Just read the linked article. Yes it might be number 1. But having looked at tweetknots, I'm surprised that twitter haven't thrown the book at them considering that their site is pretty much IDENTICAL to twitter. That really is quite shocking. There's using their logo or similar colours (to show that the site is something to do with twitter) and there's stealing the whole layout (which is what tweetknot seems to have done).<p>I think tweetknot got off lightly.
I'm totally confused - the story as written by TechCrunch, from what I recall, was as follows:
"Please stop using "tweet" and other UI elements in your website"<p>Two things came out of this story for me:<p>o Twitter is defending the trademark 'tweet'<p>o Twitter is defending their UI elements.<p>I found both to be interesting. I'm much less interested in some website called "tweetknot", that indeed does look like a total rip off of twitter.<p>I have no issues with TechCrunch protecting their source, and found the story to be interesting.
If I were in Techcrunch's shoes, I wouldn't link to tweetknots because I wouldn't want to give press exposure to a site that brazenly copied its design, css & images from Twitter.<p>I'm a pretty big Techcrunch hater (and the idea of TC refusing to let someone else benefit from drama-mongering is funny), but I think not linking to tweetknots is a defensible decision.
I don't see the part where they "stole" it. They just didn't mention tweetknot by name. I'm not a TC fan at all, but I think you need to back up your accusations a little better.
I just noticed that the title of this thread has now been changed from one that accuses Techcrunch of stealing a story to the one that blame it of misleading. Unfortunately, it's still not the Techcrunch post but the title of this thread that is misleading.<p>As much as I dislike Techcrunch, it didn't mislead anyone in the story. It just didn't disclose the name of a website owner that shamelessly ripped the hell off Twitter and instead chose to refer him as a 'third party developer'.<p>In a way, Techcrunch is doing you a favor by maintaining anonymity.<p>Edit: The title of this thread seems to be a work-in-progress. changing every other while. The original title was: Techcrunch steals story from tweetknot
This is just stupid. I'm usually fine with the TechCrunch criticism — frankly, we deserve it sometimes. But this was about protecting a source.<p>Oftentimes when we receive information like this we won't reveal the source unless we're given explicit permission to do so. This is especially important when an application or service is running on a platform they don't control, like the iPhone or Twitter, because the informant stands the risk of retaliation.<p>I agree that the Tweetknot site design is derivative, but that wasn't the point of the story in the first place. What is important is the fact that Twitter is changing its stance with regard to the use of words like 'Twitter' and 'Tweet'. In fact, Twitter just wrote a blog post about it: <a href="http://blog.twitter.com/2009/07/may-tweets-be-with-you.html" rel="nofollow">http://blog.twitter.com/2009/07/may-tweets-be-with-you.html</a>
Amitu, is it possible that tweetknots is more than just your 'friends'?<p>Not saying that you are, mind you. Simply asking for clarification. Because if you're part of the team that founded the site and you don't disclose it, that would be <i>really</i> unethical.
The way I look at this story is: there are so many websites which have 'tweet' in their domains on the web.<p>Techcrunch may not get the story from tweetknot. But, from somewhere else maybe. So, we should not think that this story is true until someone could actually prove this.
TC is slow-playing the story. By being incomplete, they get one trumped-up story (with inlinks and comment thread) that makes it looks like Twitter is being aggressive.<p>A day or two later, they reveal the startup that got the letter, and get a second storyline about how that startup went over the line in its mimicry of Twitter.<p>Commentary like this in the meantime only heightens the number of contentious angles they can play. Maybe they'll get a third story out of it: "defending our honor!"
<i>If you go see tweetknot.com, it resembles twitter a lot</i><p>So, if you are a short messaging service, you can only use certain colors as your background?