Hacker News Reader

Comment by filoleg | Hacker News Reader

How does it change anything? If I understand it correctly, they are a company with no existing product, and yet Facebook somehow stole their name and livelihood?

Stealing name implies that the company previously had some value attached to that name, such as recognition or a product. So far they have neither. I understand that it is unfortunate it happened to them, but given that the company doesn't even have a product launched yet, changing the name to something else shouldn't cause much trouble.

But on the bright side, at least now they have an excuse ready in case their company flops. And a lot of people who could sympathize with them too, because "facebook bad". Media loves this stuff, because it prints clicks and views like hotcakes.

View on HN

All I'm hearing is that Facebook is entitled to a name someone else was already using because they are a wealthy and successful company and I am not convinced.

They were using for what?

For potential free PR for their upcoming product launch (which I am not even sure is real) due to this "controversy".

Using in what way? Having a domain, no trademark and no product doesn't mean you're using it in any real way.

It sounds like they do have a trademark:

> At least two law firms were involved: One in the USA that requested our trademark and domains

But everything else you say I agree with. And the trademark was probably on MetaCompany since that seems to be their brand.

Did they not mention owning the trademark?

No, they mentioned a trademark without saying what it was on exactly which suggest to me it barely overlaps. I didn't find any recent trademarks for 'Meta' in the US that would overlap with Facebook. There's one for selling computer hardware and one for SaaS consulting.

I have a hard time imagining that it's at all relevant whether or not their business genuinely overlapped. If you're big enough, it doesn't matter unless your target has the means to drag you through court as well. I'm reminded of the Backcountry.com case from a few years ago, where they were apparently hunting down every commercial use of the term Backcountry.

https://www.outsidebusinessjournal.com/issues/the-backcountr...

The argument isn't about whether FB is entitled to the name. FB might not be entitled to that name, and I am not saying they are.

All I am saying is that the claim of Meta (non-FB one) about their "name and livelihood being stolen" is ridiculous and difficult to take at face value, given they have no product and no name-recognition.

Do you have any internal knowledge of product this company is working on and hence it is of no real value to “you”? How much time have they been working on this product? What’s the cost involved? How many people? Does it really matter whether they have a live product or if it is successful or not if it doesn’t affect the real topic here, which is of identity?

> Do you have any internal knowledge of product this company is working on and hence it is of no real value to “you”?

Regardless of what they are working on, if it doesn't exist, the value of it is presently zero.

Also, as others have mentioned, FB fully legally bought the trademark on Meta back in 2017 (through Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative). The company in the OP has no claims towards the name. Well, it appears they have a trademark on Metacompany (no space or dots), while FB (or rather, Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative) had the trademark for Meta since 2017. If anything, the company in the article is infringing on a trademark that FB has been the owner of for nearly 4 years.

> If anything, the company in the article is infringing on a trademark that FB has been the owner of for nearly 4 years.

I don't disagree with you here.

> if it doesn't exist,

But you don't know that, do you? And that was the intent of my original comment. We can speculate basis the available data all we want, but we don't "know know" that their product doesn't exist. And no, launch of a product is not the only benchmark here.

>> if it doesn't exist

> But you don't know that, do you?

I think there was a misunderstanding here, so let me clarify.

When I said that the product doesn't exist, I wasn't saying that it was all fake and they made up a non-existent product just to cash in on this controversy.

By saying that it doesn't exist, I meant that there is no released product that anyone can use. Sure, they might have it somewhere on some engineer's machine or desk or whatever internally, no way for us to know. But for all practical intents and purposes, the product isn't released and there is no way for anyone to use it. Hell, there is no way for anyone to even know what the actual product is, and googling didn't help much. And if no one has access to the product and no one knows what it is, then it doesn't exist as a product on the market.

> Regardless of what they are working on, if it doesn't exist, the value of it is presently zero.

That’s not true. Do you know how many multi-million-dollar companies have nothing more than an idea on a paper napkin that they managed to sell to investors? You didn’t even bring up the matter of whether they have investors who have placed a valuation on their business. Or even if they have paid into their own business’ equity, which is then of monetary value.

In fact a business’ monetary valuation has nothing to do with whether it has a product. Some high-value businesses have zero products. If we’re speaking valuation, what matters is the value of the assets they have listed under the business, their liabilities, their owner’s equity, etc.

From the USPTO docs and screenshot included within them, they seemed to describe themselves as a provider of services. Their LLC's address is a residential home, which is fine, but a little shady for a company that vaguely states the services it provides, while also having a supposed "product launch" delayed, despite no evidence whatsoever of anyone associated with the company, no SEC filings or white papers, or really anything to prove any of what theyre saying. It's kinda weird.

The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (part-owned by Mark) bought a company called Meta along with its trademark in 2017.

You can’t “steal” a name. The English language is not up for ownership. Trademarks serve a specific purpose of indicating trade source and are there for public policy reasons. You have to use the trademark in trade for it to be protected.

Furthermore if you use your mark for running a noodle store and me for a shoe store there is no conflict.

If Facebook is within the law (the other guy is not even using it) there is no morality involved. (I am a lawyer)

That is an good point. If the SME is not in the same industry, it would actually work in their favor. They could use some decent SEO and clever but legal word choices for certain lines and logo choices, they could have a ton of internet traffic directed to thier site just by people typing the web address incorrectly.

I did find this: "Meta Company develops augmented reality solutions. It offers Meta 1 and Meta 2 Development Kits for developers and creators, makers and artists, which provide the field of view, access to digital information and direct hand interaction with holograms. The Company serves clients in manufacturing, communication and media, medicine, simulation and education, remote assistance and 3D modeling industries."

NFI what that exactly means, but they are in comm's and media and if that is the same company, thats pretty dam close to facebook's whole "thang" isnt it?

They were using it just as much as Facebook though... and actually less than the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative but that's beside the point I'm making.

Let's say that Meta Company had released their product a month ago, would you have sided with Facebook if they had said that the Meta Conpany stole their name? Funnily enough you probably wouldn't because they are a wealthy and successful company.

No one here is saying Facebook is entitled to that name because they are wealthy. We are saying they are entitled by that name because the Meta Company was still not doing business using that name. No one is entitled to any name, it has nothing to do with wealth. Do the Meta Company had registered a trademark on it already? Well nice, yeah I will side with them and hope that they win the lawsuit (though I wouldn't if they were the equivalent of patents trolls over trademark... which I fear is the case, but I still trust them that they plan to do real business with that name).

>Do the Meta Company had registered a trademark on it already?

From everything I read, it seems like Meta Company has a trademark registered for Metacompany (no space or dots), while Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative has had the trademark for Meta since 2017. Metacompany vs. Meta, and since Zucc is using straight up Meta (without the -company suffix), the outcome seems fairly clear.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com