difficult to take at face value, given they have no product and no name-recognition.
Regardless of what they are working on, if it doesn't exist, the value of it is presently zero.
Also, as others have mentioned, FB fully legally bought the trademark on Meta back in 2017 (through Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative). The company in the OP has no claims towards the name. Well, it appears they have a trademark on Metacompany (no space or dots), while FB (or rather, Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative) had the trademark for Meta since 2017. If anything, the company in the article is infringing on a trademark that FB has been the owner of for nearly 4 years.
I don't disagree with you here.
> if it doesn't exist,
But you don't know that, do you? And that was the intent of my original comment. We can speculate basis the available data all we want, but we don't "know know" that their product doesn't exist. And no, launch of a product is not the only benchmark here.
> But you don't know that, do you?
I think there was a misunderstanding here, so let me clarify.
When I said that the product doesn't exist, I wasn't saying that it was all fake and they made up a non-existent product just to cash in on this controversy.
By saying that it doesn't exist, I meant that there is no released product that anyone can use. Sure, they might have it somewhere on some engineer's machine or desk or whatever internally, no way for us to know. But for all practical intents and purposes, the product isn't released and there is no way for anyone to use it. Hell, there is no way for anyone to even know what the actual product is, and googling didn't help much. And if no one has access to the product and no one knows what it is, then it doesn't exist as a product on the market.
That’s not true. Do you know how many multi-million-dollar companies have nothing more than an idea on a paper napkin that they managed to sell to investors? You didn’t even bring up the matter of whether they have investors who have placed a valuation on their business. Or even if they have paid into their own business’ equity, which is then of monetary value.
In fact a business’ monetary valuation has nothing to do with whether it has a product. Some high-value businesses have zero products. If we’re speaking valuation, what matters is the value of the assets they have listed under the business, their liabilities, their owner’s equity, etc.
Furthermore if you use your mark for running a noodle store and me for a shoe store there is no conflict.
If Facebook is within the law (the other guy is not even using it) there is no morality involved. (I am a lawyer)
I did find this: "Meta Company develops augmented reality solutions. It offers Meta 1 and Meta 2 Development Kits for developers and creators, makers and artists, which provide the field of view, access to digital information and direct hand interaction with holograms. The Company serves clients in manufacturing, communication and media, medicine, simulation and education, remote assistance and 3D modeling industries."
NFI what that exactly means, but they are in comm's and media and if that is the same company, thats pretty dam close to facebook's whole "thang" isnt it?
Let's say that Meta Company had released their product a month ago, would you have sided with Facebook if they had said that the Meta Conpany stole their name? Funnily enough you probably wouldn't because they are a wealthy and successful company.
No one here is saying Facebook is entitled to that name because they are wealthy. We are saying they are entitled by that name because the Meta Company was still not doing business using that name. No one is entitled to any name, it has nothing to do with wealth. Do the Meta Company had registered a trademark on it already? Well nice, yeah I will side with them and hope that they win the lawsuit (though I wouldn't if they were the equivalent of patents trolls over trademark... which I fear is the case, but I still trust them that they plan to do real business with that name).
From everything I read, it seems like Meta Company has a trademark registered for Metacompany (no space or dots), while Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative has had the trademark for Meta since 2017. Metacompany vs. Meta, and since Zucc is using straight up Meta (without the -company suffix), the outcome seems fairly clear.
I would guess Zuck would do the exact same thing.
This reminds me of this sketch: https://youtu.be/pvjgIxuVdo4
Discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29074478
Seems like it may not be the same company.
https://apps.ilsos.gov/corporatellc/CorporateLlcController
The manager name listed on the Corporate LLC search does not match the founders in the Wikipedia
September 10, 2018, 12:06 AM EDT
Meta says lead Chinese investor froze deal at Beijing’s behest Crackdown on Chinese investment in U.S. tech companies blamed
Augmented reality startup Meta Co. was on the verge of raising funds from Chinese backers when the lead investor froze the deal at the behest of a Chinese official who cited the trade war.
It’s the latest sign that U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods and a crackdown on foreign investment in U.S. tech companies is casting a chill in Silicon Valley. Small hardware makers are already suffering from rising tariffs, and now startups looking to raise money in China are feeling the effect.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-10/trade-war...
:(
Direct quote from the link:
>"[...] Zuck's non-profit, of course, the one he runs with his wife, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, actually bought out a company called Meta back in 2017."
0. https://news.yahoo.com/trademark-hurdles-facebooks-meta-rebr...
The problem is this is direct trademark infringement. The trademark is for a business, and will have overlap with Facebook. Facebook can try and argue that the trademark is invalid, but at the end of the day if meta.company can defend the trademark, there is going to be a settlement because renaming AGAIN isn't going to be very desirable. This could cause an Apple Records vs Apple Computer case where certain businesses are restricted for facebook.
However as both history and this event shows, facebook will just plow ahead and pay the costs later. Given opportunity costs, and everything, it likely is the most economically rational move. Having so much money that they know they can cover any verdict / settlement, and having limited - no personal liability at the director level, facebook can continue to act unconscionably. The only way you will stop them acting like this is to either extend the liability to management or so oversized and unreasonable punitive damages that they actually take a step back.
Perhaps the issue here isn't that a company chose the "wrong" name, but that large amounts of folks like yourself have become so complacent, that they're just willing to accept corporations illegally steamrolling any startup who has the nerve to defy them.
Despite your insistence that you're not excusing large corporations for their behavior, you've just done exactly that by attempting to shift the blame.
And maybe you are yourself a troll.
What can we do about it as just another nerd? The answer is just as obvious. Delete your account, don't look back and encourage everyone you know to do the same.
I'm one year without now and hadn't affected my life in any negative way whatsoever.
Poff! Power gone..