So has anyone heard from or know any of the other developers? Did they also get 
an email last night?




Dean Collins 
+1-212-203-4357   New York
+61-2-9016-5642   (Sydney in-dial).
+44-20-3129-6001 (London in-dial).




[] On Behalf Of Jeremy Darling
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 10:12 AM
Subject: [twitter-dev] Re: FW: Twitter is Suing me!!!


Actually, I recall it perfectly well.  MS threatened action against Mike Roe (a 
Canadian student as I recall) for his development company.  The case was 
settled OUT OF COURT, with MS basically having to purchase his domain.  The 
same could be applied to this product where Twitter can not demand the URL but 
they can wait for it to expire and snag it or offer to buy out the owner.

On the "point" about aggressively pursuing because they have to.  That's a 
complete and total cop-out, if that were the case then Twitter would be going 
after ALL offenders and not the select "bad guys", if someone gives twitter a 
warm fuzzy they view it as ok.  According to your statement (and I reviewed the 
laws a while back on trademarks but will go look again) they can loose their 
trademark for this action alone.

 - Jeremy

PS: I'm still not a lawyer, I still hate the product, but I still hate the 
thought more.  Of course, their C&D order is little more than a notice to 
disconnect :)

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 4:36 AM, Andrew Badera <> wrote:

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Jeremy
Darling<> wrote:
> Funny thing about trademarking a name and trying to utilize that trademark
> against a URL, can't be done.  If so, MicroSoft would have nailed people
> left and right for infringement upon IE (can we say and as
> well as several other websites that utilize trademarked MS product names
> LOL.  Several other companies have tried this as well and failed.
> As for Twitter TOS and developer rights.  Nope, can't sue for voilation of a
> TOS on a public API either.  You can suspend "suspect activities" and revoke
> developer/company rights but you can't actually file suite on a TOS
> violation of this type.  Lots of statuatory presidence on the subject.
> On point 3, 80% rule along with the fact that you have clearly labeled in
> valid font size the non-affiliation with Twitter again negates this point in
> most cases.
> Actually, about the only thing they could get you for would be
> Slander/Liable if you were spreading bad publicity about the company that
> was un-true.  In that case, they could get you for everything your worth
> LOL.  Then again, being a public entity they would fall under the same laws
> as the movie stars and other public figures and would basically have to suck
> it up in the end.
>  - Jeremy

Apparently you fail to recall the "" case.

Twitter can most definitely enforce their trademark here.

∞ Andy Badera
∞ This email is: [ ] bloggable [x] ask first [ ] private
∞ Google me: 


Reply via email to