Threads Software Limited says its lawyers have informed Meta that it will seek an injunction from the courts if the Facebook parent keeps using the name Threads...
      • thepaperpilot@beehaw.org
        18·
        1 year ago

        The bit about “no” not meaning “no” means they’re specifically implying meta employees can be sexually assaulted even if they say no. I’m sure it’s said in jest, but it’s still a fairly offensive comment.

        • Leafeytea@beehaw.orgEnglish
          1·
          1 year ago

          That is NOT what I said and NOT what I meant. The Mod removed this comment due to everyone saying I was somehow threatening everyone. They did not publish my response to the message they sent me, so this needs to be cleared up.

          What I am saying is that clearly these people do not take NO for an answer, even when it’s clear NO means NO. They ignored it and did what they wanted anyway. I said I would keep this behaviour in mind whenever I am downtown because I live in SF and go by their headquarters literally every day and have already see a lot of their people, and in fact some awful behaviour from some that work there. Interacting with them is something a **WANT TO AVOID. ** I was not implying in ANY WAY that I intended to harm or threaten them.

      • M. Orange@beehaw.org
        4·
        1 year ago

        It reads to me like they’re saying that they feel like they might be attacked by Meta employees.

        That said, it’s uh… quite a choice to have made to say that.

        • nromdotcom@beehaw.org
          2·
          1 year ago

          Oh, interesting. I also initially read it as a thinly-veiled threat but I think you’re right it was more of a “will i be assaulted”. Still a weird thing to say.

    • TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.orgM
      2·
      1 year ago

      Hi @Leafeytea - I’ve removed this comment because a lot of folks are reading it as threatening toward Meta employees. I don’t want to assume that’s your intention, though. If you’d like, shoot me a DM or reply here and I will restore the comment if you would like to edit it to clarify what you meant.

      • Leafeytea@beehaw.orgEnglish
        2·
        1 year ago

        What?? How are you getting that I am threatening people?? I was clearly saying that META people do not seem to take no for an answer even when NO is meant. I said I would keep this in mind the next time I am downtown and come across anyone from their staff. I live in San Francisco and pass by both Twitter and Google for that matter on a daily basis so I see people that work there all the time, at coffee shops in the morning, at lunch etc. As in TO AVOID THEM. Good grief.

  • theinspectorst@kbin.social
    30·
    1 year ago

    I mean, they’re obviously not going to, so I guess Zuckerberg better go dust off what I can only assume is his comically large chequebook…

    • Lvxferre@lemmy.ml
      34·
      1 year ago

      I think that’s neither. The whole thing boils down for me to an adult trying to strike a deal with a kid so the kid gives up their ice cream, the kid saying “no!”, and then the adult still grabbing the ice cream by force.

      In other words I think that Meta run some risk assessment on the move, and decided that it was still profitable.

    • Overzeetop@beehaw.org
      8·
      1 year ago

      Considering that Threads was not trademarked by Meta before their launch (or, at least, isn’t listed on their Trademarks page ) it is a massive fail on their legal department.

  • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
    6·
    1 year ago

    As long as the other company was actually USING the trademark, Meta will probably have to pay up. If the company was doing “Trademark-squatting”, with no real market use, Meta will probably get control of it. That’s all assuming they don’t settle for a few hundred thousand.