RE: https://mastodon.social/@ngate/116927442772577349
Bluesky Trademarks AT Protocol
Interesting approach to 'participating' in an "open, decentralized" network system...
14
Replies
·
0
Boosts
That's no different Mozilla Firefox.
The trademark only says if you want to use the specific name, you have to get permission. I dont think this specifically a bad thing.
IANAL but the difference is that those examples are products and AT Protocol is a protocol. When you trademark a protocol you are controlling use of the protocol, otherwise why not just put it into the public domain? It's like trademarking TCP/IP.
But there's no issue in saying "ATproto-compatible". Just as you're not claiming to BE ATproto, is sufficient.
You could even make stickers with Mastodon Elephant beating up the butterfly with saying "MASTODON IS BETTER THAN ATPROTO" and that's also permitted.
But trademark is usually the sanest of the 3 types of intellectual property.
Don't know. Seems like there would be a better, more open, way to accomplish their stated purpose, which calls the credibility of that stated purpose into question.
@mastodonmigration and the Venture Capitalist installed CEO is now permanent...
@mastodonmigration if they don't another fucking company will do and troll everyone to make money or squat the name and kill it. Jabber died this way.
Mastodon as a name is trademarked too
@lutindiscret @mastodonmigration Mastodon isn't managed by ex-Twitter crypto bros (far as I know).
And more to the point Mastodon is an application, not a protocol. Bluesky is also a trademark. That seems entirely appropriate. But AT Protocol is a protocol, like ActivityPub or TCP/IP. Trademarking a protocol is an entirely different thing. Look up the disastrous history of Xerox and the Ethernet trademark.
@mastodonmigration, in their defence, the text starts with the following:
Bluesky recently acquired the rights to the trademark for “ATPROTOCOL” and its variants—including “AT Protocol” and “atproto”—from another company that was threatening to take legal action preventing the company and others from using the term.
Assuming "another company" was just an outsider trademark troll, I think this move is reasonable and I'm willing to grant them the benefit of the doubt in this case even if I'd advice staying away from Bluesky for other reasons.
@mastodonmigration Wait, wut? Trademarked (or service marked) a protocol? That doesn’t make sense. I’ll read through this. A mark denotes the origin of a product or service is Bluski the only place you can get the ATProtocol!? 🧐
@mastodonmigration I read their materials. Their claim that their mark is protectable is weak as fuck. AT Protocol is generic or at best descriptive, two categories of marks that are *not* eligible. This is a land grab 👎
💯 When someone shows you over and over again who they are... believe them.
@mastodonmigration Oh yeah. This is ridiculous.
@mastodonmigration f**k them blueskies. I'm only happy when in rains
