Slashdot Mirror
Twitpic Shutting Down Over Trademark Dispute
First time accepted submitter exiguus writes As of September 25th Twitpic will be no more. Twitter, allegedly, has threatened to deny them access to their API. Noah Everett said "Unfortunately we do not have the resources to fend off a large company like Twitter to maintain our mark which we believe whole heartedly is rightfully ours. Therefore, we have decided to shut down Twitpic." Resources will be made available to users to download their videos and photos, but a date when that function will be available has not been made available. "We'll let everyone know when this feature is live in the next few days."
Yeah Twitpic could have just changed their name??
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
Picture posts are a dime a dozen. When all you've got is the goodwill and brand recognition leeched off the trademark you're infringing on, you can only shut down and try something else when you lose it.
Twatpic?
That was my first thought.
Companies have changed names in the past. It shouldn't be a big deal. In fact, they could have gotten more attention/users if the headlines was ""Twitpic" changes name to "xxxxxxx" because twitter is being a twat.""
or something.
Their business plan was "get acquired by Twitter", and that's not happening.
0 1 - just my two bits
Apparently, all they have to do is stop trying to trademark the name (which is clearly derived from Twitter). That's it.
A.
...bringing you cynical quips since 1998
Of course it makes sense. They can either cut their losses now, and leave with their profits. Or they can be sued into oblivion by Twitter, and let them, and the lawyers walk off with their profits.
I honestly thought they were associated with Twitter. Their name is clearly trying to imply that they are, so this is a textbook case of why trademark law exists. Anyway, as another poster said, they could have just changed their name, so this is probably just them taking an excuse to shut down after realizing this wasn't a viable business anyway.
"... twitter is being a twat."
I suspect "twatpic" has already been taken.
The guy that wrote the blog post (founder of twitpic) just tries it with another startup: pingly.
As it seems its not a replacement for email, but a new web interface, like gmail.
You mean they were different companies? Huh.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
There was a time when twitter didn't do anything other that links and text. When third-party twitter clients existed they used twitpic to display images.
Twitter doesn't allow third-party clients anymore (basically) and have their own image service embedded into their UI. Third party image services are just rendered as links in the official client. twitpic was dead in the water years ago.
The guy who owns it (It's a small self-funded business) should have seen the writing on the wall and taken the $10M he was offered years ago. I suspect when twitter tightened their grip twitpic's revenue, profit and users dissipated. In it's heyday it was allegedly making ~$700K a year.
If they were infringing why didn't Twitter pursue that instead of threatening to revoke API access?
Because fuck lawyers.
Mod up. This is the only explanation that makes any sense.
Twatpic ...meh, definitely taken.
Beware of the Leopard.
I did my best and modified my adblock to shut down Twitpic, but sometimes images from other hosts come through :(
I quit Facebook in part because my a few certain friends were posting stupid memes and clouding my timeline.
Most Twitpics are meme pix, and the rest are mostly shock pix. Neither of these do I want to see. Twitter should go the extra mile and have a way to disable images altogether.
God spoke to me
The scene happens in the office of Twitpic.
The CEO comes back from a bathroom break and sees the light flashing on his phone. He checks his voicemail. There is a message from someone at Twitter asking him to call back.
The CEO instantly slams down a big red button that has been sitting on his desk since Day 1. Immediately, his closest collaborator, the COO, receives a cryptic Tweet: "it's happening!". So the COO runs to the cupboard, moves around a few boxes of microwave popcorn and poptarts, then finds a bottle of champagne that has been gathering dust for the last 5 years. He puts the bottle in the fridge, then runs around the office to ask everyone to immediately proceed to the conference room.
The whole team is sitting around the speakerphone. Most are running numbers in their head. 1 billion? 200 millions? 10 millions? Just like they do every night before falling asleep, they think about the house they will buy for their mom and how good they will feel about it. They think about the pool parties in Vegas. The orgies with rockstars and supermodels. Fast cars. Loose women.
Then the lawyer picks up. The team hold their breath. At first there is some confusion because the lawyer does not remember why he left a message, he has to go check his dayplanner. Everybody in the team is amazed about this. Some think that since buying a company is something so common that the lawyer can't keep track of potential acquisitions then it's a done deal and maybe they will get the money quickly. Maybe before Christmas. Maybe before the rent is due on October 1st.
Then the lawyer comes back on the line, and within 2 minutes the hopes and dreams of the team are crushed. They did not win the startup lottery. They failed.
Then one by one the team members leave the room, and the office. The CEO and the COO are alone in the room. But they refuse to give up. They open their laptop and go to www.whois.net. They try FacePic.com, GooglePic.com, and many other names. And when they finally get one, they decide it's time to "pivot". Fire everyone, create a new logo, spend a week to revamp the GUI. And then try to win the startup lottery again.
lucm, indeed.
Seems unfair - TWIT.TV existed well before Twitter.. Leo Laporte let them take the name "Twitter" and never sued them. Now years after Twitpic was around, Twitter decides to go after trademark Seems like Twitter can dish it out but they can't take it. Ah, the glory of our broken legal system.
Heh. We shouldn't let them, given the Citizens United ruling that says that corporations are people, this could literally be interpreted as suicide and that's a crime in a lot of places, and since they operate in a lot of places they should be prosecuted for suicide everywhere they commit it in!
What are we talking about again?
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Remember when Twitter and his sock puppets used to gang up to promote GNU/Linux and bash M$ on Slashdot?
Apparently, all they have to do is stop trying to trademark the name (which is clearly derived from Twitter). That's it.
So how much free PR is this little "disaster" going to net them?
Feel free to check back on the 25th and prove me wrong (unless they're actually out of money).
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
They started their service before Twitter had photo hosting. You had to use an external provider.
As Twitter tried to monotize, a critical part of that was getting rid of all this 3rd party stuff. They incorporated a lot of it directly into Twitter, put in API limits that killed apps like FalconPro, disabled their 1.0 API so people had to use the user-limited API... They're trying to kill off every 3rd party thing that originally helped them to get to where they are.
Twitter could chose to do something amazing instead. They could federate. Create open-source mini-servers that could communicate to each other and allow people to do twitter stuff from their own networks. They could shead their users, slim down, pay back steakholders and move onto different projects.
You cannot sustain infinite growth. Facebook and Twitter haven't learned this yet.
It seems Twitter only wanted them to drop the application and not the name entirely.
Why do I feel like the entire business model of Twitpic was to sell out after receiving the valuable trademark? He didn't claim to get a cease and desist, barring him from using the clearly derived name for the derived service. Twitter seemed to be happy until Twitpic tried to get a legal stake in their name and asked for oppositional comment. Twitter drew a fairly generous line in the sand for a service that leaches off of theirs.
Protip: Don't become a legal threat to the only real value a company has (such as brand-it's not like the ability to post 140 characters at a time is an amazing feat) especially if your business is entirely dependent on them letting you play on their lawn.
So, uh, the basic business plan would be:
- Create small upstart service
- Grow it to be wildly popular with a huge user base
- Gradually figure out how to turn that into money
- Say "screw that shit", give up control and get rid of users as fast as possible
- Go into the soft drink industry instead?
“We encourage developers to build on top of the Twitter service, as Twitpic has done for years, and we made it clear that they could operate using the Twitpic name. Of course, we also have to protect our brand, and that includes trademarks tied to the brand.”
They certainly could have, it's a pretty clear infringement. Whether it is genuine goodwill or goodwill for PR sake, they didn't. They even said they could continue using the name. They just couldn't risk giving Twitpic legal leverage with the name.
It is posts like this that reminds me why I never become an author.
checks whether your new product name means like goat humper in a foreign language? Or is a trademark? That wouldn't have helped the guy who came up with ISIS Wallet though...
Fifty years of Yippie! 1968-2018
Apparently, all they have to do is stop trying to trademark the name (which is clearly derived from Twitter). That's it.
A.
It was pretty stupid of them to build a company around a name that they hadn't already trademarked. Nailing down your IP should be one of the first things you do.
AKA "Pingly" http://blog.pingly.com/email-2...
"Pingly isn't just another email client, but a complete messaging platform built from the ground up to evolve all aspects of email. We're calling it Email 2.0"
Make of that what you will
If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
It's a pretty clear infringement.
No, it's not, according to the USPTO. It passed their examination for similarity within classification. A key point is that Twitter did not have an image service at the time the Twitpic application was filed. So, under trademark rules, Twitter was in a different business. Twitter has filed an opposition, and the schedule for a trial before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board was set.
Twitter was afraid that Twitpic might win.
You had me at rent due on the 1st.
Since when does being a Socialist mean 'someone who has a different opinion than me'?
"paystherentpic.com" is still available...
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
They filed the trademark application back in 2009. The USPTO just hasn't gotten around to processing it until now.
Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
There should really be a tag in HTML5. Is it too late to propose it?
<meme img="troll" caption="u mad bro?"/>
<meme img="therocksurprised" caption="twitpic isn't owned by twitter??"/>
my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
Right but why would you go through the trouble and not change it to something you could legally protect?
In the future twitter could decide to make you change it anyway, you're at their mercy.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
Posts like this make the all of the other crap on slashdot worth it.