Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Asserts Trademark On "Book" In New User Agreement
jbrodkin writes "Facebook is trying to expand its trademark rights over the word 'book' by adding the claim to a newly revised version of its 'Statement of Rights and Responsibilities,' the agreement all users implicitly consent to by using or accessing Facebook. The company has registered trademarks over its name and many variations of it, but not on the word 'book.' By inserting the trademark claim into the Facebook user agreement, the company hopes to bolster its standing in lawsuits against sites that incorporate the word 'book.'"
First book
Another fine attempt by corporate America to stretch the law using stupidity.
Now this is brash. Read what they actually say:
"You will not use our copyrights or trademarks (including Facebook, the Facebook and F Logos, FB, Face, Poke, Book and Wall), or any confusingly similar marks, except as expressly permitted by our Brand Usage Guidelines or with our prior written permission."
Notice something? Yes, this goes far beyond what the trademark laws actually cover. According to trademark law, a trademark is specific. Meaning I could very well name something entirely unrelated that they don't produce and that has no potential of confusion "facebook". Say, a sausage.
Their statement contains no limitations whatsoever. Legally speaking, if you're a builder and you have a FB account, you now need to get FB's permission for your work, because you agreed to not use the word "Wall" without their permission. Or, according to #6 of their Brand Usage Guidelines, if you have a business with the word "Book" in it, say "Freddie's Used Books", you have to rename.
I understand their intentions, they want to have an easier time fighting copycats like, say, Mugbook or Assbook or Pornbook - but like lawyers do, they cast the net as wide as possible. But this is ridiculous.
IANAL, but I do have business experience reading and interpreting legal texts.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
By inserting the trademark claim into the Facebook user agreement, the company hopes to bolster its standing in lawsuits against sites that incorporate the word 'book.'
What next? Are they going to force these sites owners to make a Facebook account and sign the new user agreement?
Q: How do you tell if someone isn't on facebook?
A: Don't worry, they'll tell you.
I'm pretty sure G'Kar demonstrated putting ones face in a book long before Facebook came along. The results were quite similar...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
More books: ,Daybook, Fakebook, Guidebook,
Audiobook, Bankbook, Bluebook, Casebook, Cashbook, Chapbook, Checkbook, Codebook, Cookbook, Datebook,
Handbook, Hornbook, Hymnbook, iBook, Lawbook, Logbook, Matchbook, Netbook, Notebook, Overbook, Passbook, Playbook, Pocketbook,
Powerbook, Prebook, Promptbook, Psalmbook, Rebook, Schoolbook, Scrapbook, Sketchbook, Songbook, Sourcebook, Storybook, Studybook,
Stylebook, Textbook, Wordbook, Workbook, Yearbook
What were they thinking? As this kind of legal assertion is not allowed in many countries where actual people are in charge, It seems it may invalidate other
parts of the agreement as well.
Just to be safe: I've cancelled my library card and accounts on any website where there is a high probability of discussing, erm, literary devices. I have also destroyed all of the ereading devices and software in my home, and will be burning paper literary devices in the wood stove when things cool down tonight.
I also notice that they have the number 32665 trademarked. I have stopped doing any form of mathematics to avoid being sued. Does the trademark cover binary representations as well? If so, does anyone know of any computers that cannot use this number. (Cripes, even 8 bit computers have 16 bit addresses.)
In a panic!
They had to settle for Microsoft Windows. Bethesda claims that Scrolls is effectively trademarked when Notch attempted to make a game called scrolls. Bethesda was afraid a digital card game might get confused for Elder Scrolls. Notch settled, however, and had to agree to not use Scroll for sequels and to respect the "Trademark". Look at the transformers. There are many named Autobot ____ and Decipticon _____ to get around being unable to trademark "Ratchet". While thinking about the Japanese, Godzilla vs Destroyah pronounced Destroyer. That is because they either couldn't or didn't want to bother trying to trademark Destroyer. Spelling change, same pronounciation. Boom, protected. Same with that 80s cartoon, Jem. They wanted to use just M, but wanted to protect the name.
Nothing new to this field. Nothing limited to computers. It has been going on for decades. Looking precedent, I expect this to get overturned.
by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
Teachbook and placebook were not copycats, and that's just two I can think of off the top of my head.
Having been invited to FB and passed, all the way back when enrollment was only open with an ivy league .edu or an invite, and resisted all pressure to sign up and join the herd since, I cant help but gloat a little every time I am proven correct, yet again. /me gloats.
I believe it's a useful service, and I will be happy to give it a try when it's provided in a manner consist with my basic values, but as long as it amounts to voluntarily handing over all information to a company like facebook it cannot be worth the price.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
s/paten/trademark/
Dilbert RSS feed
And, you forgot Facebook.
Huh?
The word "facebook" was in use for decades before Zuckerman came along and ... copied it from then-common usage among colleges for a book that contains the photos of the freshman class. I have a handful of copies of my undergraduate school's facebooks still, which state "facebook" on the cover from when Zuckerberg was a come-hither look in his mother's eyes. I never understood how the company got their initial trademark given the widespread existing usage when it was issued.
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
"You cannot sign-away your legally-protected rights."
Of course you can.
1. Sign those rights away.
2. Courts quit legally protecting them.
That's the way our Court System is going. It's not a justice system anymore.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Under certain specific circumstances you can sign away legal rights. Like I'm free to talk about my employer all I want, but I am not free to divulge trade secrets and things like that. Here, I have signed away my freedom of speech in order to remain in good standing with the company and be a trusted employee. If I were not an employee, however, I'm completely free to divulge trade secrets if I haven't signed anything preventing me from doing so.
Also, you may be forced to give up certain rights in certain areas. Most bars don't allow weapons on premises, unless you're an active duty police officer, even though you might have a carry permit.
However, more and more EULAs are asking people to give up rights for no goddamn reason at all. Like the right to sue. I don't think this one would stand up in court if it came to blows. There's absolutely no reason someone would agree to give up their right to sue if they had any other choice. It's basically saying, "If we do something that causes you trouble, there's not a goddamn thing you can do about it except ask someone we're paying to ask us to reimburse you."
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?