Yeah, I think it's a pretty easy going C&D, but I don't really want to keep making tiny changes and have a lawyer hhmm and ahh to decide if it's not "potentially confusing".
If Twitter came out and said they were going to have to ask everyone to stop using twit in application names and move to tweet then at least we'd know where we stand. It's the ambiguity over it all, not to mention the dozens of websites in a similar position to mine that have a look and feel way closer to Twitter (past or present). www.twitterholic.com is my favourite: "Styles ripped directly, and we mean directly, from Twitter.com." At this rate, the only app not needing to change it's name will be Seesmic :) On Aug 14, 1:14 am, Neil Ellis <neilellis1...@googlemail.com> wrote: > 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:http://iconfactory.com/software/twitterrific > > 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 <dpr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Aug 13, 8:44 pm, Goblin <stu...@abovetheinternet.org> 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 > >>> out. > > >> Doesn't this blog post [1] from the "big horse's mouth" already > >> settle > >> that question? > > >> [1]http://blog.twitter.com/2009/07/may-tweets-be-with-you.html > > >> 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. > > >> [2]http://blog.twitter.com/2008/07/follower-stats-by-twittercounter.html > >> [3]http://blog.twitter.com/2008/06/congratulations-twitterrific.html > > >> Dewald
