Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Facebook Says It Owns 'Book'

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the first-book dept.

The Courts 483

An anonymous reader writes "The Chicago Tribune is reporting that Facebook has sued a tiny start-up called Teachbook.com over the use of 'book' in its name. The start-up, which has two employees, aims to provide tools for teachers to manage their classrooms and share lesson plans and other resources. 'Effectively they're bombing a mosquito here, and we're not sure why they want to do that,' Teachbook.com co-director Greg Shrader told the Tribune. Facebook said its use of 'book' in its name is 'highly distinctive in the context of online communities and networking websites.' Facebook apparently is alleging that no other online 'network of people' can use the word 'book' in its name without violating its trademark."

cancel ×

483 comments

Cookbook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33378738)

So if me and some fellow chefs where to start a community called cookbook we are stepping on some sizzy tones?

Re:Cookbook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33378846)

Create the following sites:

facebook.co.??
fasebook.???
fazebook.???
phacebook.???
phazebook.???
vacebook.???

and so forth ...

Most of these stupidities regarding patents apply to the USA only.

Re:Cookbook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33378982)

Most of these stupidities regarding patents apply to the USA only.

This is not about patents, it's about trade marks - which exist in some form everywhere on this planet.

Re:Cookbook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33378988)

addresbook.com

Slashdot? (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#33379060)

So if me and some fellow chefs where to start a community called cookbook we are stepping on some sizzy tones?

Considering that the url would be http://cookbook./ [cookbook.] you are in serious trouble.

If part of a site's name may not be used if that part has been used elsewhere, then no url can contain a slash or a dot without violating Slashdot's trademark.

Re:Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33379122)

The BBC have a character called Dot Cotton in some monumental piece of crap that they broadcast that predates /.. Obviously that character would have dot in their address. BBC sue the ass off these nerds!

Woot! (0, Redundant)

DFurno2003 (739807) | more than 3 years ago | (#33378740)

First Post?

Re:Woot! (0, Offtopic)

valeo.de (1853046) | more than 3 years ago | (#33378816)

Very informative post. Better luck next time, eh.

Re:Woot! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33378992)

Very informative post. Better luck next time, eh.

Give Me A Break! (3, Insightful)

divide overflow (599608) | more than 3 years ago | (#33378754)

Perhaps next they'll go after everyone who uses the words cookbook, handbook, and textbook.

Re:Give Me A Break! (1)

LucidBeast (601749) | more than 3 years ago | (#33378886)

... or buttbook, which is perhaps where this lawsuite should be booked under.

Re:Give Me A Break! (5, Insightful)

Asic Eng (193332) | more than 3 years ago | (#33378930)

Not according to what they said: It's not that they are using 'book' -- we have no complaint against Kelly Blue Book or others [...] However they feel that: Teachbook was unfairly riding on its coattails by using the suffix "book" to reference the larger site's established reputation.

Given that teachbook is a social networking site but for a specialized niche, I think it's fair to say that they are doing that. In my opinion they should have that right, though. Trademark law makes sense - other companies shouldn't be able to impersonate yours, but that should be limited to there being an actual chance of confusion. Doing something similar as someone else, and profiting from an established market - well that's just capitalism. Facebook can always compete by having a better product.

Facebook argues: If others could freely use 'generic plus BOOK' [...] the suffix BOOK could become a generic term for [...] 'social networking services'

Again, I think that's probably true but that is how language works, and they should have to live with that.

Re:Give Me A Break! (4, Insightful)

dynamo (6127) | more than 3 years ago | (#33379024)

Not only must they live with that (..BOOK being a generic term for social networking services), but if there's such an obvious association, they should be thankful that they will be getting free advertising indefinitely, the way the big G does every time someone tells you to go google something.

Re:Give Me A Break! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33379100)

book is only a generic term for social networks... BECAUSE of facebook lol. It wasnt before facebook made it so.

Re:Give Me A Break! (1)

Fumus (1258966) | more than 3 years ago | (#33379042)

Should Apple sue Intel over their i7 Core stuff? And every other iStuff product?
Come to think of it, yes. I'd like that. Maybe then all the retarded iNames would be gone.

Re:Give Me A Break! (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#33379076)

You mean to tell me that Facebook and Teachbook aren't the same thing!? Amazing! I had no idea.

Facebook should just have to deal with it. They aren't using the name "Facebook," so it's fine. If not, it should be.

Re:Give Me A Break! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33379068)

Or Macbook.

Time to get some books... (2, Insightful)

JoosepN (1847126) | more than 3 years ago | (#33378756)

...and go throw them at Facebook.

Prior Art (0, Troll)

ImNotAtWork (1375933) | more than 3 years ago | (#33378760)

Year book

Re:Prior Art (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#33378834)

Year book

Not a patent, but a trademark case/suit. Different fish, same stink when rotten.

Re:Prior Art (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33378948)

According to Facebook:

"If others could freely use 'generic plus BOOK' marks for online networking services targeted to that particular generic category of individuals, the suffix BOOK could become a generic term for 'online community/networking services' or 'social networking services,'" Facebook argued in the lawsuit. "That would dilute the distinctiveness of the Facebook Marks."

Of course, the generic suffix "book" that they speak of has long been in the "public domain"; i.e. "Year book" (from which Facebook stole the idea. In fact Facebook used to only be available to people with school-based email addresses). Then there are the other historic generics like textbook, flip book, scrap book, etc and so on.

Too bad that in these cases the courts tend to rule in favour of the rich and famous instead of the fair. People with "Mc" in their names are screwed if they want to start ANY type of business (restaurant or not) because McDonald's has always been an asshole about the issue, and the courts have favoured the asshole. With Nissan [nissan.com] things are better, but the legal costs and time (in years, going through the court system) have been horrendous.

In summary: if you're poor your screwed. If you can afford millions of dollars for lawyers then you may be able to get your way.

ApostropheDot.com anyone? (2, Funny)

Dark Stranger (547626) | more than 3 years ago | (#33378762)

No one has registered apostropheDot.com yet!

Finally (1)

6031769 (829845) | more than 3 years ago | (#33378764)

At last we are shown the Facebook business model. Who knew there were so many people to sue?

uh what about this? (4, Insightful)

bronney (638318) | more than 3 years ago | (#33378766)

http://www.fuckbook.com/ [fuckbook.com]

Re:uh what about this? (4, Insightful)

rednip (186217) | more than 3 years ago | (#33378940)

Who said that they hadn't sent a C&D letter to them? Chances are that TheFacebook had sent to many others, but the teachers figured that publicity would help their cause, and 'the media' picked up on it. I'd say that they were right to do so, as publicity doesn't get any cheaper. Of course the longer they hold out on the name, the more expensive it could get (lawyers, judgement, etc).

Personally, I don't think that TheFaceBook has much of a case, particularly as 'Phone Book' would seem to be their 'root' concept.

Re:uh what about this? (5, Interesting)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#33379000)

Personally, I don't think that TheFaceBook has much of a case, particularly as 'Phone Book' would seem to be their 'root' concept.

From Wikipedia:

The original concept for Facebook was borrowed from a product produced by Zuckerberg's prep school Phillips Exeter Academy, which for decades published and distributed a printed manual of all students and faculty, unofficially called the "face book".

Bloody hypocrites..

Re:uh what about this? (2, Insightful)

Jedi Alec (258881) | more than 3 years ago | (#33379130)

Ah, to be fuckbook.com's lawyer in drafting a reply...so many options.

10 bucks says they're based/hosted out of a country that doesn't give a hoot about US trademarks.

They go after these guys (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33378778)

And yet they don't go after the skeevy sites that advertise themselves as "The Facebook of Sex?"

reading it wrong. (2, Funny)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 3 years ago | (#33378780)

Effectively they're bombing a mosquito here, and we're not sure why they want to do that.

Anyone else read this wrong as "bombing a mosque"?

No, I did not read it wrong (1)

captainpanic (1173915) | more than 3 years ago | (#33378800)

Effectively they're bombing a mosquito here, and we're not sure why they want to do that.

Anyone else read this wrong as "bombing a mosque"?

No, I did not read it wrong...
But I guess Facebook doesn't realize yet that Muslims have a Holy Book. The religions of the world will be sued next week.

Re:No, I did not read it wrong (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#33378868)

But I guess Facebook doesn't realize yet that Muslims have a Holy Book. The religions of the world will be sued next week.

What's the betting that facebook won't be going after http://www.theholybook.org/ [theholybook.org]

Re:No, I did not read it wrong (1)

Zumbs (1241138) | more than 3 years ago | (#33378932)

That is because it is a .org address. Facebook only targets "*book.com" addresses.

Re:No, I did not read it wrong (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#33379126)

That is because it is a .org address. Facebook only targets "*book.com" addresses.

If that were true there would be an easy solution:
teachbook.com => teachbook.org

Re:No, I did not read it wrong (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#33378880)

Is any of the Holy Books a social networking site?

However, on this line, I do feel a sense of danger for the people of the book if they would start a social networking site.

Re:reading it wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33378818)

The only reason they are building a mosque at the world trade centre site, is to soon after, bomb it for the lulz.

Re:reading it wrong. (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 3 years ago | (#33378914)

No that's just to protect the new WTC. Those muslim terrorists wouldn't risk hitting one of their own would they?

Re:reading it wrong. (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#33379014)

I thought you guys were joking, but a Google turns it up as real. The first place I heard this idea was on a comedy routine a few years ago. Personally I think it's in pretty poor taste. I know that these fundamentalist terrorists are qualitatively different from your "average" Muslim, but still.

Re:reading it wrong. (1)

Robert Zenz (1680268) | more than 3 years ago | (#33379018)

You haven't followed the news about the Iraq and Afghanistan, have you?

Re:reading it wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33379146)

No that's just to protect the new WTC. Those muslim terrorists wouldn't risk hitting one of their own would they?

Well yeah, they did. More than one.

Re:reading it wrong. (1)

n1hilist (997601) | more than 3 years ago | (#33378838)

I read it as boning a mosquito :(

Re:reading it wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33379032)

izzt it in yet?

All your books are belong to us! (1)

captainpanic (1173915) | more than 3 years ago | (#33378782)

Resistance is futile.

Bad! BAD FACEBOOK! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33378792)

No... No.... NO FACEBOOK. Stop that. Bad dog.

Someone get the hose...

oh ffs (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33378808)

Oh man, fuck off, Facebook, you giant corporate retard.

This trademark and patent stuff is getting beyond a joke. No-one will be able to do anything soon for fear of infringing on somethingorother from them or Amazon or Apple or MS or MPEG LA or blah blah because they claim they got to buttons or text or selling some bullshit first or some crap. No wonder innovation is drying up, piracy and sticking it to the man is rampant and no-one gives a toss about anything - everyone's too busy covering their own ass and hoping it will all magically go away.

There's protecting your innovation, trademarks, rights, etc. and then there's being a giant muppet. Facebook is a giant muppet.

Re:oh ffs (2, Insightful)

chomsky68 (1719996) | more than 3 years ago | (#33378862)

No-one will be able to do anything soon for fear of infringing on somethingorother from them or Amazon or Apple or MS or MPEG LA or blah blah because they claim they got to buttons or text or selling some bullshit first or some crap

But isn't that what they want? The point when noone dares to do anything is reached, they are going to laugh coz they achieved their aim, namely you're not going to be able to use anything but their products...

Re:oh ffs (1)

kaptink (699820) | more than 3 years ago | (#33378960)

here here.. You should run for president. Given that this site really doesnt have anything to do with what facebook does apart from teachers talking with other teachers, it makes me wonder why. Perhaps the legal department needs something to do? Which is surprising given the number of dickheads spreading hate on fb. I think the question I am most interested in is how on earth can someone claim to own the rights to a word like 'book' .. Perhaps it is just a scaresuit. Anyway, lawyers are douchebags and trademarks are fail. Facebook has become a giant twat.

Re:oh ffs (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33379152)

I represent the estate of Jim Henson; we are hereby issuing a Cease & Desist request regarding the above post due to your use of our trademark "Muppet".

wtf (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33378814)

Here's a little known fact. I own the word and concept of being 'Human'. Want to keep using it as well as existing as one? You may make payments, by the minute, of an amount to be determined by value per incident(it will be fair, don't worry).....or else your status shall be revoked forthwith.

Contact the EFF (1)

zoomshorts (137587) | more than 3 years ago | (#33378822)

Someone needs to bitch slap Face**** hard and get an injunction against them for ever doing this
stupid shit again, anywhen and anywhere.

Re:Contact the EFF (3, Insightful)

Khyber (864651) | more than 3 years ago | (#33379054)

This would be called having them marked as a vexatious litigant.

Time to bring out the... (0)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 3 years ago | (#33378828)

... thesaurus.

www.teachalbum.com
www.teachalmanac.com
www.teachanthology.com
www.teachbulletin.com
www.teachcyclopaedia.com
www.teachcyclopedia.com
www.teachdictionary.com
www.teachdiurnal.com
www.teachencyclopedia.com
www.teachmonograph.com
www.teachgazette.com
www.teachhardback.com
www.teachhardcover.com
www.teachhow-to.com
www.teachmag.com
www.teachmagazine.com
www.teachmanual.com
www.teachcatalog.com
www.teachcatalogue.com
www.teachnewspaper.com
www.teachnovel.com
www.teachnovelette.com
www.teachomnibus.com
www.teachorgan.com
www.teachpaper.com
www.teachpaper.com
www.teachpaperback.com
www.teachpaperbound.com
www.teachperiodical.com
www.teachpocketedition.com
www.teachprimer.com
www.teachpulp.com
www.teachquarto.com
www.teachrag.com
www.teachreview.com
www.teachserial.com
www.teachsoftback.com
www.teachsoftcover.com
www.teachtext.com
www.teachtome.com
www.teachtract.com
www.teachtradeedition.com
www.teachfolio.com
www.teachtreatise.com
www.teachvolume.com
www.teachzine.com

fail (2, Insightful)

bakamorgan (1854434) | more than 3 years ago | (#33378844)

I hope facebook looses a shit ton of money over this.

Re:fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33378996)

No way they'll lose this. The legal system is designed to annihilate those with less money. Facebook cannot lose against such a small company. They could invent the most ridiculous charges and still win with all their money and lawyers.

You Fail (0, Troll)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#33379016)

I hope facebook looses a shit ton of money over this.

Why? Facebook has a legitimate trademark issue. "TeachBook.com" is in fact a social networking website as is FaceBook.com. If you can't see the possible confusion / trademark issue, maybe it's because you are being intentionally ignorant. Look, I get it, you hate big mega corporations and think they should be stripped of all rights, even it they are rigghts that you yourself would insist on if you had the brains to be able to produce a popular product...

Re:You Fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33379120)

Teach != Face

Where is the confusion?

Re:You Fail (5, Funny)

pinkushun (1467193) | more than 3 years ago | (#33379136)

Zuckerberg, is that you?

____book.com sites that predate facebook... (5, Informative)

mrstu (1253256) | more than 3 years ago | (#33378858)

Did some peeking on the wayback machine... domain names that were registered before facebook launched: flybook.com sportsbook.com buybook.com computerbook.com skybook.com Perhaps the most damning, though.... Buddybook.com.. this is from way back in 1999: "Welcome to Buddy Book.com, an innovative internet address book which helps keep track of all your online experiences." http://web.archive.org/web/19991128035308/http://buddybook.com/ [archive.org] It's not that similar to facebook, true... but it's a 'social' thing, which by their own logic, seems to be close enough... whoever owns that site ought to sue them!

Re:____book.com sites that predate facebook... (1)

weicco (645927) | more than 3 years ago | (#33378928)

I guess that FB, or its owners, is planning something which is called Teachbook behind the scenes? (rhetoric question)

Re:____book.com sites that predate facebook... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33378972)

Where's the "like" button for post comments?

Re:____book.com sites that predate facebook... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33379010)

Mr Stu, you be awesome.

Re:____book.com sites that predate facebook... (1)

Issarlk (1429361) | more than 3 years ago | (#33379028)

Buddybook 's owner is in big trouble then. I figure the next step in courtroom crazyness will be to retro-sue. That wouldn't be much more crazy than what we see now.

Re:____book.com sites that predate facebook... (1)

mrstu (1253256) | more than 3 years ago | (#33379044)

Quantum law: Time is an illusion, so they didn't come first after all!

F a bunch of facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33378864)

FU facebook, and FU those that even use facebook

rm -Rf / facebook... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33378870)

What about eBook?

If they really want to get vapourized (2, Funny)

hippo (107522) | more than 3 years ago | (#33378872)

they should call themselves EasyBook.

Re:If they really want to get vapourized (4, Funny)

hippo (107522) | more than 3 years ago | (#33378882)

on second thoughts: FaceJet which will bring on Facebook, Easyjet and the porn industry.

Nothing compared to what they did before... (4, Informative)

Ecuador (740021) | more than 3 years ago | (#33378878)

Teachbook appears to be a social/community website, close to the area of what Facebook does. I would think that the "teachbook" name was chosen on purpose to be "facebook for teachers/teaching". Well, you can't do that without facebook going after you. IANAL so I don't know if facebook can or should prevail, but it seems to me that they sort of have a point.
Now, contrast this to a previous action of facebook: http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/10/facebook-placebook/ [techcrunch.com]
They went after a startup travel website, i.e. a site for you to book vacations in the places you visit called... well... placebook! I mean who better for the name placebook than a site where you book... places... The site in question had, in the end, to back down and change their name to triptrace: http://blog.triptrace.com/2010/08/19/we-tell-the-world-placebook-is-now-triptrace/ [triptrace.com] . Now THAT was ridiculous.

Re:Nothing compared to what they did before... (1)

wjh31 (1372867) | more than 3 years ago | (#33378892)

on the other hand, getting sued by one of the worlds largest web based companies into having to change your name sounds like hella cheap publicity if you dont put up much of a fight

Re:Nothing compared to what they did before... (1)

tentux (1855140) | more than 3 years ago | (#33378942)

:)) True. They could place a decorated decagram shaped icon on their webpage with "Sued by Facebook" to gain notoriety...

Re:Nothing compared to what they did before... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33379142)

you do know that IANAL was made up by some guys who saw INAL (I'm not a lawyer) and thought it would be more funny to put I ANAL and it caught on....

Book burning (4, Funny)

Somewhat Delirious (938752) | more than 3 years ago | (#33378894)

Normally I would be strongly opposed to that kind of thing but since Facebook appears to have completely lost the plot it seems we are facing the rare situation where a book burning is warranted.

Re:Book burning (1)

kanto (1851816) | more than 3 years ago | (#33379046)

Does the cult of Facebook even allow you to remove your account these days? But I understand your sentiment; I personally removed any and all traces of Red Hot Chili Peppers in my music collection after hearing they sued Showtime's Californication for the rights to the name, stating that all the ill-gotten gains from use of the name should be given to them.

Re:Book burning (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#33379154)

Does the cult of Facebook even allow you to remove your account these days?

Well, just start flooding your Facebook account with anti-Facebook stuff. I guess you'll get your account cancelled really quick.

Case Law (1)

Garth Smith (1720052) | more than 3 years ago | (#33378898)

'Effectively they're bombing a mosquito here, and we're not sure why they want to do that,'

The cynic in my thinks that the legal team wants a couple of easy wins under their belt and set a precedent for future disputes. Two educators working on a web site won't be able to stand up to Facebook's lawyers.

What about 'face'? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33378902)

When is Templeton Peck going to sue Facebook?

pick a different name... really (1)

somewhere in AU (628338) | more than 3 years ago | (#33378910)

Well yes it appears to be just a "teachers" version of facebook really.. way too close for facebook itself to ignore..

They're just (unnecessarily) buying themselves a whole bunch of aggravation by trading off the similarity in name recognition by hovering in the same domain.

Others with WAY different applications such as www.redbook.com and www.bluebook.com would be well out of facebook's aim however.

Teachbook shouldn't complain too hard. (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 3 years ago | (#33378912)

They shouldn't complain too hard. Before Facebook sued them I had never heard of the web site. Now I know about them. Free publicity!

The trouble is of course if Facebook really wants to bring it to court they may have a problem fighting it even though it sounds to me like a nonsense suit from Facebook's side.

A few more they could go after (2, Informative)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#33378916)

http://www.theholybook.org/ [theholybook.org] (I would be very surprised if they did, as it would give the "religion of peace" an opportunity to show their own method of objection again)
http://flushaholybook.com/ [flushaholybook.com]
http://www.domesdaybook.co.uk/ [domesdaybook.co.uk]
http://www.chooseandbook.nhs.uk/ [chooseandbook.nhs.uk]
http://www.hotelbook.com/ [hotelbook.com]
http://www.thegoodbook.co.uk/ [thegoodbook.co.uk]
http://adoptabook.bl.uk/ [adoptabook.bl.uk]
http://www.easytobook.com/ [easytobook.com]
http://www.bid4abook.co.uk/ [bid4abook.co.uk]
http://www.nielsenbook.co.uk/ [nielsenbook.co.uk]

That's just a few of them.

Re:A few more they could go after (0, Redundant)

tdobson (1391501) | more than 3 years ago | (#33378956)

don't forget the 'fantastic':
http://www.pokebook.co.uk/ [pokebook.co.uk]

surely, surely that's liable?

Phonebook ? (5, Funny)

abies (607076) | more than 3 years ago | (#33378920)

I wonder if they will go after the telecoms - after all, phonebook is a kind of huge listing of phone-using community...

Corporate Abuse (1, Insightful)

sonicmerlin (1505111) | more than 3 years ago | (#33378926)

And how is this tiny, 2 employee company supposed to defend itself? No matter how right it is, 2 people will be bankrupted in no time. This is the nature of our corporate-owned country, inhabited by masochistic neo conservatives who want giant, faceless institutions with no obligation to anyone to step all over them like cockroaches. With the power of our vote we could use the government as a tool to protect the little guy from those with the resources to do almost anything they want. Instead we have Obama, the most conservative "Democrat" in the history of our country, to lead us to... what exactly?

Well, stop doing it! (2, Insightful)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 3 years ago | (#33378938)

Crap like this is the result of the US judicial system and your "elected" government. Your government enables this kind of rubbish. In the sentence before my last I surrounded elected with inverted commas. I did this because it seems to me as an outsider that the voice of the US people is incredibly diluted in US elections and things in general. Big business seems to have more of a say than individuals. There will be heaps of comments in this story saying how stupid it is, but your "elected" government doesn't care what you think -- it appears to care more about big business. What a load of shit. US, the land of opportunity? If you say so, but I am glad I don't live there. I'd rather pursue opportunity elsewhere in countries where opportunity really exists and is not an illusion created by a government. It's not facebook's fault that stuff like this can happen -- it's the US population's fault for _allowing_ it to happen.

Re:Well, stop doing it! (1)

Aeternitas827 (1256210) | more than 3 years ago | (#33379048)

I hate to say it, but you're more or less on the nose here. The populace is less inclined to vote because a vote means little, and the votes that do come in are financed by big business and their ability to push advertisement.

Democracy, in concept, is a fabulous idea; but when it gets diluted not to the number of votes but to the number of precincts/states/electoral votes won, well, it's no surprise that we are where we are in the US. A vote should be a vote, not a vote to try and determine how someone else should vote (as is the case in electoral balloting), or how your particular group of votes ends up summed; the less targeted a financier is able to be without being able to be accused of buying votes, the better--and if each vote were counted truly for what it is, a decision of a person, not some group hierarchically above them, purchase of desired candidates would be harder, and (over time, at this point) the will of the people would be heard; the DMCA, for example, would be abolished, the recording/movie industries would be left clutching their testicles, yet artistic progress would still ensue; this is but one example. In all, the effects of pissing off 10% of the populace would be felt by the incumbent, and this would be known, and thinking would (hopefully) change. The power of the lobbies would be diminished (they could never really be abolsihed, but they will still try), and a closer modicum of democracy would prevail, and possibly an infusion of common sense.

and face? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33378952)

Can someone try to register a domain with the word "face" in it?

Interpretations of Law... (1)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 3 years ago | (#33378962)

OK, every now and then I've heard of the "letter of the law" vs. the "spirit of the law" with regards to arguments like this, but rarely does it stoop to the "uber-rich-greedy-asshole-who-wants-even-more" level of interpretation...

Companies like Facebook should really take a moment to realize that 15 minutes of fame doesn't apply to just Hollywood anymore. Keep tempting fate with douchebag moves like this, and they'll soon find out.

Re:Interpretations of Law... (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 3 years ago | (#33378974)

I don't think it'll even fly on the "letter of the law". It's clearly bullshit, inasmuch as claiming infringement on a substring of a trademark is an uphill battle, especially for common words. They're hoping to scare this site into a juicy settlement which will give them ammo for scaring further sites.

Ok, another one today. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#33378976)

one was yesterday, riaa crap was the day before. i was telling that its not that these copyright, patent, tm systems are 'exploited', its that they ARE exploitative and unworkable. and some people were saying that i was trolling.

every day another bullshit comes up because of these. what point does things have to come to, for some of you people to understand a SYSTEM is wrong, or unworkable ?

Where is diaspora already?! (2, Interesting)

Methuselus (1011511) | more than 3 years ago | (#33378978)

Come on Diaspora, give these bullies a run for their money so they know that they're not the only kids in the sandpit.

Boycott (5, Funny)

Pesticidal (1148911) | more than 3 years ago | (#33378980)

Someone needs to start a facebook group about boycotting facebook!

Re:Boycott (5, Funny)

muckracer (1204794) | more than 3 years ago | (#33379132)

Likes this!

The domain is only up since 2007 (2, Informative)

Yamagami (778559) | more than 3 years ago | (#33379002)

From the whois record of techbook.com, seems like the record is from 29-jan-2007. I believe facebook has been around since that time no?

Domain Name: TEACHBOOK.COM
Registrar: ENOM, INC.
Whois Server: whois.enom.com
Referral URL: http://www.enom.com/ [enom.com]
Name Server: NS1.M446.SGDED.COM
Name Server: NS2.M446.SGDED.COM
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Updated Date: 12-mar-2010
Creation Date: 29-jan-2007
Expiration Date: 29-jan-2011

Scandalous! (3, Funny)

srussia (884021) | more than 3 years ago | (#33379020)

They should call this whole affair "Facebookgate".

First book, next... bitch (1)

phonewebcam (446772) | more than 3 years ago | (#33379058)

And so it begins. Bitchbook [bitchbook.com] better stay parked, it has no chance.

Firefly fans will be disappointed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33379072)

...Shepherd seemed so free, after all.

Why don't they sue fuckbook.com? (1)

wzzzzrd (886091) | more than 3 years ago | (#33379084)

Or, more interesting, sites that use facebook's name to generate traffic?

I work for a company that produces "AirBook", (1)

Michael_gr (1066324) | more than 3 years ago | (#33379092)

A training platform with e-learning, collaboration, student management and virtual community tools. Its first version came out in 1998. Wonder if they'll go back in time and sue us.

Time for... (1)

muckracer (1204794) | more than 3 years ago | (#33379110)

thisreallyisnotfacebook.com

i prefix? (1)

Tomulus (1838850) | more than 3 years ago | (#33379112)

Hmmm, does anyone remember if Apple sued Google over iGoogle?

Trademark infringing reaction... (1)

deoxyribonucleose (993319) | more than 3 years ago | (#33379144)

...facepalm [lolblog.co.uk] !
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...