To be fair Goblin, reading the letter they only ask you to make
clear you're not affiliated. Not change the domain.

However, point taken it's confusing.

Take Twitterific's page:

That bird looks familiar and the blue and there is no disclaimer.

I keep wanting apply everyday logic, but in the legal world it just
seems to go out of the window :-)

Now I really must do some coding :-)

On 14 Aug 2009, at 01:08, Goblin wrote:

I think the blog post actually makes things more confusing:

"Regarding the use of the word Twitter in projects, we are a bit more
wary although there are some exceptions here as well."

So, what are these exceptions? Does it come down to the projects @ev
and @biz particularly like? What if it's twit*** which obviously isn't
using their trademark but uses the same base (heck, by that logic
@leolaporte should be on my case)?

It would seem odd that mine is the only site to have received a
letter. If the primary concern was the twitter bird then why is the
new version an issue? When I was on the phone I think he said he was
waiting to hear back from California, so there is more than a passing
chance that it was personal opinion of a guy in London instead of
Twitter's own people.

As has been said, some proper clarification and a bit more
transparency with the community would go a really long way here
(although are Twitter now at the stage they can't comment on legal
matters until the lawyers check things over?)

On Aug 14, 12:59 am, Dewald Pretorius <> wrote:
On Aug 13, 8:44 pm, Goblin <> wrote:

It would be nice to hear from the horses mouth if all the "twit*/
twitter*" apps were to use "tweet" instead, would that sort the issue

Doesn't this blog post [1] from the "big horse's mouth" already settle
that question?


It is also interesting that Biz wrote favorable blog posts about
TwitterCounter [2] and Twitterific [3]. Wonder how that will impact
anything, if at all.



Reply via email to